Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 President Trump
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 19

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2017 :  07:12:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I am not called to decipher which fetus god wants aborted or which innocent person he wants killed. (I would say none) I have no way of knowing. I am called to love others, teach them what Jesus taught (make disciples) and preach the gospel message. Loving another person cannot mean being ok with an innocent person losing their life through abortion or death penalty.
But the most important Commandment is to love God. If it's God's Plan that this innocent person die or that fetus get aborted, you must be okay with that, yes?

The problem (as I see it) is that God hasn't shared his mission statement with you, but only his job description for humanity. Why does God care whether humans are saved, anyway?

Whether god condones evil in the world I am not convinced but he is ultimately responsible for it since he could stop it.

...

You say condoning and allowing are the same thing I disagree.
"Condone" means to allow an evil thing to occur.

So your definition of life is it looks human? How aren't clumps of cells human?
My foot isn't human. It has no thoughts, feelings or intentions; no consciousness; no humanity. It is a part of a human, but nobody would talk about murder were I to suggest that I might cut my foot off.

Think also cancer: malignant tumors made of human cells. There are no ethical qualms to excising them.

Even so these clumps of cells have at least a 50% chance of becoming a human if not aborted.
More like 35%, but who's counting? But if you're going to get into potentialities here, then every sperm and every ovum is a potential human, just waiting for the right environment to start it trip towards adulthood (just like a fertilized egg). If, right after conception, you want to grant "human" status to a zygote on the basis that it might become an adult someday, then there's no logical reason to not extend such protections to ova and sperm. And so almost every time a woman has a period, she's killed a potential human being.

The entire debate hinges on when a human begins. Both sides are not for killing a baby. So if we don't really know or have arbitrary definitions then conception seems the common sense starting point.
No, we know that without nerves, no clump of cells can think or feel or do anything remotely "human."

So the mother doesn't factor into the equation at all? Why is her life so much less important that that of the child?
I never said that. If an abortion happens we kill a baby...
No. A clump of cells is not a baby.
...the other may not have psychological problems. If we keep the baby, then the baby lives and the mother can get psychological help. Which has the best outcome for both?
Who am I to judge? That's why I'd leave it up to the woman and her supporters. It's no business of mine to declare that her health (mental or otherwise) is overruled by that of her fetus, but you'd declare it to be so by fiat.

I'm not. I don't know how you can tell a woman that she's not allowed to make her own choices.
If she beat her 1 week old baby I bet you would not say that she has the right to decide for herself how best to care for her baby. So if a woman is going to harm a baby then I don't think she should be allowed to make her own choice. This again hinges on where we decide a human life is at stake.
And a fetus isn't a baby.

But when will the government declare that a failure to baptize a child is "harm" and force a parent to do so?

So you're willing to make the choice, but you're not willing to do the work needed to enforce that choice?
Does this the same for all legislation or policy I agree with? How can I possibly care for all the women keeping their babies?
I'm not asking about all the women, I was asking about one particular hypothetical woman who woke from a coma to find herself eight months pregnant.
I am for helping these women and I will/do what I can, but do I need to become a therapist, nurse, doctor, etc. to help?
Somebody has to. Would you ask a doctor to violate her oath if she, in her professional opinion, would otherwise recommend abortion for this woman?

SO Roe v Wade did not increase the abortion rate?
The rate before Roe v. Wade was not zero. Banning abortion doesn't stop all abortions.

Really, the best way to lower the number of abortions is to have the government hand out contraception for free. Anyone who is both anti-abortion and anti-free-contraception is either a hypocrite or has been deluded into thinking that telling people not to have sex actually makes people not have sex.
I am ok with this as long as they are ones that prevent fertilization.
But what's the point of that? God has declared that almost 33% of all fertilized ova should spontaneously abort so early that the woman doesn't even know she was pregnant. If he doesn't give a hoot about fertilization, why should you?

