Community > Posts By > shovelheaddave

 
shovelheaddave's photo
Wed 01/23/19 12:44 PM
I liked the first three seasons of it,but I will wait until the new series finishes,and then buy it on DVD so that I can binge watch the whole thing because I hate being teased with a cliffhanger.

shovelheaddave's photo
Tue 01/22/19 08:45 PM

Watched, was disappointed by outcome of both games


I totally agree with you!!

shovelheaddave's photo
Tue 01/22/19 08:39 PM
Edited by shovelheaddave on Tue 01/22/19 08:43 PM

There is now a lawsuit filed against the NFL over the missed calls on the two penalties that cost the new orleans saints the championship in the last seconds of last last sundays NFC championship game.

The two penalties in question was a pass interference penalty,and a helmet-to-helmet penalty in the final seconds of the game that even the NFL commissioner,roger goodall admits was 'a heinous non call that cost the saints the championship.'

Roger goodall DOES have the power to either change the outcome of the game,and give the win to the saints,or have them replay it,and judging by the amount of backlash that the NFL if now facing over the missed call by the referees in the game,[two of whom just happen to be from L.A. and have an obvious conflict of interest,and should not have been allowed to referee in the game],he is going to have to do Something to appease the fans,or face a massive boycott by them that will affect NFL deeply.

at the very least,the NFL will be forced to rewrite the rules pertaining to 'non challengeable calls to avoid this type of mistake in the future,but I don't think that just changing the rules will be enough to appease all of the fans who are outraged over these blatantly missed calls.

besides the lawsuit,there is also a petition on that currently has almost 3/4 of a million signatures,and is only expected to grow in number,as football fans get more and more outraged about these missed calls, requesting that the game be replayed to determine the true NFC champion.

I don't think that I am allowed to say the name of any other sites on this site,but if you would like to sign this petition,please google it,and sign it to support the CHANGE in the rules,and to ask that the game be replayed.

shovelheaddave's photo
Tue 01/22/19 08:20 PM
the rams only won because of a blatantly obvious missed call of pass interference,and helmet-to-helmet contact by the referees that cost the saints the championship,that even the NFL commissioner admits was a heinous non-call by the referees,so even if they DO happen to win the superbowl,they will still not be legitimate champions!!
[and,two of the referees just happen to be from los angeles,which appears to be an obvious conflict of interest on their part!]

at the very least.there will be an asterisk beside their name in the record book,but,if I were a rams fan,i wouldn't be counting my chickens as hatched quite yet,since there is now a lawsuit filed against the NFL by the saints/saints fans to have the game replayed to determine the TRUE NFC champions.

the NFL commissioner,roger goodall DOES have the power to either change the outcome of the game,or have it replayed,and,judging by the amount of public backlash against the NFL,including a petition with almost 3/4 of a million people signing it SO FAR,there is a good chance that he will have to do SOMETHING to appease the fans,or face a massive boycott by them.

at the very least,even if the rams do get to play in the superbowl,and happen to win it,they will not be considered the legitimate champions,and all anybody will be talking about is the blatantly missed call against he saints...NOT that the rams won!!!!

if anything good DOES happen to come out of this,it will be the fact that now the NFL will be forced to change their rules about 'non challengeable' calls,to ensure that this type of travesty does not happen again.

shovelheaddave's photo
Tue 01/22/19 05:26 PM





organizations and religions dont do 'evil' things, people do.

and power can corrupt PEOPLE anywhere they get it, it doesnt, to me, condemn an entire demographic or organization or religion of individuals, to find that some in power have become corrupt ...


like the old saying goes,power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

to try to claim that an organization that does evil things isn't evil just because a few people who don't hold any position of power in it don't do evil things is illogical!!

by that logic,the NAZIS weren't evil because oskar schindler saved a few jews from being executed.

when an institution like a religion is more concerned with controlling people,and staying in power at all costs,and does evil things in secret while it hides behind its position of power,that DOES make it evil,whether you want to admit it,or not.

if it were any organization besides institutionalized religion,we would criminally prosecute them under the RICO act for the things that they have done,but institutionalized religion puts itself ABOVE the law,and THAT is just one of the MANY reasons that institutionalized religion is evil.






