“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Merry Christmas - from bob: ᴨ





34 comments:

  1. Speaking of unending numbers, will this ever stop?

    The United States Army will be deploying troops to nearly three-dozen African nations in the coming year.

    Soldiers based out of Fort Riley, Kansas’ 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division will begin training in March 2013 in order to prepare for a project that will send troops to as many as 35 African nations, the Associated Press reports. Citing a growing threat from extremist groups, including those with ties to al-Qaeda, the Department of Defense is hoping to install American soldiers overseas in order to prepare local troops there for any future crises as tensions escalate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Meet the new President. Same as the old President

    ReplyDelete


  3. Dhamar, Yemen — A rickety Toyota truck packed with 14 people rumbled down a desert road from the town of Radda, which al-Qaeda militants once controlled. Suddenly a missile hurtled from the sky and flipped the vehicle over.

    Within seconds, 11 of the passengers were dead, including a woman and her 7-year-old daughter. A 12-year-old boy also perished that day, and another man later died from his wounds.

    The Yemeni government initially said that those killed were al-Qaeda militants and that its Soviet-era jets had carried out the Sept. 2 attack. But tribal leaders and Yemeni officials would later say that it was an American assault and that all the victims were civilians who lived in a village near Radda, in central Yemen. U.S. officials last week acknowledged for the first time that it was an American strike.

    “Their bodies were burning,” recalled Sultan Ahmed Mohammed, 27, who was riding on the hood of the truck and flew headfirst into a sandy expanse. “How could this happen? None of us were al-Qaeda.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems possible that they might have been telling the truth the first time.

      Delete
    2. .

      And the US officials were lying when they acknowledged it was them?

      Hmmmn.

      .

      Delete
    3. Oops, I guess I shouldn't read before my first cup of coffee. :)

      Delete
    4. Maybe, I should make that "second" cup. :)

      Delete
  4. Go memorize pi to the millionth decimal point, Rufus. ha!

    Start here -

    http://3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592.com/

    Or listen to the music, your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Assad has no easy out -

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/world/middleeast/no-easy-route-if-bashar-al-assad-opts-to-go-or-stay.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Things look tough for Bashar. Die, either by the hand of the rebs, or of his own advisers, or his own hand, make a mad dash for the airport, try to retreat to the tribal homeland.

    Mad dash to airport might be the best bet. If he can find a place to land.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see Barky is over in Hawaii working on that Benghazi report. No one wants to know the truth more than Barky.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll cast my lot with the one that, at the very least, correctly identifies the position against which he is arguing. Our author throws up a "straw-man" definition of atheism, and then argues against this conveniently incomplete depiction.

    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9]


    Then, later, toward the end of the article the author conflates atheism, and agnosticism (which, admittedly, is pretty similar to the more inclusive definition of atheism, yet different.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In short, there's a difference between say, "I just don't believe it," and saying "I'm sure that that isn't true."

      Delete
    2. Having said all that, I hope everyone had a "Merry Christmas." :)


      Or, Happy Hannukah, or Mirthful Winter Solstice Observation, or . . . . . . whatever floats your boat. :)

      Delete
    3. .

      Interesting but confusing, Rufus.

      As a starting point, please give us your definition of atheism.

      Secondly, explain this

      Then, later, toward the end of the article the author conflates atheism, and agnosticism (which, admittedly, is pretty similar to the more inclusive definition of atheism, yet different).

      which given the present wording doesn't say shit.

      In other words, please get specific.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      And, lest I be accused of not being specific myself, since you have taken the author to task over definitions, tell me

      1. What is your definition of atheism?

      2. At what point does the author conflate atheism with agnosticism?

      3. I assume the 'more inclusive' defintion of atheism is the same as yours. If not what is it?

      4. How are the two 'pretty similar' but 'yet different'?

      This has little to do with the point the author was making, but your thought patterns always intrigue me.

      :)

      .

      Delete
    5. 1) In its most inclusive, Atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in Dieties.

      2) When he wrote this, "It is my hope that these "New Atheists" and agnostics won't narrowly focus on denigrating religion, but will instead focus on encouraging open-mindedness and discouraging fundamentalism."

      3) I'm probably too squishy to be considered an Atheist. Maybe some sort of confused confabulation of agnostic, and Deist? One thing's for sure, I haven't seen an "Organized" Religion that I thought made any sense.

      4) Well, most atheists probably fall more into the "I doubt it" category, than into the "I Know it to be untrue" category. And, my reading of most of the agnostics put them into the "it seems unlikely, and, damn, I hope it's not true" grouping. Of course, there are different grades of agnostic. Samuel Clemens was rather bitter, and adament in his agnosticism, whereas, and, damned but I can't remember the name, on his deathbed put it "God, if there be a God .. .. . ."

      Delete
    6. Admittedly, this isn't something that keeps me up most nights. :)

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. .

      Rufus, your last response included the definition

      1) In its most inclusive, Atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in Dieties.

      Yet, your main complaint in your initial post was that the author in establishing his definition is setting up a 'straw man'. Yet, his definition includes

      Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

      I still don't see the difference.


      The second part of your complaint was that

      Then, later, toward the end of the article the author conflates atheism, and agnosticism (which, admittedly, is pretty similar to the more inclusive definition of atheism, yet different.)

      From the way this comment reads, I took your complaint to be that the author was in a sense equating the words atheism and agnosticism which, while being similar under one definition of atheism are, in fact, different.

      In (2) above, you provided a partial quote from the author as substantiation; yet the complete quote is as follows

      This summer, a worldwide poll showed that atheism is on the rise and religiosity is on the decline. It is my hope that these "New Atheists" and agnostics won't narrowly focus on denigrating religion, but will instead focus on encouraging open-mindedness and discouraging fundamentalism.

      In that statement, he does not conflate atheists with agnostics but makes the same point that he makes throughout the article, that he hopes these 'new' atheists and agnostics as noted by the survey will not denigrate religion but instead encourage open-mindedness.

      3) I'm probably too squishy to be considered an Atheist. Maybe some sort of confused confabulation of agnostic, and Deist? One thing's for sure, I haven't seen an "Organized" Religion that I thought made any sense.

      Fewer and fewer do.

      4) Well, most atheists probably fall more into the "I doubt it" category, than into the "I Know it to be untrue" category. And, my reading of most of the agnostics put them into the "it seems unlikely, and, damn, I hope it's not true" grouping. Of course, there are different grades of agnostic. Samuel Clemens was rather bitter, and adament in his agnosticism, whereas, and, damned but I can't remember the name, on his deathbed put it "God, if there be a God .. .. . ."

      I smile every time Deuce goes into one of his rants about religion and belief in God. I supect that given the chance, at the last moment, he like me will be reaching for that rosary. It's one thing to doubt, but hell, why take chances.

      :)

      .

      Delete

    9. I smile every time Deuce goes into one of his rants about religion and belief in God.


      I seem to have missed this. I recall rants about Lincoln, Bush, and foreign policy but not this. It's Rufus ranting about religion.

      We all rant in our own way. A man or woman that doesn't rant once in a while is a pitiful sight. The secret of success in ranting is not to overdo it, not rant so much as to make it totally expected, and boring.

      You're always ranting about straw men yourself. This seems a rather ignoble thing to rant about, but no one else cares enough about straw men to rant back at you. Guilty as hell you are, of ranting, but scot free, like Bill Ayers. Lucky dog.

      Delete
    10. It's one thing to have belief in the Judeo-Christian G_D and having faith in the Lord.
      I'm still working on the faith part.

      Delete
    11. Yes, indeedy, I can confirm that there really are no Atheists in the foxhole, and I can also report that those prayers said in that particular situation are heartfelt, and fervent.

      Human nature really Is, "human nature."

      Delete
    12. .

      It's easy to lose faith.

      Hope, well...

      .

      Delete
    13. .

      Perhaps, I should have said religion and his 'lack of belief in God', Bobbo.

      As for the rest of your comment, well, once again I've lost hope as well as faith that I will ever understand half of your ramblings.

      .

      Delete
  8. I think God just keeps saying to us, "go build a better telescope. Go build a stronger microscope, and I will show you some more of my creation." The harder science tries to deny Gods existence, the more they prove He is the creator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, anyway, I hope your families are well, and the kids are healthy, and happy (and worn out.) Good night, and Peaceful slumber.


    For, tomorrow, we must prepare for "New Years." :)


    And, hang in there, Doug. Next year will be easier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Merry Christmas to you and yours, Ruf, and Gag and anyone else that might be around.

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      By the way, Sam did make it, right?

      .

      Delete
    3. His Prime Minister saved him, fighting for him right up to the very end, which turned out to be no end at all. But she fought anyway. Another lucky dog, to live in such a great country.

      Barky is fighting right now, over in Hawaii, to get that report on Benghazi finished, you can be sure of that.

      Delete
  10. Look at these motherfucks, they got Ernest Saves Christmas on the list of worst Christmas movies!

    See shit list here -

    http://entertainment.time.com/2011/12/20/top-10-worst-christmas-movies/slide/ernest-saves-christmas-1988/

    Damn the movie critics all to hell. They wouldn't know a good movie, even if they watched Life of Pi. What a bunch of brain dead losers. Brain stems lapping out of Champagne glasses. Even Rufus could do better. He at least likes shiny lights. Where would the shiny lights be without Ernest? Fuck them all, let them all squat in Hollywood, and fuck each other. Peckerheads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at this, just look at it. It's pitiful, they don't even come near the meaning of the art --

      Ernest Saves Christmas
      By Richard CorlissDec. 20, 20114 Comments
      06_Top10WorstChristmasMovies
      Everett

      Director: John R. Cherry III

      Year Released: 1988

      Cast: Jim Varney, Douglas Seale, Oliver Clark, Noelle Parker, Gailard Sartain
      Get This Movie

      Ernest P. Worrell, the yokel character that Jim Varney and producer-director John P. Cherry developed as a spokesman for local Nashville retailers, went national in a series of low-IQ comedies for Disney. The third one had taxi driver Ernest chauffeuring “his big red oneness, the Claus” (Douglas Seale), on a mission to find a replacement Santa. This allows Ernest to rhapsodize about everything from carols to Christmas trees: “You can keep your Chanel Number 5, just give me a whiff of the old lonesome pine.” Only marginally insufferable, the Ernest movie is included here as a big-screen example of the TV-sitcom tendency to go broad and sappy with a token Yuletide show each December. These episodes try to tickle you with seasonal cynicism and mistletoe jokes, and then, around minute 22, they hit you with piety in your face. Know-whut-ah-mean?


      No they don't know what they mean. And don't even know to mention the transcendental moments of the pison scene. This country is lost.

      Delete
    2. only marginally insufferable

      My ass.

      What a bunch of pixies.

      Delete
  11. Quirk
    And a very belated Merry Christmas to you too!

    ReplyDelete