She not for destroying the public education system but she is for giving children better choices. She wants public money through vouchers to go to private schools giving parents more choices and better opportunity for their children to get a good education.
Every student that leaves public school takes a fraction of the public school budget with them, and as soon as there are too few kids taking particular classes, they get cut entirely. DeVos is advocating for the death of public education through attrition. The solution to our education problems is to massively increase public school funding, not to shift it over to private schools. We could have the best public education system in the world, but education is instead one of the first budget items to get axed when things get a little fiscally tough.

Ask the people who think the government shouldn't be giving "hand-outs" to the needy in any way. They're all over the place. Just look at the national Republican Party platform. These are the people who think that because 0.1% of the Food Stamp budget is stolen through fraud, the entire program should be scrapped. These are the people who think that emergency room visits are an acceptable replacement for health insurance for poor people. These are the people who think that providing temporary housing for those in need makes them dependent upon the state.
That is not me.
I didn't say it was you. You asked why we can't have a government program to help mothers who would otherwise choose abortion. The people I listed are the answer to that question.

Also:
The bible says the unborn are people. Psalm 51:5, Lk 1:44, Jer 1:5 uses personal pronouns to refer to the unborn...
Psalm 51:5 is David imagining that he was sinful prior to being born. I can't imagine a more horrible form of self-loathing.

Lk 1:44 does not use personal pronouns to refer to the unborn in any translation I can find.

Jer 1:5 is God telling Jerimiah that God had plans for him before conception. So again: should we criminalize periods and masturbation?

Mt 1:20 describes Jesus as a child at conception.
Again, in which translation? Both NIV and KJV just describe an angel telling Joseph that Mary's embryo isn't Joseph's:
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.


Luke 1:41 calls the unborn a child.
Or a baby. Both are wrong.

Psalm 139:15-16 describe god as knowing the unborn just like a person outside the womb.
Psalm 139:13 describes God as knitting a David together. Should we take David's ignorance of biology as indicative of how God really meant things to work? Note that 139:13 mentions his mother's womb. 139:15 mentions "the secret place" and being "woven together in the depths of the earth." Those obviously aren't metaphors for "womb" (wombs being neither secret nor underground), so it's confusing at best.

Further note Psalm 139:16:
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
So David thinks that God knows, prior to conception I suppose, how long each and every human will live. Seems to me that to think one could shorten or lengthen that time (by outlawing either abortion or the death penalty) would be to think one has more power than God.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9637 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2017 :  11:28:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Jer 1:5 is God telling Jeremiah that God had plans for him before conception. So again: should we criminalize periods and masturbation?

But conception wouldn't have happen unless Jeremiah's parents had the impulse to procreate. What if God decides to have an important mission for my yet to be conceived child?
If God gives me the impulse that this woman is the be the mother of my child, it would be my obligation to make sure (regardless of her kicking, screaming and trying to claw my eyes out) that she conceives. Thank TFSM that I believe that the Bible is full of crap. But I don't see why this interpretation isn't valid, it's a logical extrapolation of the use of this particular Bible verse in the abortion debate.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2017 :  12:23:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

But the most important Commandment is to love God. If it's God's Plan that this innocent person die or that fetus get aborted, you must be okay with that, yes?

I may disagree with god but ultimately it would be up to him. He can do what he wants without me being ok with it.

The problem (as I see it) is that God hasn't shared his mission statement with you, but only his job description for humanity.
His mission statement seems to be in 1 Tim 2:1-4,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (ESV)

See also 2 Pet 3:9

Why does God care whether humans are saved, anyway?
Psalm 8:4 asks this same question. That is a question I cannot answer. The bible says that he does.
My foot isn't human. It has no thoughts, feelings or intentions; no consciousness; no humanity. It is a part of a human, but nobody would talk about murder were I to suggest that I might cut my foot off. Think also cancer: malignant tumors made of human cells. There are no ethical qualms to excising them.
So how would you define something as human?

Even so these clumps of cells have at least a 50% chance of becoming a human if not aborted.
More like 35%, but who's counting?
It depends on what statistics you look at. In the end the point is that a large amount of spontaneous abortion happen and god allows it.