NAZIS are not quite the same,

first, because the 'evil' part is defined by the actions of the individuals
second, because, as a group/organization, the ACTUAL promotion of evil was a part of being recognized in the group

so to say NAZIS were evil, is to generalize how the INDIVIDUALS were encouraged to and MOSTLY behaved.

this is not the true with religion, evil people are the outlier and not the basic tenet, philosophy, or encouragement for which the groups are created or run ...

to summarize, an institution can PROMOTE and ENCOURAGE people to do evil, and should be held accoutnable if that is the case

BUT

an institution is not accountable if there happen to be amongst them people that choose to exploit or promote/encourage their own agendas ,,, in which case only those individuals should be accountable


sorry,but I disagree with that!

when the people who are IN CHARGE of the organization use their position of power to do evil,and use their organization to knowingly assist the people doing the evil,and knowingly shield them from the consequences for their actions,and then knowingly allow them to continue to do the evil things that they are doing,then that organization IS evil,no matter what the people who are not in charge of that organization think or do.

its not like it is a few minor members of the organization,such as just someone who happens to attend a service,it is the people who are IN CHARGE who are committing these crimes,so your argument is invalid.

there is an overabundance of proof and public knowledge that the catholic church knowingly looks the other way when it comes to the pedophiles they have placed in a position of power,and then uses their organization to protect those pedophile priests from the consequences of their heinous crimes....

but,yet..all of those people who are members of that organization who might not be evil themselves do not do anything to change what their organization is doing are just as evil as the ones who are in charge of the organization,because they are enabling it to continue doing the things they do,and are publically ,and financialy supporting them.

because,if you do not openly oppose evil,then you are silently condoning it!!

if those people are indeed 'not evil',they they would withdraw themselves from participating in,and supporting that organization.

but,they don't,because they look the other way because supporting that organization is more important to them than trying to stop the horrors that that organization is committing.

supporting something that is inherently evil is just as bad as doing he evil yourself.




you posted "when the people who are IN CHARGE o"


the operative word here is the PEOPLE ... not the organization.

once again. the banking instutution has people in power who abuse that power (it calls for people to be in 'charge' to exploit that power, which I have already stated awareness that power corrupts PEOPLE)


That does not make the 'institution' evil. It is like saying a chair is evil. it cannot be. a chair is a tHING. there is not 'evil' without humans, because it takes humans making their own INDIVIDUAL choice to do evil for evil to exist.

as far as turning an eye. I also disagree. It is totally possible to want consequences for INDIVIDUALS doing wrong, and to want to continue to be included in all that is RIGHT within that same organization those individuals are involved with.

there is a difference between supporting what an INDIVIDUAL has done, which deserves consequence for that INDIVIDUAL

and supporting an organization, which is not responsible for the choices of the individuals who are a part of it UNLESS there is explicit instruction or guidelines requiring that/those actions


well,i believe that an organization or an institution is made up of the people who are in it,as without them,the institution could not exist,so we will just have to agree to disagree.

I did not mean for this to turn into a discussion of the evils that religion is responsible for...

only how ridiculous the idea of religion is,and how even more ridiculous some of them are,such as scientology,klingon,and jedi.

so,flowerforyou

shovelheaddave's photo
Tue 01/22/19 04:34 PM



organizations and religions dont do 'evil' things, people do.

and power can corrupt PEOPLE anywhere they get it, it doesnt, to me, condemn an entire demographic or organization or religion of individuals, to find that some in power have become corrupt ...


like the old saying goes,power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

to try to claim that an organization that does evil things isn't evil just because a few people who don't hold any position of power in it don't do evil things is illogical!!

by that logic,the NAZIS weren't evil because oskar schindler saved a few jews from being executed.

when an institution like a religion is more concerned with controlling people,and staying in power at all costs,and does evil things in secret while it hides behind its position of power,that DOES make it evil,whether you want to admit it,or not.

if it were any organization besides institutionalized religion,we would criminally prosecute them under the RICO act for the things that they have done,but institutionalized religion puts itself ABOVE the law,and THAT is just one of the MANY reasons that institutionalized religion is evil.






