The Supreme Court

Trapper Gus wrote: It is important to note that the punishment was the same for both parties involved

Earlier in the thread you told us that Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death but now you tell us that they both should have been stoned to death.

And according to you, all of this was "Christian Law" 30 years before Christianity.

My God - you are one dumb mfer.

RQA wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t know.  I didn’t read the Bible cover to cover.  

You wouldn't have had to read even one page of the Bible to know the answer.   Anyone with a halfway decent education or had just been paying attention would know the answer.

I guess you are disqualified on both accounts.

Know the answer?  The whole story is fiction.  It’s like being qualified to comment on Cinderella.  Congratulations, you get the gold star for reading novels.

I love that part of the novel where that dude lived in a whales belly.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote: It is important to note that the punishment was the same for both parties involved

Earlier in the thread you told us that Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death but now you tell us that they both should have been stoned to death.

And according to you, all of this was "Christian Law" 30 years before Christianity.

My God - you are one dumb mfer.

Since you're being technical, Christianity didn't exist for a lot more than 30 years later.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote: It is important to note that the punishment was the same for both parties involved

Earlier in the thread you told us that Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death but now you tell us that they both should have been stoned to death.

And according to you, all of this was "Christian Law" 30 years before Christianity.

My God - you are one dumb mfer.

I should have said Jewish Law.

No Joesph wasn't the adulator, Mary was, so he wouldn't have been put to death.

However, Joesph didn't want to follow the law so he and Mery made up this story about "God". Whomever it was must have seemed like a god in bed to Mary.

Both Mary and Joseph should have been charged with child abuse for putting Jesus in a manger.

PennSpartan wrote:Both Mary and Joseph should have been charged with child abuse for putting Jesus in a manger.

What I don't get is, that since Bethlehem was their home village why couldn't they stay with their parents?

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

Earlier in the thread you told us that Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death but now you tell us that they both should have been stoned to death.  

And according to you, all of this was "Christian Law" 30 years before Christianity.  

My God - you are one dumb mfer.  

I should have said Jewish Law.

No Joesph wasn't the adulator, Mary was, so he wouldn't have been put to death.

However, Joesph didn't want to follow the law so he and Mery made up this story about "God".  Whomever it was must have seemed like a god in bed to Mary.

Or probably more correctly, since women didn't have rights, and have been treated like chattel since the beginning of time in that area of the world, Joseph's story would have been taken as the truth no matter what the real truth was.

kingstonlake wrote:I love that part of the novel where that dude lived in a whales belly.  

Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

One day at school in science class after the teacher explained to a little girl that she might not be a little girl even though he couldn't define the word "girl" the lesson moved onto why Jonah (aka, "the dude") couldn't have been swallowed by a big fish because there is no fish with an oral cavity large enough to swallow a grown man.   The little girl/person told her science teacher that her Sunday School teacher said that Jonah was, in fact, swallowed by a big fish.  The science teacher asked the little girl/person how they could resolve the dispute.    The little girl/person said she would ask Jonah when she got to heaven.    The science teacher said:  Well what if Jonah went to Hell?    The little girl/person replied:  Then you can ask him!

So a science teacher thinks a whale is a fish?

I'm not gonna lie, the corners of mouth curled ever so slightly into the faintest grin when I read the punchline. Dumb, but still kind of clever in its own way.

MiamiSpartan wrote:So a science teacher thinks a whale is a fish?

Probably not. The teacher and the little girl/person know their Hebrew.

RQA wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:I love that part of the novel where that dude lived in a whales belly.  

Reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

One day at school in science class after the teacher explained to a little girl that she might not be a little girl even though he couldn't define the word "girl" the lesson moved onto why Jonah (aka, "the dude") couldn't have been swallowed by a big fish because there is no fish with an oral cavity large enough to swallow a grown man.   The little girl/person told her science teacher that her Sunday School teacher said that Jonah was, in fact,  swallowed by a big fish.  The science teacher asked the little girl/person how they could resolve the dispute.    The little girl/person said she would ask Jonah when she got to heaven.    The science teacher said:  Well what if Jonah went to Hell?    The little girl/person replied:  Then you can ask him!

Sad that the little girl has been brainwashed by someone.  They should be arrested for child abuse.

What in god's holy name are you people blathering about?

Jesus in a manger?

Come on RQA. You're still derailing threads?

I’m still trying to figure out why the God fearing parents of the little girl would allow her to attend a Science class of a teacher they know is going to hell?

sεяεηιτλ wrote:What in god's holy name are you people blathering about?