But if you're going to get into potentialities here, then every sperm and every ovum is a potential human, just waiting for the right environment to start it trip towards adulthood (just like a fertilized egg). If, right after conception, you want to grant "human" status to a zygote on the basis that it might become an adult someday, then there's no logical reason to not extend such protections to ova and sperm. And so almost every time a woman has a period, she's killed a potential human being.
I disagree. A sperm or ova will not become a human left on their own. A zygote, if using your number, 35% will.

No, we know that without nerves, no clump of cells can think or feel or do anything remotely "human."
So is feeling or thinking your definition of a human?

Who am I to judge?
Ok, then how can you oppose anything?

That's why I'd leave it up to the woman and her supporters. It's no business of mine to declare that her health (mental or otherwise) is overruled by that of her fetus, but you'd declare it to be so by fiat.
If it is truly a case where the mother could die if the fetus Is not aborted then I agree to leave it up to the mother and her family/supporters. Any other case it seems to me protecting a life should be paramount.

And a fetus isn't a baby. But when will the government declare that a failure to baptize a child is "harm" and force a parent to do so?
What???

The rate before Roe v. Wade was not zero. Banning abortion doesn't stop all abortions.
Agreed, but it will reduce them.

But what's the point of that? God has declared that almost 33% of all fertilized ova should spontaneously abort so early that the woman doesn't even know she was pregnant. If he doesn't give a hoot about fertilization, why should you?
Because god does care. Do you think that god if he really cared he would not allow sickness, sadness, poverty, mosquito bites etc.?

Every student that leaves public school takes a fraction of the public school budget with them, and as soon as there are too few kids taking particular classes, they get cut entirely. DeVos is advocating for the death of public education through attrition. The solution to our education problems is to massively increase public school funding, not to shift it over to private schools. We could have the best public education system in the world, but education is instead one of the first budget items to get axed when things get a little fiscally tough.
What then don’t we have the best education system in the world? I am a public school supporter. My kids go to public school and the district is a quality one. They are fiscally responsible, pay teachers more than surrounding districts, have technology centers etc. It is a district that all districts should be as a minimum. It can be done. However we fund our districts through property taxes, lottery, fees, investment income, and federal programs. Probably other sources as well. The problem is that all districts are not funded the same but have the same requirements. In Texas we have a “robin hood” program. Where districts with high property values share the cost of lower property valued districts. We will see if it improves the quality of education for the poor districts. In 2016 the Texas Supreme court ruled it constitutional. Vouchers are a way for people living in poor districts to get a better education for their children. The problem with federal funding it always comes with strings attached. Do these things you oppose and we will give you the money. Sounds like blackmail to me.

Psalm 51:5 is David imagining that he was sinful prior to being born. I can't imagine a more horrible form of self-loathing.
It is not self-loathing. It is the truth.

Lk 1:44 does not use personal pronouns to refer to the unborn in any translation I can find.
Right, I meant personal attributes. It is describing the baby as having human emotions.

Jer 1:5 is God telling Jeremiah that God had plans for him before conception. So again: should we criminalize periods and masturbation?
No. Where does it say god wants to use each sperm created to make a person?

Mt 1:20 describes Jesus as a child at conception.
Again, in which translation? Both NIV and KJV just describe an angel telling Joseph that Mary's embryo isn't Joseph's:
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ESV

It seems to me that the angel telling Joseph that the child has been conceived is of the holy spirit indicated Jesus was a baby at conception.

Psalm 139:13 describes God as knitting a David together. Should we take David's ignorance of biology as indicative of how God really meant things to work? Note that 139:13 mentions his mother's womb. 139:15 mentions "the secret place" and being "woven together in the depths of the earth." Those obviously aren't metaphors for "womb" (wombs being neither secret nor underground), so it's confusing at best.
Where else are we made other than the womb? Do you think David actually thought that god took two needles and knitted him together in the womb? He wasn’t writing a textbook on how babies are made.