NAZIS are not quite the same,

first, because the 'evil' part is defined by the actions of the individuals
second, because, as a group/organization, the ACTUAL promotion of evil was a part of being recognized in the group

so to say NAZIS were evil, is to generalize how the INDIVIDUALS were encouraged to and MOSTLY behaved.

this is not the true with religion, evil people are the outlier and not the basic tenet, philosophy, or encouragement for which the groups are created or run ...

to summarize, an institution can PROMOTE and ENCOURAGE people to do evil, and should be held accoutnable if that is the case

BUT

an institution is not accountable if there happen to be amongst them people that choose to exploit or promote/encourage their own agendas ,,, in which case only those individuals should be accountable


sorry,but I disagree with that!

when the people who are IN CHARGE of the organization use their position of power to do evil,and use their organization to knowingly assist the people doing the evil,and knowingly shield them from the consequences for their actions,and then knowingly allow them to continue to do the evil things that they are doing,then that organization IS evil,no matter what the people who are not in charge of that organization think or do.

its not like it is a few minor members of the organization,such as just someone who happens to attend a service,it is the people who are IN CHARGE who are committing these crimes,so your argument is invalid.

there is an overabundance of proof and public knowledge that the catholic church knowingly looks the other way when it comes to the pedophiles they have placed in a position of power,and then uses their organization to protect those pedophile priests from the consequences of their heinous crimes....

but,yet..all of those people who are members of that organization who might not be evil themselves do not do anything to change what their organization is doing are just as evil as the ones who are in charge of the organization,because they are enabling it to continue doing the things they do,and are publically ,and financialy supporting them.

because,if you do not openly oppose evil,then you are silently condoning it!!

if those people are indeed 'not evil',they they would withdraw themselves from participating in,and supporting that organization.

but,they don't,because they look the other way because supporting that organization is more important to them than trying to stop the horrors that that organization is committing.

supporting something that is inherently evil is just as bad as doing he evil yourself.


shovelheaddave's photo
Mon 01/21/19 06:06 AM

organizations and religions dont do 'evil' things, people do.

and power can corrupt PEOPLE anywhere they get it, it doesnt, to me, condemn an entire demographic or organization or religion of individuals, to find that some in power have become corrupt ...


like the old saying goes,power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

to try to claim that an organization that does evil things isn't evil just because a few people who don't hold any position of power in it don't do evil things is illogical!!

by that logic,the NAZIS weren't evil because oskar schindler saved a few jews from being executed.

when an institution like a religion is more concerned with controlling people,and staying in power at all costs,and does evil things in secret while it hides behind its position of power,that DOES make it evil,whether you want to admit it,or not.

if it were any organization besides institutionalized religion,we would criminally prosecute them under the RICO act for the things that they have done,but institutionalized religion puts itself ABOVE the law,and THAT is just one of the MANY reasons that institutionalized religion is evil.




shovelheaddave's photo
Sun 01/20/19 09:35 PM

of course there are no absolutes that apply to everyone but speaking for THIS Christian

I think many who slam religion are fearful of the reality of 'consequence'.

a consequence is a reaction from an action, and can be a good desirable thing or bad undesirable thing. If I were to tell someone that selling cocaine could wind them in jail, do I want them to be scared? Maybe? But does that mean what I am saying is not a TRUE CONSEQUENCE? No. Is a warning not a way to inform people of things they may be afraid of? Yes. So, the idea that religion or any other belief that explains good and bad is merely about 'controlling with fear', misses the mark in my opinion.

another point that misses the mark is that although I am sure some go through life from a place of paranoia and 'fear', there are others who use logic that also are capable of rightfully 'fearing' what could be dangerous or harmful. This presence of the capability of fear is quite different than the weakness of being 'controlled' by it. The story about the tree, for those looking to criticize, may be interpreted as proof that 'knowledge' and religion cannot co exist. For those looking more deeply, it may be another story about REALITY., that the more we know the more we are held accountable for what we know, and the REALITY that poor choices can have negative consequences.

