Chinese New Year...some threats of a quickly spreading pandemic.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171035


Global pandemic? With just 3 dead Red Chinese? There’s over a billion of ‘em. Just keep ‘em in their country.kalm wrote:I thought coronavirus originated in Mexico?![]()
Chinese New Year...some threats of a quickly spreading pandemic.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171035

Since you won’t attribute anything you post, we’ll just assume this is another satire that duped you.JBB wrote:Cottage Grove church to usher out gray-haired members in effort to attract more young parishioners
Not sure if this is the newly formed non-christian wing of the methodist church or the traditional old-fashioned christian wing.A prayer for survival rose from the back of the church last Sunday.
“I pray for this church, getting through this age-discrimination thing,” said William Gackstetter, as the gray-haired heads around him nodded in agreement.
Gackstetter and other members of the Grove United Methodist Church in Cottage Grove are upset enough that their church is closing in June. What makes it worse is that their church is reopening in November — pretty much without them.
The church wants to attract more young families. The present members, most of them over 60 years old, will be invited to worship somewhere else. A memo recommends that they stay away for two years, then consult the pastor about reapplying.
Officials say the church needs a reset, and reopening the church is the best way to appeal to younger people.
But the older church members say they see that as an insult.
“This is totally wrong,” said Gackstetter’s wife, Cheryl. “They are discriminating against us because of our age.”
After the plan was explained by a visiting pastor on Jan. 5, she said, “I called him a hypocrite. I said, ‘You are kicking us out of our church.’ ”

Supposedly not as bad as SARSIvytalk wrote:Global pandemic? With just 3 dead Red Chinese? There’s over a billion of ‘em. Just keep ‘em in their country.kalm wrote:I thought coronavirus originated in Mexico?![]()
Chinese New Year...some threats of a quickly spreading pandemic.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171035

Actually, it may have a higher lethality rate but we may never know.SeattleGriz wrote:Supposedly not as bad as SARSIvytalk wrote: Global pandemic? With just 3 dead Red Chinese? There’s over a billion of ‘em. Just keep ‘em in their country.

Ahh. A great store for years. Sad to see it slowly close.SeattleGriz wrote: Supposedly not as bad as SARS




Satire aside, what the Democrats need to do is distribute information that shows that Trump is not responsible for the low Black unemployment rate. Like this:JBB wrote:Progressives Call On African Americans To Quit Their Jobs To Avoid Being Used As A Trump Statistic
U.S.—Progressive activists across the country have begun calling on African Americans to quit their jobs in order to avoid being used as a Trump statistic.
White liberals generally like when minorities get hired, but they've begun to grow concerned with just how many black people are working under the Trump economy.
"If you really cared about the cause, you'd quit and become homeless so we could tell everyone how bad Trump's economy is for black people," communist activist Pau Jamm told his only black friend in a Portland coffee shop Wednesday. "You guys are really killing us here with how much you're working."
Some committed progressives are even firing black people in order to show just how bad the economy is for minorities. Austin woman Britney Baila sat down one of her employees, black man Henry Porter, to let him know that he was being fired for his own good. "Listen, you're doing great -- you've been a valued part of this organization for several years now. But you're just not helping the narrative that Trump is harming minority workers."
"Take one for the team, and maybe we'll rehire you when a Democrat gets elected," she added to the perplexed Porter.
Black people who do not quit their jobs are being called "Uncle Toms" and "race traitors."



Your latest logical fallacy depends on American troops being willing to turn their guns on other Americans. Had you ever served in the military, you’d know that the likelihood of that is almost nil. There’s probably a BETTER chance that troops take their government issued weapons, ammo and equipment and go over to the side battling against the government (should it come to that).JohnStOnge wrote:I saw an image of a flag like that in the image below from the Virginia gun protest thing today. "Come and take it." You know what? If our government ever got to the point of taking that they'd take it. You would have no chance. This idea that being able to buy a rifle like that means you can protect yourself from government is nonsense. In today's day and age, your protection from government rests in respect for the institutions and procedures that protect you from government.


Tell that to the Viet Cong, Somalian militias, AQIM, the Taliban, etc etcJohnStOnge wrote:I saw an image of a flag like that in the image below from the Virginia gun protest thing today. "Come and take it." You know what? If our government ever got to the point of taking that they'd take it. You would have no chance. This idea that being able to buy a rifle like that means you can protect yourself from government is nonsense. In today's day and age, your protection from government rests in respect for the institutions and procedures that protect you from government.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Sunday openly wondered why the American people would support a presidential candidate who “lies to them,” failing to address the long list of falsities she has promoted over the years.
CBS News reporter Zak Hudak asked Warren if it is “disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American public about anything.”
“I would think that it — you know, how could the American people want someone who lies to them?” Warren asked. “I think that we just do our best out there every day, and I hope that’s what happens with everyone
On Sunday, the New York Times endorsed Warren, along with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), praising the Massachusetts senator as a “gifted storyteller.” That much, as Warren has demonstrated throughout the years, is true. She has a documented history of fabricating her past and positions, particularly on the campaign trail.
Most famously, Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage for years, identifying as a Native American on her Texas Bar registration card and identifying as a minority at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Harvard Law School. She also told a reporter in 2012 that she had “plenty of pictures” proving her claims of Native American ancestry but refused to show them. She only relented after a DNA test revealed that she, at best, had 1/64th Native lineage and, at worst, 1/1,024th. The results effectively ended her claims of Cherokee heritage, specifically.
“I shouldn’t have done it. I am not a person of color. I am not a citizen of a tribe,” Warren said during a New Hampshire town hall in December.
“And I have apologized for the confusion I have caused on tribal citizenship, tribal sovereignty, and for any harm I have caused,” she added
CID1990 wrote:Since you won’t attribute anything you post, we’ll just assume this is another satire that duped you.JBB wrote:Cottage Grove church to usher out gray-haired members in effort to attract more young parishioners
Not sure if this is the newly formed non-christian wing of the methodist church or the traditional old-fashioned christian wing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link please, or is it a fact you don’t know that?Ibanez wrote:It's satire. Do you know what satire means? You keep posting fake news articles without citing the source, even a common core idiot knows to cite his/her work.JBB wrote:
![]()
You really don’t know since it is all lies, half truths, omission and fabrication anyway.