Further note Psalm 139:16:
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
So David thinks that God knows, prior to conception I suppose, how long each and every human will live. Seems to me that to think one could shorten or lengthen that time (by outlawing either abortion or the death penalty) would be to think one has more power than God.
This does not make sense to me. This supposes we are more powerful than god. The bible says we are not. If we kill someone prematurely as in abortion or the death penalty then that is gods will. He is responsible for all the good and bad that happens in the world by the fact that he can stop any bad acts. Heck he can only force goodness if he chose.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2017 :  12:34:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by Dave W.

Jer 1:5 is God telling Jeremiah that God had plans for him before conception. So again: should we criminalize periods and masturbation?

But conception wouldn't have happen unless Jeremiah's parents had the impulse to procreate. What if God decides to have an important mission for my yet to be conceived child?
If God gives me the impulse that this woman is the be the mother of my child, it would be my obligation to make sure (regardless of her kicking, screaming and trying to claw my eyes out) that she conceives. Thank TFSM that I believe that the Bible is full of crap. But I don't see why this interpretation isn't valid, it's a logical extrapolation of the use of this particular Bible verse in the abortion debate.

How would a person know what their special plan is from god? They can't. The only way I or anybody can know anything about god is through the bible. I have never had a revelation from god, he has never spoken to me in any other way other than the bible. I believe most people that think they hear from god are only hearing from their own desires or are just plain lying for their benefit. The only way to know if god has spoken to you is if it lines up with the bible, if that's the case then why does god need to talk to us directly?

I am talking about today. God did for a special few tell them they were given a specific task or plan. God told Jeremiah directly. we have no more prophets today Eph 2:20.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2017 :  19:51:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

His mission statement seems to be in 1 Tim 2:1-4,

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (ESV)

See also 2 Pet 3:9
Neither of those describes God's Divine Plan, but instead just what he wants humans to do. Job descriptions, not a mission statement. The janitors where I work don't need to know our mission statement in order to do their jobs well.

So how would you define something as human?
Now there is a good question. I've got most of an answer, but it leaves out too many corner cases. I'll work on it.

In the end the point is that a large amount of spontaneous abortion happen and god allows it.
God not only allowed it, he designed the system from scratch.

I disagree. A sperm or ova will not become a human left on their own. A zygote, if using your number, 35% will.
I disagree. A zygote left on its own is one that has become separated from its life-support system, the womb of a living human. Such zygotes will die. Zygotes require the proper environment to thrive.

As do ova and sperm. Give them what they need to keep going, and they might become a human adult. Fail to do so and they'll die. Just like a zygote.

So is feeling or thinking your definition of a human?
Definitely part of it. Abstract thought distinguishes us from most of the rest of the living things on this planet.

Who am I to judge?
Ok, then how can you oppose anything?
Easy! Lots of things aren't personal like pregnancy. Hungry people generally need to eat, so I oppose measures to defund meal programs. Simple.

If it is truly a case where the mother could die if the fetus Is not aborted then I agree to leave it up to the mother and her family/supporters. Any other case it seems to me protecting a life should be paramount.
But from a biological perspective, it takes quite a long time before it's more of "a life" than, say, a skin tag.

And a fetus isn't a baby. But when will the government declare that a failure to baptize a child is "harm" and force a parent to do so?
What???
You think the government should step in an protect children from "harm." I was trying to figure out how far that goes for you. Does, for example, depriving a child of the religion you know count as "harm"?

Agreed, but it will reduce them.
And increase the death rate of those who do get abortions.

Because god does care. Do you think that god if he really cared he would not allow sickness, sadness, poverty, mosquito bites etc.?
Sure! An omnipotent being can prevent any sickness, evil or inconvenience he wants to, and so must condone whatever is left. Perhaps he doesn't cackle with glee when I get a headcold, but that's a very small sympathy compared to never getting sick at all.

What then don’t we have the best education system in the world?
Of course not. The U.S.A. doesn't even rank in the top ten. If you can afford it, send your kids to Singapore.

