Fact Of The Day

[Svengoolie 3]

Fact: if the last Hardcore, radical,  intolerant fundamantalist chrsitan fanatic on earth killed the last Hardcore, radical,  intolerant fundamantalist muslim fanatic on earth and died 30 seconds later from the injuries he sustained in the fight the world would be a much better place.

Hopefully, they both managed to take the last hardcore, radical, intolerant, fundamentalist atheist with them. If they don't the world is in just as s**tty place a place as before.

When there are no longer countries in which an atheist can be arrested, imprisoned, threatened, committed to a mental facility, tortured into converting or executed you can compare them to muslims.

Also, there are states in america where an anteist cannot legally hold and form of public office even if elected to it. Texas is one, there are others. When there are no longer states where atheists are illegally and unconstitutional barred from office then you can say atheists have no right to protest their treatment.

[indianasmith]

Fact: if the last Hardcore, radical,  intolerant fundamantalist chrsitan fanatic on earth killed the last Hardcore, radical,  intolerant fundamantalist muslim fanatic on earth and died 30 seconds later from the injuries he sustained in the fight the world would be a much better place.

Hopefully, they both managed to take the last hardcore, radical, intolerant, fundamentalist atheist with them. If they don't the world is in just as s**tty place a place as before.

When there are no longer countries in which an atheist can be arrested, imprisoned, threatened, committed to a mental facility, tortured into converting or executed you can compare them to muslims.

Also, there are states in america where an anteist cannot legally hold and form of public office even if elected to it. Texas is one, there are others. When there are no longer states where atheists are illegally and unconstitutional barred from office then you can say atheists have no right to protest their treatment.

I am from Texas, and I can tell you that is pure BS.  Such a law blatantly violates the Constitution of the United States and would be stricken down by the courts in a heartbeat.  It does not exist, and to my knowledge, never has.  It's certainly not enforced - I know officeholders who are agnostic/atheist.

And FWIW, the only officially atheist states on record have a LOVELY track record of locking up and executing Christians, and all other peoples of faith.
The Soviet Union executed, imprisoned, or exiled millions of Christians during its ugly benighted existence.  Same with China, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cuba.  Atheism is just as ugly and militant as any religion when it is handed political power.
So just climb of your "moral superiority" high horse!

[Alex]

Fact: if the last Hardcore, radical,  intolerant fundamantalist chrsitan fanatic on earth killed the last Hardcore, radical,  intolerant fundamantalist muslim fanatic on earth and died 30 seconds later from the injuries he sustained in the fight the world would be a much better place.

Hopefully, they both managed to take the last hardcore, radical, intolerant, fundamentalist atheist with them. If they don't the world is in just as s**tty place a place as before.

When there are no longer countries in which an atheist can be arrested, imprisoned, threatened, committed to a mental facility, tortured into converting or executed you can compare them to muslims.

Also, there are states in america where an anteist cannot legally hold and form of public office even if elected to it. Texas is one, there are others. When there are no longer states where atheists are illegally and unconstitutional barred from office then you can say atheists have no right to protest their treatment.

You do not get to decide when I can and cannot compare people to each other, so just scale back your arrogance. You've got nothing to back it up with anyway. When people of any stripe chose in any way to impinge on the rights and freedoms of others then I'll compare them any way I please. And that includes you and your attitudes to anyone who doesn't go along with your narrow-minded view of the world. When atheists do the same things as people of any religion (or other world view) then they are just as bad as them. Your excuse seems to be that atheists haven't had the power to oppress non-atheists which shows an incredible ignorance of world history.

Let's not forget the times you have expressed your opinion on what you'd do to people you dislike and disagree with if you had the power. You are just as bad as the people you complain about. Not criminals, just people who run a business or beliefs (and not just religious but also political) that don't exactly match yours. The only difference between them and you is that you don't have the power to oppress them and thankfully I find it very doubtful you ever will, regardless of what pathetic fantasies you harbour that you've claimed would get you in trouble with the authorities just for having.

[Svengoolie 3]

https://thehumanist.com/news/national/unelectable-atheists-u-s-states-that-prohibit-godless-americans-from-holding-public-office

[Alex]

Did you actually read that article before posting it? It doesn't support your argument.

Lets break down the important things to take away from it.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So it has established that there is an overreaching law that prevents this kind of discrimination. Even if a lower authority puts a law in place, it is isn't legal.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected.

So someone tried to use one of these illegal laws to prevent someone taking office and failed. So what it is saying is that the system worked as intended. Might not be a perfect system, the right result was borne out.

If you are posting this as proof of your assertion, you've completely failed. Yes these laws are on the books, yes that is wrong, but as evidenced by the very piece you quoted it isn't stopping people from taking elected office. Even though at a local level it may be on the statute books these people can't take office it is in fact totally legal for them to. I haven't done any research to see if there are any cases where an atheist has been prevented from taking office in the US, frankly because your arguments are generally always so full of holes and easily disproved that I long since stopped making the effort to fact check them and I would imagine if this was actually happening the author of that piece would have mentioned them. Since he obviously feels this is something that is happening you'd think he'd check that out and would have posted up any actual examples of it happening, rather than just almost happening.

