jerryskids

It's kind of based, at least for you Jew haters. I figured you'd smell this discussion out. You are like a moth to a Jew hating flame.

What word or phrase would you prefer? Something like "person experiencing Jew hating?"

Summary: It's not the Jews, it's Israel. And here are 4 reasons why Jews suck. They hate non-Jews. Their religion is wrong. They killed Jesus two millenia ago. They own the banks. But it's Israel! You've become an antisemite, just own it. Read the article I linked. Learn a little about yourself.

Cited for driving 101 in a 60. https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nfl/2025/06/18/shedeur-sanders-speeding-cleveland-browns-qb-driving-101-mph-ticket/84266290007/

As a person who fancies himself trying to improve the positive vibrations of the universe, have you introspectively asked yourself how you've come to become an antisemite? Really, back room deal with some country to attack them? Really? Is that from 4chan, TikTok? Here is an interesting read to what has happened to you, and @Cdub100, and several other posters here. And a lot of other "conservatives." https://www.thefp.com/p/rod-dreher-the-woke-right-is-coming I hope you read at least part of it and give it some thought.

Eh, 5th round pick, it was worth a shot. Not like #1 overall.

More for me!

If it hasn't been posted yet: Barrett, Thomas, and Alito issued concurring opinions which further argued that transgenders are not a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class", including adults: https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-unexpected-move-supreme-court-2087851

Not even close.

This. Also, slightly crispy. Just enough stiffen it up like Bunny's cack at a Weight Watchers convention, but still chewy to the bite.

Got it, thanks.

I know right?! Here in AZ last I knew, 20 over becomes a criminal offense. The officer might knock it down to a ticket if it is in the 20s and you are polite, but 40+? I highly doubt it.

Here is what Kirk said in your link: That is full racist?

First of all, that is non-responsive. The question was what Israel should do to eliminate Hamas. You basically gave me a derivative of what I said: "... not this$#@!" Also, you know UNRWA aids Hamas, right? https://www.google.com/search?q=unrwa+supporting+hamas&oq=unrwa+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggBECMYJzIHCAAQABiPAjIGCAEQIxgnMgcIAhAAGIAEMgcIAxAAGIAEMgcIBBAAGIAEMgcIBRAAGIAEMgcIBhAAGIAEMgcIBxAAGIAEMgcICBAAGIAEMgcICRAAGIAE0gEINTE1NWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 That's why Israel went out of its way to bypass the UNRWA to provide aid... to the country whose leadership they are at war with. It's also why Hamas went apoplectic -- they want the old model wherein UNRWA brings them the aid, they keep most for themselves, then they send out more pictures of starving Gazans for the Left to slurp up. Israel cares more about the welfare of the Palestinian people than Hamas. Fact.

Like I said, clearly you know better than Khomeini, so I'm sure he'll call Trump's bluff. I mean, 60 days didn't mean anything, right? I gotta hand it to you Lefties, this "Taco" thing has a certain brilliance, sorta like "Climate Change." Whatever happens, you'll give Trump shiot.

Mmm hmm... and what pray tell should he be doing instead in Gaza, to eliminate Hamas? I've asked the Left this before many times; at best I get some version of "I don't know but not this$#@!"

Taco from what? His commitment to drop the bunker busters? He gave Iran 60 days to negotiate. What happened on day 61? Now he's given them 2 weeks (allegedly, I'm going by the comment here). What happens on day 15? You may be a jeenius negotiator and foreign policy expert from your cubicle, so what do you think Khomeini thinks? Your brain is so garbled by your TDS that you can't have a serious discussion on this.

What is an example of something he might do if Iran surrenders? You know he can destroy Tehran or any major population center today, if he wants.