As I said before, I cannot speak for all Christians, we are individuals first all coming from different individual perspectives. but I and other Christians I know dont harbor on Hell nearly as much as religious critics seem to. In fact, my faith is about trust and not fear. Id compare it to the trust in Parents who have provided and sacrificed and more than shown their love for you. They may discipline you for different things, and the world beyond them will DEFINITELY punish you for choices outside its rules. But the bond of trust in the love that motivates your parents (at least for me) causes a reciprocal interest in 'giving' back to them through your actions, including the terrible 'obedience' that so many rebel against, which also comes from trusting that they have lived longer, might know more, and have these 'rules' for good reason.



speaking for yourself,you have a valid opinion about what YOU personally believe,but you are only speaking for an individual,not for the concept of RELIGION as an institution,which is something that is on a totally different level than a single individual's opinion,and is governed by a totally different agenda,as the institution is bigger than any single person,and is more concerned with the big picture.

because,when you look at the bigger picture,i am sorry to say that your opinions are not the norm to the people who are actually in a position of power,and are more concerned with staying in that position of power,no matter what the cost.

just look at the 'office' of the pope,and the catholic church....
they are the ones who sent the crusaders out to 'convert' anybody who was not 'christian' by force,and they were willing to send hundreds of thousands of people to die in meaningless battles trying to expand their flock at all costs.

BUT,since they were killing off their followers,they decreed that birth control was 'an affront to god',and all of the followers should have as many children as they possibly could,lest their numbers shrink,and they would lose the power that they enjoyed.

TO THIS DAY,the catholic church still decrees that any form of birth control is a sin,and they go into the worst AIDS infected regions of the world,and tells them that if they use condoms to stop the spread of this terrible deadly disease that 'it will make jesus cry'.

I think THAT is pretty strong proof that they do not care about the welfare of people....only in bringing as many worshippers into their church to increase their numbers,and their power to control things in this mortal world at all costs.

and,if you dig further into the POLITICS that are practiced by the Vatican,unfortunately,you will discover A WHOLE LOT MORE things that prove that they do not care very much about their worshippers...
only in staying in a position of power at all costs,whether it is allying themselves with the NAZI party during WW2,and allowing them to both shelter themselves,and their stolen wealth in their 'off limits' areas,to giving shelter,and protection to child molesting priests,just to name a couple of things.

and THEY are pretty much the largest religious organization on the planet!!
seems that there isn't much difference in them,and any other power hungry organization,doesnt it??

so,please tell me how an organization that does such evil things has only the best interests of its followers at heart,or is good or healthy for humanity.

because,while there ARE LOTS of individuals like you who do not have evil in their hearts,and truly believe in the good parts of what religion is SUPPOSED to be,they are not the ones in a position of power who directs what their agendas ACTUALLY are behind the scenes,and out of sight of the masses.

shovelheaddave's photo
Sun 01/20/19 09:36 AM
Edited by shovelheaddave on Sun 01/20/19 09:47 AM

I find that most of the bigger, well-known religions are VERY effective at doing what they are meant to do.
Religions bring order to chaos.
They give a person focus of thought.
They establish protocols that promote unity (within the religion).
For the very suggestible, they give a person a purpose for living, a quest for life and comfort in death.
Yes, religions, for the most part, are very effective social constructs.

The problems rise when the person finds what they need within the reality around them.
Religions are most effective on people that have a fear of the unknown.
When someone gains the ability to understand the reality of the life they live and the capacity to make planned actions to manipulate that reality the effectiveness of religion loses its power.
The tree of knowledge truly does threaten God.
The more you understand about reality the less the religion persuades you to act against your own endeavors. Hence, the less religion has control over how you think, believe.

As communication gets more widespread, people gain more and more understanding of how things actually work in real life. As this happens, knowledge threatens religion and religion needs to change accordingly or be left behind.
People don't have the fears they used to.
The things religions were used for in the past, are no longer effective because the target audience is more intelligent.

In a perfect religion, nobody asks "Why?".

Its obvious that Scientology and all those 'other' religions you scratch your head about provides something to their followers that they can't find within themselves.


