Jump to content

cle23

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cle23

  1. Did you really just attribute this guy's death to a COVID vaccine with literally no evidence that he was even vaccinated? No where in that article does it say he was recently vaccinated, or vaccinated at all. I lost both of my parents in 13 month to COVID. The fact that people like you make it out as some giant joke shows you haven't seen it first hand. The ER doctor for my mother explained to my brothers and I on why it is such an odd situation. COVID itself is the same (different strands obviously) but each person's body's reaction to it is what causes such a wide range of problems. Some people's bodies overreact to it and it causes serious inflammation, especially in the lungs. Others' bodies don't and they are mostly fine. I had it the week of Christmas and was basically just extremely tired for 2 days and then felt mostly fine. My mother was on a BPAP for almost a week before they put her on a ventilator. She's went up and down the next 2 weeks with the inflammation worsening and getting better until her body couldn't handle it anymore. COVID is "just a flu" for a lot of people, and for a lot of people it's a life or death situation. I love how 99% of doctors can agree on the treatments and prevention, and then everyone who disagrees will latch onto the random Youtuber who "shows" it's all fake. I can promise you from 1st hand experience that it is not fake,a nd not a joke.
  2. Yes, the definition existed before, and it encompasses all "types" of marriage in it's very definition. Why do we need to make it more complicated by making a separate word when this one covers it?
  3. It doesn't solve anything, and it hurts in the sense of making a separate word for the sole purpose of exclusion. There is no need for a separate word if the union (marriage) means the same thing. Also, here is the Webster definition: Definition of marriage a: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b: the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effectedespecially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3: an intimate or close union, the marriage of painting and poetry— J. T. Shawcross So, this definition covers everyone. Nothing in it that differentiates same sex or "traditional" marriage.
  4. I understand where you are coming from, but why make an effort make separate words for the same thing? The whole point is for exclusion at that point. There is a word for it already. Just use it and be done with it.
  5. Most people don't call it gay marriage. I personally know 2 couples that got "gay married." Neither invited people to their "gay wedding", just to their wedding. Why make a new word for something that functions exactly the same for everyone?
  6. Hmm, an average of 1 murder per 135,568 people in Japan, compared to 1 murder per 15,146 people in the US.
  7. If the word means so much to you, why shouldn't it mean something to gay people as well? Also, no religious institutions are forced to perform gay marriages. As long as marriage is a term used in the government's recognition of a union, and at this point why would they change it, then everyone union should be called marriage.
  8. To be fair, Mayfield did plenty of charity work as well. He raised tons of money, especially for Providence House in Cleveland.
  9. I am not defending Watson here as I have no idea what happened or didn't happen, but nothing in that article says forced. Again, all of these allegations are he said/ she said. When you have 24+, obviously that lends itself to say that SOMETHING happened, but the details of the allegations are hard to confirm. But saying she was teary eyed doesn't mean she was forced. She may have been. That's up to the investigators/police to determine.
  10. Van Pelt is the Browns OC. How are the Panthers getting him?
  11. Yes, but also not putting money into his own pocket while doing so. Trump was shady even while vacationing, way over charging the SS for rooms while gone. Presidential vacation times have spiraled out of control in recent years, though most can still work while not in the WH.
  12. Go back to when the trade happened, or even before the trade happened. I didn't want the Browns to trade for Watson. Still wished they hadn't. It sounds like he is a sick dude. What does anything I said in the posts you quoted have to do with any of the victims? I have never defended Watson the person. Cleveland structured the new big money contracts with Garrett, Ward, Teller, and others in the same way. The Bills did it with Allen. The Chiefs did it with Mahomes. With the salary cap exploding, most teams are using low cap numbers now to push the cap hits down the road, where the number will presumably be much higher.
  13. Yes, Allen and Mahomes contracts are structured the exact same way.
  14. Again, this has been discussed a hundred times, the Browns structured ALL of their recent contracts like that. Most teams do. Kick the can down the road. Josh Allen's contract had a salary of $920,000 last year. $4.1 million this year. Mahomes was $820,000 and then $990,000. You can be upset/disgusted about the allegations, but stop trying to say that the contract was structed that was simply because of the accusations.