[indianasmith]

I will concede that it is difficult for outspoken atheists to win political office in America when over 80% of the population still considers themselves Christian.

But that is because people tend to vote for folks who believe like and look like they do.

And also, many outspoken atheists are just jerks.

[Svengoolie 3]

I will concede that it is difficult for outspoken atheists to win political office in America when over 80% of the population still considers themselves Christian.

But that is because people tend to vote for folks who believe like and look like they do.

And also, many outspoken atheists are just jerks.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-news-spokane-politician-matt-shea-biblical-war-manifesto-20181031-story.html

[Svengoolie 3]

Did you actually read that article before posting it? It doesn't support your argument.

Lets break down the important things to take away from it.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So it has established that there is an overreaching law that prevents this kind of discrimination. Even if a lower authority puts a law in place, it is isn't legal.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected.

So someone tried to use one of these illegal laws to prevent someone taking office and failed. So what it is saying is that the system worked as intended. Might not be a perfect system, the right result was borne out.

If you are posting this as proof of your assertion, you've completely failed. Yes these laws are on the books, yes that is wrong, but as evidenced by the very piece you quoted it isn't stopping people from taking elected office. Even though at a local level it may be on the statute books these people can't take office it is in fact totally legal for them to. I haven't done any research to see if there are any cases where an atheist has been prevented from taking office in the US, frankly because your arguments are generally always so full of holes and easily disproved that I long since stopped making the effort to fact check them and I would imagine if this was actually happening the author of that piece would have mentioned them. Since he obviously feels this is something that is happening you'd think he'd check that out and would have posted up any actual examples of it happening, rather than just almost happening.

Did you actually read the article before attacking  it?

The texas constitution says that a candidate must acknowledged the existence of a supreme being. Period. That is openly ruling out atheists.

BTW I'm an agnostic but I'd be covered under this too.

[Alex]

Did you actually read that article before posting it? It doesn't support your argument.

Lets break down the important things to take away from it.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So it has established that there is an overreaching law that prevents this kind of discrimination. Even if a lower authority puts a law in place, it is isn't legal.

However, these laws are still on the books and have given atheist candidates trouble in the past. Cecil Bothwell, an atheist who in 2009 won an election for a Asheville, North Carolina city council seat, was almost unseated by local critics who pointed to a provision in North Carolina’s constitution that prohibited nonbelievers from being elected.

So someone tried to use one of these illegal laws to prevent someone taking office and failed. So what it is saying is that the system worked as intended. Might not be a perfect system, the right result was borne out.

If you are posting this as proof of your assertion, you've completely failed. Yes these laws are on the books, yes that is wrong, but as evidenced by the very piece you quoted it isn't stopping people from taking elected office. Even though at a local level it may be on the statute books these people can't take office it is in fact totally legal for them to. I haven't done any research to see if there are any cases where an atheist has been prevented from taking office in the US, frankly because your arguments are generally always so full of holes and easily disproved that I long since stopped making the effort to fact check them and I would imagine if this was actually happening the author of that piece would have mentioned them. Since he obviously feels this is something that is happening you'd think he'd check that out and would have posted up any actual examples of it happening, rather than just almost happening.

Did you actually read the article before attacking  it?

The texas constitution says that a candidate must acknowledged the existence of a supreme being. Period. That is openly ruling out atheists.

BTW I'm an agnostic but I'd be covered under this too.

I did read the article. The parts I quoted from it should actually show that, but hey I really shouldn't expect you to be able to work that out given the powers of reasoning you regularly display. Clearly, if you did read it then you have not understood what it says and how it fails to back up your argument. I will repeat this for your benefit. Regardless of what the local law says a candidate does not have to acknowledge the existence of a supreme being as (and I will put this in caps for the hard of understanding) IT IS CANCELLED OUT BY A HIGHER LEVEL LAW. THE LAW BANNING PEOPLE FROM SERVING IF ELECTED IS ITSELF ILLEGAL. The article actually says this. The best instance they can come up with to support their own argument happened 10 years ago and they failed to stop the person taking office.

Since you can't figure this out let me repeat it again. They tried to stop the man from taking office and failed. Regardless of what the local law said, a non-believer still managed to take office. The laws you say prevent such people from taking office don't seem to be doing a very good job based on the evidence you are providing. Go off and come back when you actually have an instance (preferably recent), where someone has been prevented from taking office on this issue and you will have a valid argument.

For someone who claims to be eligible to join MENSA you appear to lack a basic understanding here on how debates work. You actually have to provide real evidence that what you claim is happening, really is. This article, while it points out you have out of date and illegal laws most certainly doesn't in any way prove that anyone is being prevented from taking office. If you actually read what it says and not what you think it says you'd see this.

There is an island in the UK that has a law that says something along the lines that if you find a Scotsman more than a mile inland you can legally kill him with a longbow. Dates back to when Scotland and England used to be at war with each other all the time. Guess what would happen if you actually did this? You'd get arrested for murder because there are higher level laws that overrule the lesser ones, and newer laws that overrule the older ones. Just as here you have a constitutional rule that overrules the local one (sorry if I am repeating the same thing over and over again, but it does seem to be one you have a problem coming to terms with).