I think that you hit the nail on the head when you say that religion works best on people who are frightened!!

because religion is based on trying to make people afraid of what will happen to them,either here on the mortal plane,and especially in the 'afterlife' if they do not blindly accept,and follow a religion's doctrines.

anybody that knows anything about even the most basic psychology knows that anytime somebody tries to frighten you,or make you afraid of something,they are trying to control you,and that is the true purpose of religion...to try to control people for its own purposes,and keep it in a position of power.

it is not worried about your 'soul'..religion NEEDS people to do its bidding for it,because when a religion loses its worshippers,it loses its POWER,and its ability to influence people to do the things that it wants done to KEEP it in a position of power,which is the main goal of ANY religion.

just look back at the 'crusades',and all of the religious wars that were fought,where each religion threw HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of its followers against each other to be killed off 'in the name of god',in an effort to advance the power that it controlled by FORCING people in other areas to adopt their own views,and become followers of it,so it could become more powerful,no matter what the cost.

if their 'god' was REALLY everything that they claim it is,they would not need to FORCE people to become followers to have power,because their 'god' would give that power to them if what they were claiming was true.
but (for SOME reason),no matter what a religion CLAIMS,he/she/it DOESNT give them any powers...it has to take its power strictly by the number or worshippers that it can control,without any divine interventions.

every time you research a religion,you can find where they have done everything that they possibly could to do things that both CONTROL PEOPLE,and grow the level of power that they are so desperate to keep,and FEAR is the only tool that they have in their arsenal to do it.

and,as you pointed out,knowledge is the true enemy of a religion,because,once a person has the knowledge to see through the ridiculous claims of a religion,they lose their fear of it,because they see it for what it is,and the religion no longer has any power over them.

[that's why adam&eve were banished from the garden of eden...because they ate the fruit from he tree of knowledge,which is about as apt of a metaphor as you can get to prove that knowledge and religion can not coexist in the same space,because the power of knowledge is greater than the power of ANY 'god'!]

shovelheaddave's photo
Sat 01/19/19 02:59 PM
and,lets not forget about a couple of the more recent ones to pop up,and become a GENUINE, RECOGNIZED religions,such as

JEDI
[which we all know is from a little science fiction movie called 'STAR WARS']

and
KLINGON
[which we all know is from a science fiction TV series called 'STAR TREK' from the 60's]

but,even though they are a product of science fiction,they are both now RECOGNIZED RELIGIONS!!

it makes the idea of 'religion' sound ridiculous,doesnt it???

shovelheaddave's photo
Sat 01/19/19 02:52 PM
Edited by shovelheaddave on Sat 01/19/19 03:12 PM

aren't ALL religions fake??

not to mention EXTREMELY dangerous to society??

cuz,after all most of the wars that have ever been fought on this planet have had some sort of religious overtones to them,and MILLIONS/BILLIONS of people have been hurt and killed over somebody trying to prove that THEIR god has a bigger *@#* than the other persons god of choice!!
[of which there are THOUSANDS of them to choose from!!!!]


I would post a list of all of the gods/religions that have existed on this planet,but it would crash the internet,because there are SO MANY of them!!
[here is a link to a PARTIAL list,if you want to do your own research into how many different gods/religons there are.]
http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm


I know...I know...ALL of those OTHER RELIGIONS that OTHER people believe in are ridiculously absurd fantasies that nobody in their right mind could possibly fall for,or believe in,but YOURS is real,right?

shovelheaddave's photo
Fri 01/18/19 09:02 PM


HHHMMMMmmmmmm.......

a religion that was started by a science fiction/fantasy writer who actually wrote a book on what he would do if he started a religion....??????


I DO have to admit,though...

it makes JUST AS MUCH sense as the belief that a jewish zombie that was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh,and telepathically accept him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because the rib woman was convinced by the talking snake to eat from the magical tree!!!

I think that the simple fact that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY of 'gods',or 'supreme beings' exist,except for the fact that a HUMAN BEING who has NEVER met or seen them,or even KNOWS anybody that knows anybody that knows anybody that knows anybody [TIMES A MILLION!!] who has ever met,or seen them tells you that they are real pretty much disproves ALL religions,doesnt it?
[including scientology!!]