  15. Dan Snyder was accused of sexual assault, 6 times I believe. The NFL Personal Conduct Policy calls for HARSHER punishments for owners. And so far absolutely nothing has happened to him, at all. Last year, the Texans refused to play him as well, even if he had wanted to.
  16. The fact that people want the suspension to be longer not because of what allegedly happened, but because of a contract, is pretty messed up to start with. What does the contract have to do with any of it?
  17. Where the NFL is going to have issues, and where I'm sure Watson's attorneys will focus, is the lack of discipline that the NFL imposed on owners accused of the same or very similar things. Granted Watson's accusation totals are higher, but Dan Snyder has several accusations as well and the NFL has done literally nothing. Kraft had some issues. And the NFL did absolutely nothing. And NFL's own policy states that owner's should be held to a higher standard than even the players.
  18. So now it's Biden's fault Russia invaded Ukraine, a country as previously stated, they have been occupying portions of for over 10 years. You guys are something else.
  19. And again, it is political because this is the only issue they stand like this against. Do they ask every person who enters what their beliefs are? Are they questioned in regards to their pasts? What happened to a vast majority of the Catholic priests accused of child sexual assault? Nothing. In fact, many were promoted or simply moved elsewhere after the accusations where they could just simply start over on a new group of kids. If they single out 2 politicians as suggested, and no one else, that is 100% political.
  20. Let's be clear as to what this meant to start with. "The law did not allow non-citizens to vote in state or federal elections." "The law allowed legal residents, including those with green cards, to vote in municipal elections starting in 2023." No one was voting in the Presidential election as a non citizen. And everyone was here legally.
  21. My original comment was in regards to someone saying they were fine with the Catholic Church denying people like Biden and Pelosi communion. I said at that point, it would obviously be political. You can't pick out one point and make that your rallying cry, and then ignore all other things. And I think the church should accept people with varying backgrounds as people change and improve all the time, but what makes their stance on this different from all the other people they serve who have dark backgrounds? The Catholic Church has no business being high and mighty in regards to the unborn when they (not all obviously) actively engaged in sexual abuse on tens of thousands of living, breathing children, and the higher ups knew and covered it up. My whole premise is they can do and feel as they like within the law, but when they start injecting themselves into politics, by definition, that changes their tax exempt status.
  22. Again, that's fine. They can have whatever position they want on it, but that doesn't change the tax exempt status they currently enjoy, and whether or not they should still receive it. It's like freedom of speech. You can say/do almost anything you want, but that does not mean that there can't be consequences. Just that the government can't arrest you for it. Same thing applies here. They can hold that position, it's not illegal. But they should lose tax exempt status if they want to dip their foot into politics and make political statements. How is it ok to deny communion for this situation and then freely give it out otherwise, to a pile of other people who have done or stood for worse?
  23. This is direct off the IRS religious tax exempt status: To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication): - the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes; - no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation; - the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; Denying communion based off of politics seems to be in conflict with 1, and at least probably with 2. Also, no one is denying them the free exercise of. Revoking tax exempt status has nothing to do with stopping them from exercising their beliefs.
  24. Right, and that is 100% political at that point, and the church should be denied tax exempt status. The catholic church covered up and enabled thousands of pedophile priests, but suddenly this is the breaking point? People who lie, cheat, steal? Murderers have been born again and aren't denied the same. If the line you draw as a church is political, then they are entering the political world, and tax exempt status should be revoked. Just the same as gay marriage. No church who disagrees with gay marriage should be forced to perform a gay marriage, but the second a church tries to prevent a gay marriage in the eyes of the government, then it's political.
  25. The first time a church says it will deny communion to anyone who agrees with abortion is the time that church should lose all tax exempt status. I am not saying a church should support it as I understand why they wouldn't, but if Jesus can forgive the criminal hanging next to him on the cross, then it is not the church's place to pass judgement and deny people for things the church disagrees with. If the church wants to be political, it can pay taxes like anyone else.
×
×
  • Create New...