Vouchers are a way for people living in poor districts to get a better education for their children.
How do you prevent the middle-class from using vouchers to send their kids to private schools, thus decimating the public school system?

The problem with federal funding it always comes with strings attached. Do these things you oppose and we will give you the money.
That's why (as I understand it), Nevada gets no Federal highway funds. One of the strings was "no prostitution." Nevada seems to be doing okay without that money.

Sounds like blackmail to me.
Others would call it "negotiation" or "a fair trade." Conservatives wouldn't stand for the Federal government giving out money and getting nothing in return.

Psalm 51:5 is David imagining that he was sinful prior to being born. I can't imagine a more horrible form of self-loathing.
It is not self-loathing. It is the truth.
The point is that it's just David imagining what things were like. Have you ever tried to imagine the world without you in it? Most people fail, and imagine their disembodied selves floating around, instead.

Lk 1:44 does not use personal pronouns to refer to the unborn in any translation I can find.
Right, I meant personal attributes. It is describing the baby as having human emotions.
You seems to be reading more into it than I can. All I read is that a fetus moved at Mary's voice. But even planaria exhibit stimulus/response behaviors.

Mt 1:20 describes Jesus as a child at conception.
Again, in which translation? Both NIV and KJV just describe an angel telling Joseph that Mary's embryo isn't Joseph's:
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ESV

It seems to me that the angel telling Joseph that the child has been conceived is of the holy spirit indicated Jesus was a baby at conception.
No, you're reading "child" and/or "baby" where the verse merely says, "that which is conceived in her."

Now, since the angel probably got this news from God, who had just impregnated Mary with himself through his other self, and God is allegedly omniscient, we can probably safely conclude that if the angel gives "that which is conceived in her" a name to use later, then Mary will carry the pregnancy to term and deliver a live infant. So that is one generous example of parents knowing exactly what's going to happen in the future, and for that specific zygote, calling it a "child" or a "baby" isn't too inaccurate. But to generalize from that singular instance to every conception? That stretches logic past the breaking point.

There's no need or utility in calling it a baby nine months too early. There's a reason why God told Moses not to bother counting anyone less than a month old as a "person."

Psalm 139:13 describes God as knitting a David together. Should we take David's ignorance of biology as indicative of how God really meant things to work? Note that 139:13 mentions his mother's womb. 139:15 mentions "the secret place" and being "woven together in the depths of the earth." Those obviously aren't metaphors for "womb" (wombs being neither secret nor underground), so it's confusing at best.
Where else are we made other than the womb? Do you think David actually thought that god took two needles and knitted him together in the womb? He wasn’t writing a textbook on how babies are made.
Well, if the "knitting together" and "secret place" and "depths of the earth" are all metaphors, they why can't the whole Psalm be a metaphor? I don't have too much of an issue with metaphorically calling a zygote a baby, I have huge problems with factually calling a zygote a baby.

Further note Psalm 139:16:
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
So David thinks that God knows, prior to conception I suppose, how long each and every human will live. Seems to me that to think one could shorten or lengthen that time (by outlawing either abortion or the death penalty) would be to think one has more power than God.
This does not make sense to me. This supposes we are more powerful than god. The bible says we are not.
I agree. I said that to think one can lengthen a person's life is to think that one is more powerful than God.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9637 Posts

Posted - 01/13/2017 :  06:51:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by Dave W.

Jer 1:5 is God telling Jeremiah that God had plans for him before conception. So again: should we criminalize periods and masturbation?

But conception wouldn't have happen unless Jeremiah's parents had the impulse to procreate. What if God decides to have an important mission for my yet to be conceived child?
If God gives me the impulse that this woman is the be the mother of my child, it would be my obligation to make sure (regardless of her kicking, screaming and trying to claw my eyes out) that she conceives. Thank TFSM that I believe that the Bible is full of crap. But I don't see why this interpretation isn't valid, it's a logical extrapolation of the use of this particular Bible verse in the abortion debate.