I can tell you that the sky is green,and that fire doesn't REALLY burn you if you sit down in it and go to sleep,but,even if I write a book claiming that,and get a 100 million other people to repeat this story,that STILL doesn't mean that it is true.
it just means that there are 100 million people out there who are repeating something thst they heard FROM ANOTHER HUMAN BEING who has an overactive imagination,and is probably trying to manipulate you for their own purposes.
[like L Ron Hubbard!!]




shovelheaddave's photo
Tue 01/15/19 10:26 AM
contrary to what the OP would have you believe,this shutdown is ENTIRELY on Donald trump!!!!

and,unfortunately for HIM,he claimed it,and owned it on camera,so anybody who doesn't have the attention span of a goldfish wont believe his lies when he tries to pass the buck off on to somebody else,so he doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions,like he has done for his entire life.

and,he will not hesitate to continue to behave like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum to try to get his way,because that is what he has done for his entire life,and can not comprehend acting in any other way,no matter who else it hurts,because other people's pain does not matter to him,because he is ONLY focuses on what HE wants.

and,i guess I oan't blame trump's supporters for trying to PRETEND like the reality of this shutdown isn't entirely on the shoulders of the person that THEY elected,and want to support,at all costs,no matter WHO it hurts...

I would be too ashamed to admit it too!!!!

but,the moral of this story is...when you double down on stupidity,even when you WIN,the prize is STLL STUPIDITY!!!

[even RATS have enough common sense to leave a sinking ship!!! ]




shovelheaddave's photo
Sat 01/12/19 07:19 AM
I dont think that this comes as a shock to too many people.

the big question now is what sort of train wreck of a calamity trump is going to manufacture now to try to distract people's attention away from this.

shovelheaddave's photo
Fri 01/11/19 08:35 AM





Nothing at all wrong with that, soon we will be the minority


yes,we will,so you had better not forget the way that we are now treating anybody who is a different color than we are,cuz the shoe is about to be on the other foot,and people tend to have long memories when it come to people who have treated them badly in the past.



anybody who has to ASK what is wrong with being a white supremacist,or white nationalist DEFINITELY does not need to be in charge of anything,or hold any elected office,though.

I don't think that I need to explain the reasoning behind THAT statement,but if anybody doesn't understand it,please don't hesitate to ask,so we will know who you are.


I think nationalist leaves more gray area than supremacist

nationalist: a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.


I think the term is interchangable with 'patriot'. I wont say how I feel about the words, just how I see them relating to each other.


Supremacist though, someone who feels their mere existence automatically makes them superior, is a term that makes me think of bigots and small minded folk that dont have their own merits to stand on.





I think that being a 'nationalist' is A LOT different that being a 'WHITE nationalist'!!!

the use of that one little descriptive adjective changes the whole meaning from one who is a proponent of their nation,to one that is a proponent of ONLY a nation of WHITE people.

otherwise,why did they feel the need to use the word 'white' in their description of themselves?

I think it is pretty self explanatory,withut he grey that you are talking about,because these people are actually PROUD of being racists,and bigots!

[if you dont believe me,just ask them!! I am sure that anybody who claims that they are a 'white nationalist' will be perfectly happy to tell you their beliefs!!!]


perhaps.

I was looking at it that it could mean a nationalist who is also white, like a tall nationalist or a short nationalist, an adjective only

but those self defined may not be using it in that context.




this is the definition of nationalism...

"nationalism. (noun.) Devotion, especially excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals."

when you add 'white' to the description,it implies that you are not just devoted to the interests and culture of a nation,but to the interests and culture of a WHITE nation,forsaking all other colors,otherwise,there would obviously be no need to add that adjective to explain what you mean.





shovelheaddave's photo
Thu 01/10/19 09:46 PM



Nothing at all wrong with that, soon we will be the minority


yes,we will,so you had better not forget the way that we are now treating anybody who is a different color than we are,cuz the shoe is about to be on the other foot,and people tend to have long memories when it come to people who have treated them badly in the past.



anybody who has to ASK what is wrong with being a white supremacist,or white nationalist DEFINITELY does not need to be in charge of anything,or hold any elected office,though.

I don't think that I need to explain the reasoning behind THAT statement,but if anybody doesn't understand it,please don't hesitate to ask,so we will know who you are.


I think nationalist leaves more gray area than supremacist

nationalist: a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.


I think the term is interchangable with 'patriot'. I wont say how I feel about the words, just how I see them relating to each other.


Supremacist though, someone who feels their mere existence automatically makes them superior, is a term that makes me think of bigots and small minded folk that dont have their own merits to stand on.





I think that being a 'nationalist' is A LOT different that being a 'WHITE nationalist'!!!

the use of that one little descriptive adjective changes the whole meaning from one who is a proponent of their nation,to one that is a proponent of ONLY a nation of WHITE people.

otherwise,why did they feel the need to use the word 'white' in their description of themselves?

