sherpa

One thing I've noticed about those countries, and though no expert I've been to Stockholm many times. is that they have a very homogeneous population up until now. Nowhere near the cultural diversity that exists in Western European countries or the US.

Clearly, Toyota is considering it. They just released a prototype hydrogen powered pickup/SUV. They already have car. Hydrogen powered Toyota pickup

Weaken our military? 3400 servicemembers have been released over this. The vaccine doesn't stop transmission, and the value of this to very young people is limited. Retention and recruitment are bigger issues. It is time to end this.

Eliminating this vaccine mandate is a really good idea.

I'll use a quote from you in the "How much did you pay....." thread. From Chef Jim: "Thanks for the advice but I don’t need any advice." "

Trump's comments regarding the Charlottesville events: "Speaking from the Diplomatic Reception Room in the White House Monday afternoon, Trump said plainly that “racism is evil” and that members of the Ku Klux Klan, neo Nazis and white supremacists are “repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans." https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remarks-transcript/ " The post the states that Trump really said, "There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/ My point is this: When Trump made the comment about good people on both sides, he was not talking about neo-Nazis or white supremacist's. He made that point twice. People uninterested in the truth continue to puke that out for political reasons, but it is absolutely false. The protest "two sides" were those who didn't want the Lee statue torn down, and those who did. There were certainly good people on both sides. What occurred was that right wing extremists from out of town showed up in town late week, and had an idiotic torch march through the UVA grounds. That action was despised by locals, so the fuse was set for the Sat event. THe guy who killed the young woman with his car, who was tried and convicted and sentenced to life here, was from Ohio. For bona fides, I live here and am very familiar with the events, all of them. In fact, on that Sat. morning, I was driving home and saw the entire group of lunatics in all their stupid hate-fit clothes as they gathered and staged for the protest on the County Office Building parking lot. I was among about a dozen cars stopped as the police allowed them to cross a major street to get to the protest site just prior to the incident. I remember getting home and telling my wife that after seeing these lunatics, that I had a very bad feeling about that afternoon. Either way, there were good people on both sides of the remove/don't remove the statue issue, and lunacy on a grand scale regarding other statues has ensued, but that's another story. Just to inoculate myself from those here who cannot resist making false claims of some imagined allegiance, I can't stand Trump. Never voted for him and never would, nor Biden or Clinton, by the way. My disdain for him began in 1989 when I became familiar with a forensic accounting report that came about during his attempt as a takeover of a company. It was then that I figured out how loose his operation played with accounting. He has a juvenile vocabulary and is incapable of speaking without needlessly being cruel, classless and unnecessarily angering reasonable people. He is also a gross exaggerator to the point of hilarity. Either way, in no way did he say there were "good people" in the white supremacist or neo nazi groups that day. That is a lie told so often people believe it, as happens with a lot of lies.

Who is defending Trump's antisemtism?

Since you didn't answer the question I asked in quoting your post at * this morning, I'll ask again. Who did he say were "good people?"

I would appreciate it if you would explain your claim here, with names.

I expect the arrival of good war weather in May has more to with this issue than the economist's analysis.

The wishes of a gay couple do not compel a requirement that their union be sanctioned by a formal acknowledgement of it. If some want to, so be it. They can find that venue without problem. Regarding your lack of belief, which i have no problem with, I would refer you to the exact claim, made by Jesus, that people are not equipped to handle it. Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

The issue here is what it always is. The events that I reference are recorded in the Bible, specifically, in the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is accredited to Luke, the physician. It goes into great detail regarding the events after the crucifixion that I referred to. If someone discredits the veracity of the Bible, which is assuredly your posture, it is a fool's errand to have the discussion. I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, but I have spent a good deal of time and effort in this, and I have my beliefs based on that.

As it should be.

Have you ever looked into this? Have you seen what happened after the crucifixion? If those events happened today, as you suggest, I would pay attention. I get that you don't acknowledge this, and I'm fine without arguing with people who don't. That question doesn't make sense. Nothing unusual there. I have no view on gay marriage. I have a view that faith based organizations should have the right to not perform that ceremony.

Good that your "goofin," 'cause it saves me time from posting numerous extrabiblical references.

It isn't obvious to you? There is no claim by anybody, anywhere, that those people rely on religion to guide their moral compass.

There's pretty solid proof.

An absolutely asinine claim. There is no insecurity. Not even remotely close. Just a completely stupid assertion.

So have I, and studied the issue for years, far more time than I spent on my undergraduate degree. I'm quite comfortable with my conclusions, and I continue study the issue.

Think about that for a second.

I fully get your point. Everyone who has ever studied Scripture has considered this. You judge as "archaic" something that you consider a work of fiction. I don't, and I've spent many years considering and studying it. It isn't an easy issue, but if one starts from the point of view that humans really don't have infinite wisdom, or anything even close, it is understandable. Humans are to love one another, as all are products of a loving God who asks that we do in order to experience the true joy that was intended for us. Read First John, not the Gospel of John, but First John. It's only five chapters or so. Tough to understand without guidance and a bit of knowledge of Greek and how it was originally written, but clearly, we are to love one another. Sanctioning any marriage, no matter who is involved, is not the criteria for loving one another.

With respect, you aren't getting this. Their love is not invalid. Loving is a requirement for fellowship with Christ, and it doesn't mandate who. That, in no way, compels a faith to perform a marriage ceremony not in concert with their beliefs, derived from their interpretation of Scripture. Either way, we are to love others.

Of course they are "allowed to love each other." That love, and the love that others have for them does not have to be validated by a religious ceremony. The refusal to perform same sex marriages does not invalidate any love.

I'm not sure this is a correct viewpoint. Jesus' message to love is incontrovertible. There is nothing preventing people from being loved or loving simply because Scripture interpretation causes various faiths to not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex. They love and are loved regardless. Those faiths have nothing to do with a secular gov's recognition.

How the hell would you know? By your own admission, you didn't read it. It is a preposterous question to ask how the price of something as volatile as oil was effected by a President, who during his campaign stated that he was going to end the domestic production means, and thus the supply, of that very item. Might as well ask for a prediction of gold prices based on FTX bankruptcy. Simply impossible to accurately suggest. Biden saying he was going to end drilling had a significant impact on oil prices, which are emotional and volatile as always. Him then begging the Saudis to not impact OPEC's production numbers, or at least not do so until after the elections, is a further embarrassment, though by now, he probably doesn't remember it.