@TimHauck, I'm at my desk so here is a summary: The instructor was a biology professor and nominally Lutheran, although he said he associates more with Buddhism on this topic (perhaps explained at the end). He started by presuming there is often a dichotomy of hard core people on both sides who refuse to see the other side. The religious side, he mostly conflated with Christianity. [Side note: he referred this side as "MAGA" which I found at best lazy and at worst bigoted. At one point he said "believe it or not I have a harder time discussing this with the hard-core science folks vs. MAGA," I presume because MAGA folks are stoopid. More side note: this was at a retirement home. Between the head nodding at the MAGA comment and the attendance at the no-kings protests, I'm wondering what's happening to our elderly? Are they entering some phase like the movie "Cocoon" where they mentally go back to their early 20s and lose all their wisdom?] Back on topic: He spent most of the class showing why each side of the dichotomy is wrong. Starting with the religious side, he said that the word "day" in Genesis comes from "yowm" in the original language (Greek? Hebrew? I missed it.) Anyway, the word more accurately refers to an indeterminate period of time. He also showed why evolution has been proven. Frankly, I personally found this track uninteresting because I know the basics of these arguments. The science side was more interesting. He explained inductive reasoning and, during the Enlightenment, the introduction of the scientific method (deductive reasoning). We broke into small groups and analyzed a picture with two chairs to identify differences -- the size difference was an optical illusion; we assumed they were different without measuring them. He then went through in more detail an experiment/paper he led studying tiger beetles in SE Arizona (fascinating creatures, I'll skip details). Despite all efforts to measure and account for what couldn't be measured, the team inevitably made assumptions. Which led to his takeaway: assumptions are basically faith. Citations of earlier experiments are also faith; faith that the experiment was accurate and the scientists were honest. (We did talk about dishonest scientists, but it wasn't that relevant IMO). Ergo, scientists have no problem with faith in their assumptions, or the work of peers, so it is not unreasonable to have faith in God. The best thing IMO that came out of the class was a comment by a woman in the audience during Q&A. She described a letter that Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess Christina (can size unknown), in which he describes his belief that science can not only co-exist with faith, but is part of God's gift to us, to discover his creation. The awesome quote from this: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes." Full letter: https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf Wiki summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Grand_Duchess_Christina I walked away feeling it was a bit of a yin/yang thing, which I guess is Taoist or perhaps somewhat Buddhist in thinking. Final note: I'm slow-watching Dexter while I do some short exercises and/or stretches. I'm on season 6 which is a religious theme. Yesterday morning before class, they introduced the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy: energy moves towards a state of increasing randomness/disorder) and how it is inconsistent with life and its increasing organization. I've since researched and found that the answer was proposed by Schroedinger: This, Schrödinger argues, is what differentiates life from other forms of the organization of matter. In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of the second law, life does not in any way conflict with or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave, and the physical and chemical processes which make life possible do not occur in adiabatic isolation, i.e. living systems are open systems. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

I have no idea regarding the relevance of your first statement to this discussion, unless you are implying that Israel may choose to bomb population centers in the future, which I find highly unlikely. I agree with your second sentence and couldn't come up with a good shorthand while typing on my phone. Perhaps "Islamic countries which have stated a desire to eradicate Israel?" Otherwise, there isn't much nuance here, let alone deep nuance. It isn't complicated. The solution, for the current situation, is to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Israel controls Iran's airspace and continues to focus on military and nuclear targets. What would Iran do if they controlled Israel's airspace? What other "truth" is relevant here?

Thanks, I saw that video this morning. Concepts like quantum entanglement and the multiverse are mind blowing and introduce so many opportunities. Short answer is the class was pretty good. I'm on my phone waiting for an appointment, so I'll type more later.

I don't BLAME Iran. But it's not in the interest of the world let alone Israel to allow a country who is hell bent on destroying Israel and on funding every major terror organization as a proxy. If Islamic countries put down there weapons, Israel would give them peace. If Israel put down their weapons, there would be no Israel. This is 100% true, and anyone who doesn't see it is inflicted with the Leftist incorrect belief that other cultures behave like we would.

No, it's correct. It is idiocy to allow them the physical ability to enrich uranium, then think you can limit it to lower grade levels. Also, there is a compilation video circulating with 16 minutes of Trump saying Iran can never have nuclear capabilities going back to 2011 I believe. This isn't a new position for him.