I think it is pretty self explanatory,withut he grey that you are talking about,because these people are actually PROUD of being racists,and bigots!

[if you dont believe me,just ask them!! I am sure that anybody who claims that they are a 'white nationalist' will be perfectly happy to tell you their beliefs!!!]

shovelheaddave's photo
Thu 01/10/19 09:34 PM
the republicans are so insecure about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,and so DESPERATE to try to find ANY sort of dirt on her that they possible can that NOW they are stealing naked bathtub pictures pictures of OTHER PEOPLE off of the internet,and trying to claim that they are her to try to undermine her reputation,and take some of her momentum away from her!!!

unfortunately for them,they are ALSO SO INCOMPETENT that they are using pictures that the people who they actually belong to are publically coming out and owning them because they recognize them as being THEIR pictures,and not naked bathtub pictures of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!!!

when the opposition goes to THAT MUCH trouble to try to undermine somebody,you know that they have to be ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of their chances if they have to face her in any upcoming elections!!!!





shovelheaddave's photo
Thu 01/10/19 09:20 PM

Nothing at all wrong with that, soon we will be the minority


yes,we will,so you had better not forget the way that we are now treating anybody who is a different color than we are,cuz the shoe is about to be on the other foot,and people tend to have long memories when it come to people who have treated them badly in the past.



anybody who has to ASK what is wrong with being a white supremacist,or white nationalist DEFINITELY does not need to be in charge of anything,or hold any elected office,though.

I don't think that I need to explain the reasoning behind THAT statement,but if anybody doesn't understand it,please don't hesitate to ask,so we will know who you are.

shovelheaddave's photo
Thu 01/10/19 04:33 PM
Iowa Republican Representative Steve King is once again facing criticism after he defended white nationalism and white supremacy in an interview. "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?" King said to The New York Times. "Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?"

King's comments come as he is facing a primary challenge in 2020 from state Sen. Randy Feenstra. King fended off a challenge from Democrat J.D. Scholten in 2018, although he won by a narrower margin than he has in the past.

In the interview, King credits himself with President Trump's shift to his own hardline views on immigration. "Donald Trump came to Iowa as a real nonideological candidate," King said. He recalled telling Mr. Trump, "I market-tested your immigration policy for 14 years, and that ought to be worth something." King in the past has shown a model of a 12-foot border wall he had designed on the House floor.

King, 69, has attained notoriety for statements and positions that appeal to white nationalists. King has lost support from a number of prominent corporate donors, and the state's Republican governor has also spoken out against him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
^
THIS is just one of the MANY reasons why the republican party has become a cancer to the united states!!!

It is a party controlled by insecure old white men who use it as a platform to spread their hatred from,and continue to keep it a part of,and influence our government.

I am sure that there are republican supporters out there who will try to claim that this sick individual does not represent them,or their views,but until the republican party is ready to take action,and sanction the members of their party who share these antisocial views,including our current president,,and drive them out of politics,they are just as guilty as he is for giving them a platform to use to spread this hatred of everyone who isn't white.


as the old saying goes,you are known by the company that you keep.
[or,vote for!],and anyone who continues to support the party who gives a voice and a platform to white supremacists/white nationalists may as well start burning crosses,because if you aren't doing something to put a stop to this sort of behavior that is so harmful to society,then YOU are part of the problem,too,whether you want to admit it,ot not!!

if you do not openly oppose behavior like this from members of your party,then you are silently condoning it.
so if you REALLY want to 'make America great again',get rid of all of the members of your party who continue to keep racism alive and well,and a part of our government,otherwise,be prepared for people to keep continuing to judge YOU just like they are judging THEM!!


shovelheaddave's photo
Thu 01/10/19 02:33 PM
considering how many citizens of this country that trump has thrown under the bus so that he can play president,and suck up to his masters over at FAUXnews,[MANY OF THEM supporters of his],you can probably expect even MORE people to need assistance,since all of these people who were living paycheck-to-paycheck have blown through what little savings they have just to survive,and are now basically just as bad off as the lowest people in the country.

[and are being FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY,while trump keeps digging them deeper and deeper,forcing them to choose between feeding their families,or putting gas in their cars so the can go to work for free.]



2 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 25