How would a person know what their special plan is from god? They can't.
That's my point. Since I can't know, how can I take the risk and wasting that holy sperm? I must use every means I have to make sure that I'm not wasting it.
Every little sperm is sacred.
Well, at least one of them is but I can't tell which, so I must treat everyone as such.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1360 Posts

Posted - 01/13/2017 :  11:05:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So how would you define something as human?

A filthy dumb ape that has a big imagination and a greater arrogance to take it as truth regardless of evidence.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2017 :  10:40:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Just so everyone is clear, when asked about possible communications between the Russians and the Trump campaign:
Mr. Wyden: ...has the FBI investigated these reported relationships, and if so, what are the agency's findings?

Director Comey: ...I would never comment on investigations whether we have one or not in an open forum like this, so I really can't answer it one way or another.

Mr. Wyden: Will you provide an unclassified response to the question I've asked... by January 20?...

Director Comey: Sir, I'll answer any question you ask, but the answer will likely be the same as I just gave you. I can't talk about it.
This puts the last nail in the coffin of the idea that Comey was playing politics in favor of Clinton. Which investigation is he being discrete about? Trump's Moscow connections.

But now the DOJ has finally started an investigation into whether Director Comey violated any FBI or DOJ rules when talking about (or writing letters about) the email investigation(s).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2017 :  15:02:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I was unaware that Comey made a name for himself working for Ken Starr's failed attempt to nail the Clintons. So Comey is to Clinton's emails as George W. Bush is to Gulf War II: get the job done where the predecessor failed. Sure, Comey didn't manage to jail Clinton, but denying her the Oval Office must be a close second.

And the final final nail in the coffin is that Comey refused to discuss any investigation into Trump/Russia in a closed, classified briefing, too. He's just refusing to talk about it, period. Take that, Hillary!

In the comments at that link, it's suggested that Obama should immediately pardon Comey, so that Comey can't plead the Fifth during future questioning. That's brilliant strategy, right there.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2017 :  15:11:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And in further Trump news, he's firing the chief of the D.C. National Guard in the middle of Inauguration Day, and demanding all diplomats resign, too. Normally, you'd switch National Guard leaders during some less security-driven times, and usually, Presidents let diplomats continue to serve until the diplomats' kids have finished the semester.

This, coupled with the fact that the House re-activated a 140-year-old rule that allows them to drop the pay of any named Federal employee to $1/year (essentially firing them, an easy way to get rid of pesky climate scientists and other inconvenient public servants) tells me that the purge has already begun, with six days yet before Trump gets to call himself President.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13285 Posts

Posted - 01/14/2017 :  16:27:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Fasten your seat belts.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/15/2017 :  19:05:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And Trump chose the weekend prior to MLK Day to take on a living civil rights icon. A guy who has literally bled for justice. A guy who's constituents have sent him back to Congress for 30 years straight.

Trump calls him "all talk," and falsely claims that Atlanta is "in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested)."

All because Rep Lewis said he wouldn't be attending the inauguration, because Lewis doesn't think Trump is legitimately president.

This is what the Trump voters hath wrought: a president who is so petty and mean that if you don't attend his party, and question why he's throwing it, he will disparage your entire career and purposefully overlook your sacrifices.

(And Saturday should forever forth be known as "Hypocrisy Day." We now have a chorus of Republicans chanting "Trump got elected, get over it," when just a handful of years ago, Trump led the pack of hyenas claiming that Obama's presidency was illegitimate. The mind boggles.)

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1215 Posts

Posted - 01/16/2017 :  19:31:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hmm, I think you guys might have made a mistake in electing this guy

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/16/2017 :  21:23:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Hmm, I think you guys might have made a mistake in electing this guy
Don't feel left out: he'll screw up your country next.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25713 Posts

Posted - 01/17/2017 :  17:50:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So we've known for a while now that Trump can't get any A-list celebrities or musical groups to perform for his inauguration, and now it turns out that scalpers are having a heck of a time reselling tickets, too.

I guess when your approval rating tanks during the transition, you can't expect much.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 19  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.42 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000