Jesus in a manger?

Come on RQA. You're still derailing threads?

I'm not the one who brought up Jesus in a manger. Jeez......

reminder that there is going to be a strong, smart, independent black woman on the Supreme Court of the United States and racist, bigoted, misogynistic republicans can't stop it.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:reminder that there is going to be a strong, smart, independent black woman on the Supreme Court of the United States and racist, bigoted, misogynistic republicans can't stop it.

How does that help you?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:reminder that there is going to be a strong, smart, independent black woman on the Supreme Court of the United States and racist, bigoted, misogynistic republicans can't stop it.

How does that help you?

How does it hurt you?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:reminder that there is going to be a strong, smart, independent black woman on the Supreme Court of the United States and racist, bigoted, misogynistic republicans can't stop it.

How does that help you?

It does provide a larger thought pool during discussions by the justices on cases.

Since the Republicans have turned the court into a political body and broken the last part of the US Government all of the 99% are doomed anyway, so this is more a "feel good" moment than a substantive one.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

How does that help you?

It does provide a larger thought pool during discussions by the justices on cases.

Since the Republicans have turned the court into a political body and broken the last part of the US Government all of the 99% are doomed anyway, so this is more a "feel good" moment than a substantive one.

it also drives the racist, bigoted misogynistic christian knuckle-scrapers insane.

that works for me.

duffy munn wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

How does that help you?

Your schtick is not original yet intriguing. Always wonder why people pretend to be something they are not.

What am I pretending to be, and what am I in reality? I'm fascinated to hear your take.

kingstonlake wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

How does that help you?

How does it hurt you?

It doesn't.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It does provide a larger thought pool during discussions by the justices on cases.

Since the Republicans have turned the court into a political body and broken the last part of the US Government all of the 99% are doomed anyway, so this is more a "feel good" moment than a substantive one.

it also drives the racist, bigoted misogynistic christian knuckle-scrapers insane.

that works for me.

So you can only be happy when the other side is unhappy?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: it also drives the racist, bigoted misogynistic christian knuckle-scrapers insane.

that works for me.

So you can only be happy when the other side is unhappy?

Learned behavior from dealing with the Christian Right, Dude.

Game Theory 101.

RQA and Frozen Boy have their job to do.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

So you can only be happy when the other side is unhappy?

Learned behavior from dealing with the Christian Right, Dude.

Game Theory 101.

We're supposed to be better than them. Why drag yourself down to their level?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Learned behavior from dealing with the Christian Right, Dude.

Game Theory 101.

We're supposed to be better than them. Why drag yourself down to their level?

Game Theory 101 tells us that if one side is cooperative and the other side is competitive the side that is competitive will win. That is why. The point is winning, or at least not losing.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

We're supposed to be better than them. Why drag yourself down to their level?

Game Theory 101 tells us that if one side is cooperative and the other side is competitive the side that is competitive will win. That is why. The point is winning, or at least not losing.

I don't know what that means, really.. I just enjoy laughing at racist, bigoted jesus freaks.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

We're supposed to be better than them. Why drag yourself down to their level?

Game Theory 101 tells us that if one side is cooperative and the other side is competitive the side that is competitive will win. That is why. The point is winning, or at least not losing.

If you're using the same tactics as the other side, then how are you any better than them?

If you're undecided about Clarence Thomas being a shitbag, this should help you decide once and for all.

[tw]1508873374939897861[/tw]

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Game Theory 101 tells us that if one side is cooperative and the other side is competitive the side that is competitive will win. That is why. The point is winning, or at least not losing.

If you're using the same tactics as the other side, then how are you any better than them?

Tactics are not a measure of goodness.

Floyd Robertson wrote:If you're undecided about Clarence Thomas being a shitbag, this should help you decide once and for all.

[tw]1508873374939897861[/tw]

For sure DeSantis won't get reelected now!

Floyd Robertson wrote:If you're undecided about Clarence Thomas being a shitbag, this should help you decide once and for all.

[tw]1508873374939897861[/tw]

it's almost like they're all racist, bigoted, anti-American christian scumbags.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:If you're undecided about Clarence Thomas being a shitbag, this should help you decide once and for all.

[tw]1508873374939897861[/tw]

it's almost like they're all racist, bigoted, anti-American christian scumbags.

Contrast that against the other party signing the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching legislation today.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

If you're using the same tactics as the other side, then how are you any better than them?

Tactics are not a measure of goodness.

Tell that to the Ukrainians getting their hospitals bombed to shit.