It is not unusual for antiquated laws like this to still be on the books of various nations. Laws get made and it is often easier to put new laws in place than to remove old, out of date ones.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Of course, we all know that trailers almost always lie, but, by seeing Captain Marvel in the theater, I saw the configurations of the other film studios + comic publishers. Thus, from vest to wurst, whether they got it or ain't got it.

2nd Marvel - Columbia
Spider-man : Far from Home
They finally got it.

3rd Marvel - Fox
Dark Phoenix
They are still looking for it.

4th DC - Warner Media
Shazam
I certainly wish them the best, and the film will probably make a lot of money at the box office, but it is still a pale imitation (IMHO) of what Marvel has got.

And of course,
1st Marvel - Disney

And in its 3rd week . . .
Captain Marvel has grossed at the box office
$321.5 million domestically
$588.8 million internationally
$910.3 million totally

At a cost to make of $152 million, the film has surpassed that goal. It is a little bit trickeir to figure out the profit it has made, but, as I use the figure of anything over 2.5 x cost = profit, then the profit as the 3rd week should be something around $530.3 million, or, there will be a sequel.

Mext time: (IMHO) one of the best things that ever happened to Marvel, was to get rid of the old management of the 1990s and to bring in new management.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Continuing previous post . . .

One of the best things (IMHO) that ever happened to Marvel was that they got rid of the old management from the 1990s and put in new management, as the old management made one of the most bone headed business decisions I have ever seen. Not that they sold the film rights to the Marvel characters, but . . .

Paramount
got the Avengers and some other characters.
Paramount still may have the film rights to some of the Marvel characters, for when Marvel  bought back the rights to the characters, apparently, they did not buy back all the rights to all the characters.

Fox
got the X-men and some other characters.
What do you need for a Marvel mash-up?
1st All the characters under the same studio banner, which happened this year.
2nd A CEO who wants to see a mash-up sometime in 2020 or 2021.
But this might have happened sooner, if one studio had all the film rights.

Columbia
got Spider-man and some other characters.
Columbia may actually produce an animated Spider-man series for the streaming service Disney+ when it rolls out later this year.
That would probably then give us 2 different Spider-men: 1 for the films and 1 for the streaming service.

That is not the only bone headed business decision the 1990s management made. Apparently, they gave Universal in Florida  the rights in perpetuity to create rides and attractions based on the Marvel characters. Which is why you'll see a new interactive, immersive Spider-man ride at Disney's California Adventure and Disneyland Paris, but not at Walt Disney World. Which may be why the same 4 Marvel rides have not changed significantly for the past 3 decades. There is 1 new thing: a Marvel character meal at Universal Florida, so good for them on that. Disneyland Paris is also getting a Marvel art hotel, which is the New York hotel rethemed.

Next time: concluding Marvel, including phase IV.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Continuing from my previous post..

It never ceases to amaze him how foreigners take to American indeas, such as the American Halloween, which has become almost an universal holiday, including in the U.K. We already have girls in the U.K. dressing up as and pretending to be Captain Marvel. How many more will there be around Halloween?

One of the most interesting voices on the acquistion of Fox assets by Disney is from Ryan "Deadpool" Reynolds. When the idea was 1st approached that Disney may acquire some of Fox's assets, including the character of Deadpool. No one seemed to hate the idea more than Reynolds. He hated the idea so much, he said he'd never appear as Deadpool in a film made by the new company. And he was vocal about his hatred.

Now: apparently, there is a picture of Deadpool wearing mouse ears and heading to Hollywood on his web site.

Why the change: the reallzation that may be some good in the acquistion, or, something more mundane. The uselessness of opposing the inevitable?

Marvel's Phase 3 ends with Avengers : Endgame, which is has already set a record for advanced ticket sales, and will set a record for the longest Marvel film to date, at over 180 minutes, he hopes there is an intermission, and Phase 4, supposedly begins with Guardians of the Galaxy, v.3. And after that . . .

2020
Black Widow
The Eternals
2021
Black Panther 2
Doctor Strange 2
2020 or 2021
Shang-Chi
which is the 1st recent Marvel film to feature an Asian superhero and is on the fast rack. Let the snide remarks begin. Oh, wait. They have already started.

Next time: he'll think of something.

[Rev. Powell]

Reading crime fiction is a traditional way to celebrate Easter in Norway.

https://www.visitnorway.com/about/history-traditions/easter/crime-time/

[Svengoolie 3]

Russias national economy is smaller than new york states.

4. America’s third largest state economy—New York with a GDP in 2015 of $1.45 trillion—produced nearly the same amount of economic output last year as Canada ($1.55 trillion) and would have ranked as the world’s 11th largest economy last year as a separate country, ahead of both South Korea ($1.38 trillion) and Russia ($1.32 trillion).

Interestingly enough Canada has a larger economy than russia too.

[Rev. Powell]

The modern American accent is closer to that spoken in 18th century England than the modern British accent.