Why don’t you attribute your quotes then?JBB wrote:CID1990 wrote:
Since you won’t attribute anything you post, we’ll just assume this is another satire that duped you.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYou can’t tell the difference. Never could.
You’re the moron that doesn’t link his posts to a well known satirical site. Such a common core fail.JBB wrote:Link please, or is it a fact you don’t know that?Ibanez wrote: It's satire. Do you know what satire means? You keep posting fake news articles without citing the source, even a common core idiot knows to cite his/her work.



I agree. Loved SARS.CAA Flagship wrote:Ahh. A great store for years. Sad to see it slowly close.SeattleGriz wrote: Supposedly not as bad as SARS
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-propos ... 1579720969Airline passengers might soon have to leave their emotional support animals at home.
A new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation would permit airlines to stop accepting emotional support animals on planes, allowing only service dogs that are professionally trained to perform tasks or assist passengers with disabilities, including psychiatric disorders.
Airlines have argued for years that the current rules typically requiring airlines to treat support animals as service animals—both of which fly free of charge—are too loose, leading many passengers to claim ordinary pets as support animals to avoid fees of $125 or more for international flights.
Carriers say that has forced them to accommodate a surge of untrained animals that have bitten passengers, scuffled with other pets or left messes for crew members to clean up. Airlines reported receiving over 3,000 complaints about service animals in 2018, up from 719 five years earlier, according to the DOT.

They were not in countries with systems like the military and law enforcement systems we have established in this country.CID1990 wrote:Tell that to the Viet Cong, Somalian militias, AQIM, the Taliban, etc etcJohnStOnge wrote:I saw an image of a flag like that in the image below from the Virginia gun protest thing today. "Come and take it." You know what? If our government ever got to the point of taking that they'd take it. You would have no chance. This idea that being able to buy a rifle like that means you can protect yourself from government is nonsense. In today's day and age, your protection from government rests in respect for the institutions and procedures that protect you from government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What I'm saying is that people being able to own those weapons will not save them. If you are counting on the military to refuse to act as an illegal oppressor as the protection that is fine and I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic. But in that case it's not you being able to own a weapon like that that's protecting you.AZGrizFan wrote:Your latest logical fallacy depends on American troops being willing to turn their guns on other Americans. Had you ever served in the military, you’d know that the likelihood of that is almost nil. There’s probably a BETTER chance that troops take their government issued weapons, ammo and equipment and go over to the side battling against the government (should it come to that).JohnStOnge wrote:I saw an image of a flag like that in the image below from the Virginia gun protest thing today. "Come and take it." You know what? If our government ever got to the point of taking that they'd take it. You would have no chance. This idea that being able to buy a rifle like that means you can protect yourself from government is nonsense. In today's day and age, your protection from government rests in respect for the institutions and procedures that protect you from government.
But you keep talkin’ out yer ass....it suits you.


Perhaps Ivy or some other lawyer can comment on this but I see two problems.Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton over 'Russian asset' comments


Gabbard has a high legal standard to meet. Not a wise move on her part.JohnStOnge wrote:https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/0 ... /23906671/
Perhaps Ivy or some other lawyer can comment on this but I see two problems.Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton over 'Russian asset' comments
1) Clinton did not use Gabbard's name. She did not specifically refer to her.
2) You don't have to be a willing asset to be a Russian asset. Opining that someone is a Russian asset is simply saying that someone advances Russia's interests. It does not have to mean that someone is INTENTIONALLY advancing Russia's interests.

Unless ...Ivytalk wrote:Von Helsing has a high legal standard to meet. Not a wise move on her part.JohnStOnge wrote:https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/0 ... /23906671/
Perhaps Ivy or some other lawyer can comment on this but I see two problems.
1) Dracula did not use Von Helsing's name. She did not specifically refer to her.
2) You don't have to be a willing asset to be a Russian asset. Opining that someone is a Russian asset is simply saying that someone advances Russia's interests. It does not have to mean that someone is INTENTIONALLY advancing Russia's interests.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it.JohnStOnge wrote:They were not in countries with systems like the military and law enforcement systems we have established in this country.CID1990 wrote:
Tell that to the Viet Cong, Somalian militias, AQIM, the Taliban, etc etc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk