Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

con·tro·ver·sy / noun / disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. "the announcement ended a protracted controversy" synonyms: disagreement, dispute, argument, debate, dissension, contention, disputation, altercation, wrangle, quarrel, squabble, war of words, storm; This "club" has almost nothing to do with recovering from Christianity. You will find here partisan politics, controversy, conflict and baiting. Please confine all such non-encouraging discussions to this area. And, please play nice.

  1. What's new in this club
  2. Just another idiot saying what this god is supposedly needing said or done cus ya know, tis mysterious, how humans always need to speak for him - almost like he doesn't exist!
  3. No, he's wrong. The fires were not started because God doesn't like gays and abortion. The fires were started because God does not like Vegemite.
  4. … this time he's saying gays and abortion is to blame for the Australian bush fires. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/11/israel-folau-says-gay-marriage-and-abortion-to-blame-for-bushfires.html How brain dead can someone get? I mean the fires wouldn't be a result of the worst drought in decades gripping the region would it? And what about the bushfires going back millennia? Morons like these peeve me off. We have our own moron here in NZ - Brian Tamaki who blamed the Christchurch earthquakes on homosexuals.
  5. Actor and Comedian John WItherspoon, most famous for his role as the father in the Friday movies.
  6. https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/cincinnati-christian-university-decides-not-to-fight-for-accreditation-will-close-in-2020 https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/21094510/cincinnati-christian-university-will-close-after-this-semester
  7. "Priest Gambles Away $1 Million Meant for Refugee Families in Canada, Gets 2 Years in Minimum Security Prison" http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/priest-gambles-away-dollar1-million-meant-for-refugee-families-in-canada-gets-2-years-in-minimum-security-prison/ar-AAJe8An?ocid=ientp "A former Swiss priest went to rehab in 2018 after losing more than $1 million to gambling debts, including money loaned to him by 50 parishioners. William Dombrow, a Catholic clergyman in Philadelphia, was found guilty of stealing more than $535,000 from an unauthorized Philadelphia Archdiocese account in April of 2018, CBS Philly reported."
  8. Speaking of bathrooms, some of the guys at work have an aversion to closing cubicle doors. I've had them say they don't want to touch the door handle and look at it like standing at a urinal. I just about walked into a guys back when the door was open and I hurried in.
  9. Public restroom sight lines.* Every once in a while I encounter a restroom wherein someone out in the main public space (restaurant, store, etc.) can, without any trouble, get a clear view of me while I'm standing at the urinal. Once in a while, it's the mirror over the sink that aids the view. Why don't architects and interior designers think of these things? And another thing: parking lots wherein the aisles and spaces are so damn small you have to be some sort of Houdini to get your vehicle in or out of the space. ______ * Note I did not start with, or even include anywhere, the words "so" or "well." Do I get extra likes for that?
  10. So, I think I have been quite nuts my whole life but never diagnosed. I think sentences should begin with 'well'. Well, I was thinking, Well, the situation is not good, Well, maybe we should go to the movies., etc....... All the newscasters start just about every answer that the interviewer asks them by saying, ''so''. I do not know why this bugs me? I'm going to go and find me a good psychiatrist!! So, I'm just in a silly mood today..... .
  11. Oh shit... that's me. So, I was thinking, So when we, so on and so forth. So, Margee why does it drive you nuts? Also are you sure you weren't nuts beforehand hand and it just manifests with "so"?
  12. So, I find that everyone starts their sentences off with, ''So''........ and it drives me nuts!
  13. Video game monetization. There has been a lot of controversy around how games are being monetised with full price games adding in cosmetic sales, downloadable content (dlc), and loot boxes. Several countries have categorised loot boxes as gambling. The frustration is that enough of the population buy into these schemes to make it profitable. We all get worse games because developers are stripping out content to resell as add-on.
  14. His blog was political to begin with. It just developed into a political career because it was good stuff. He built it from ground up. There were no switches.
  15. Politicians do post on twitter, have their own websites and party websites, even hold online chats, but you get poor penetration when no one cares about your content. Sure YouTube stars can have millions of followers, but more often they don't. For every PewDiePie there are a thousand channels with less than 1k subs. In your example the guy was famous then switched to politics, easy to do that way around but harder to switch to politics then attempt to become famous.
  16. With the Internet, though, you don't need expensive campaigns to gain popularity. So it's kinda funny if people truly are apathetic now when it's more feasible than ever for a literal nobody to rise up based on their own merit. The leader of the most popular party in my country used to be a linguistics researcher. Basically a nobody without any connections. He published an internet blog of his own as a hobby, and gained fame and popularity through his writings criticizing the most obviously insane aspects of progressive politics. He and many of his supporters joined an extant party and ousted the previous leader by winning the internal vote. He brags how his election campaign budgets are measured in hundreds of euros and the typical TV-advertising politicians can only gnash their teeth.
  17. I gave you a number of reasons why people could become disenfranchised. Once I see others getting more votes than myself, or even believe this to be the case, I would not run right out and try to obtain more votes I would simply stop playing. I would probably not even bother to vote. Why bother? The guy next to me probably can not only cancel my vote out, like usual, but then add one or more votes of his own on top of that. I'm better off putting my efforts into other things instead of the game of politics. Have you read The Republic by Plato? If not, you should (I should probably re-read it since it's been awhile). I'm not sure I'd want to vote on all positions in government since there are thousands. This is one reason we vote for representatives. Public campaign funding isn't a bad idea. I'm not pro-online voting (despite my IT background). I do vote-by-mail and that's because I'm a lazy hypocrite. I believe voter fraud is low (even though it is a common belief) but we have a history of voter manipulation (ie. employers forcing employees to vote their way). Anonymous, in-person, voting helps with this while on-line and mail-in voting allows for this sort of abuse (which is why I call myself a hypocrite since I support a system for my own convenience knowing all this). Public voting holidays are a good idea. I'll also add wide availability of polling places that are properly equipped and staffed (we use volunteers and they don't always show so this is a tough ask). It would be nice if people in power were educated but we have a lot of educated idiots. I imagine Dr. Conspiracy Theory would grab a lot of votes. He does well in other venues. mwc
  18. I have heard from unreliable media sources that there was a large part of the US population who disliked both Hillary and Trump. A third choice might have done well considering the choices available. I've heard many discussions saying Trump is highly likely to win again if he runs, mostly due to the lack of inspiring opposition. It would take someone of great fame to beat him, someone like Oprah or The rock, who would likely win regardless of their policies.
  19. I was active in the mid-terms, serving as a precinct captain for my party and supporting a particular candidate. We had a very good reason for unseating the incumbent but the national party decided that the seat was not attainable and thus did not provide any financial support to our candidate. Our candidate raised $9 million on his own from small donors while the incumbent raised significantly more, mostly from large donors from out of the area. And when it was all over, 40 percent of the members of our party did not vote. The vote was close enough that if all those in that 40 percent had voted, we would have won. Further, the presidential debates used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan organization. But in 1988 the two major parties put unacceptable demands for control of the debates on the League and the League withdrew. Currently, the debates are controlled by the two major parties. Only once, in 1992, was a third party candidate included and that was Ross Perot (he wanted to participate in 1996 but was blocked by the major parties). I personally do not believe that we will ever again see a third-party candidate in the debates.
  20. In fairness there was no suggestions of any tests or of removing anyone's ability to vote. The suggestion was to increase voting not to limit it. I'm not deep into politics, I have no formal education in politics and am happy to admit these ideas might have major flaws that I haven't considered. Happy to be educated. However I do believe there is a better way to do things than we currently have, but the system is setup to resist change and people love their traditions. Even if we can find an improved system would any Western nation be willing to take the jump to something new? It would be great to have a say on all positions in government rather than just in which party, it would be great to stop campaigns costing so much so there is the ability for the less wealthy to step up, it would be great if politicians didn't need money so much that outside influencers have great power, it would be great if we could securely vote online faster, easier and cheaper than currently, it would be great if it was a public holiday so those who are working long hours can get to vote without disadvantage and it would be great to know the people in positions of power are intelligent and educated in the fields they are covering so they can be making scientifically literate decisions on our behalf. Change can be good, it just has to be carefully considered and done right.
  21. It was accusatory. The whole idea rubbed me the wrong way (if that wasn't already clear). Even if education was free the idea still isn't workable. People aren't always free to be educated (for many reasons: ie. work, family, health, etc.). True enough. In free societies I think we also have to accept that these things, at least some of these things (such as apathy), may be a part of doing business. Yep. And that's just one of many. I don't much care for anything that has the appearance of a test in order to vote. mwc
  22. Bit of a accusatory tone there, I'm just spit balling ideas in the hope of generating discussion. As others have mentioned such an idea would only work if there was free education which was equally available. We currently have systems that do not allow most people to run for office due to the high cost of campaigns, we have growing voter apathy and people wanting change but seeing no way to get it. I actually don't see a change in the amount of votes or the quantity per person as fixing these issues, and would advocate for a system change to make things more inclusive as a better starting point. Wow, had never seen that before, what an amazingly rigged piece of junk writing. "write backwards forwards" just purely written to be confusing. I don't know if I could get that 100% correct and having to carefully re-read every question several times I doubt I'd finish in 10 mins.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.