That’s translated as Small bone (stoopid white one language idjit ‘mericans) What the dimwit idiot was trying to say and failed miserably was Bon appétit which is French for enjoy your food. We’re almost all in agreement; completely inappropriate.
Lifelong learner who believes in challenging assumptions and beliefs. Discomfort = growth. Won’t block you, will push back; expect the same from you.
51 followers 38 following 217 posts
view profile on Bluesky
That’s translated as Small bone (stoopid white one language idjit ‘mericans) What the dimwit idiot was trying to say and failed miserably was Bon appétit which is French for enjoy your food. We’re almost all in agreement; completely inappropriate.
I posit this instead; #DemetiaDon will get rid of any holiday that isn’t explicitly part of the Judeo-Christian calendar. So Juneteenth is a threat, hence that post June 19. But he’s been silent about this one #LabourDay.
Muy bien, y muy necesario. Necesitamos más arte en el mundo.
Oh almost forgot! #ReleaseEpsteinFile
I’ve heard it said the US has elected its fair share of stupid and evil men to the office of #POTUS; but never until Trump; someone both stupid and evil at the same time.
Both positions prioritize, personal desire over vulnerable human life. ‘My right to bear arms’ and ‘my right to choose’ both translate to ‘someone else will pay the price for my choices’. Whether it’s school, children or unborn children, both lobbies have decided certain lives are acceptable losses.
Both sides of the political spectrum accept that human life can be deliberately ended when it’s inconvenient. Gun lobby: accepts children will die in schools as price of unrestricted access. Abortion lobby: accepts unborn child will die as price of sexual freedom. Human lives are not expendable!!!
Both US political parties back lobbies which promote technologies and/or policies that allow people to avoid confronting the moral weight of their own choices. Both these lobbies represented refusal to acknowledge that actions have inherent consequences.
Come and see the @edmontonoilers.bsky.social or @edmontonelks.bsky.social…or don’t come for the sports teams at all. Just come to Edmonton, we’d love if you were here; come a put on a show.
@theonion.com has a great satire. It’s a sad country you live in. bsky.app/profile/theo...
He’s an infidel. (Too much? Too soon?)
Can it be taken down after he’s gone?
@ktagseth.bsky.social Interesting how some people make serious accusations about misrepresenting facts, then block when asked to specify what was misrepresented. The inability to defend one’s position speaks volumes.
Interesting how some people make serious accusations about misrepresenting facts, then block when asked to specify what was misrepresented. The inability to defend one’s position speaks volumes.
By this logic, Hitler invaded Poland because Britain ‘provoked’ him at Munich, or serial killers are dangerous because they drink water. Correlation ≠ causation.
@ladybluewpg5.bsky.social While many smart people know this to be true, we mustn’t let exasperation allow them to self-justify their stance. Emotional responses validate their worldview. Stay calm; their shallow worldview and dismissal of facts means their argument falls apart faster than yours.
That’s no answer, no answer at all. You posit the US is the aggressor, and justify this statement with vague unsubstantiated claims about “involvement”, and what can only be classified as “deep state”. Yet fail to provide credible facts to back your position.
How am I misrepresenting facts? And please answer the question “when is it ok to invade a neighbour?”. Spelled out: - If you accuse someone of lying, specify the lie. - If you justify invasion, explain your principles.
When is it OK for another nation to invade a neighbour? If we accept that Russia had legitimate reasons to invade Ukraine, which country gets to invade next? Should China take Taiwan? Should any nation with historical claims or ethnic populations abroad start wars? When is this ever "a just war"?
“Poster be like meh too.” If all you’re doing is posting stuff without backing it up…it makes you equally complicit.
Just #ReleaseTheEpsteinFiles.
It’s not about age; it’s that your memory hasn’t been constantly reshaped, fragmented, or overwritten by competing narratives and endless media noise.
Be ready for much the same transformation to affect the world now as it did in 40-35 BC.
Historia magistra vitæ. We can draw parallels with the end of the second triumvirate; after the assassination of Julius Caesar, Rome descended into chaos and civil war, until Augustus emerged victorious and transformed the Republic into an Empire.
This meme appeals to existing biases rather than encouraging actual analysis. Honest critique would examine specific texts, interpretations, and outcomes rather than making sweeping generalisations about billions of people across dozens of faith traditions.
Point 3 (Cherry-picking evidence): This ignores fundamentalists who dedicate their lives to charity, education, and social justice. Focusing only on negative examples whilst dismissing millions of peaceful adherents creates a distorted picture of religious practice across traditions.
Point 2 (Composition fallacy): Arguing that some strict adherents prove the religion is flawed is like saying democracy is wrong because some democratic movements produced bad outcomes. You can’t judge an entire system by its worst examples whilst ignoring positive ones.
Point 1 (False premise): This assumes all “fundamentalists” are identical across religions. A fundamentalist Quaker emphasising peace and a fundamentalist emphasising different values represent completely different approaches. The term itself just means “takes core texts seriously.”
Agreed this war was preventable. Whilst Putin’s aggression began in 2014, Trump’s withholding of military aid in 2019 whilst demanding Biden investigations may have undermined Ukrainian confidence in US support and influenced Putin’s risk assessment for 2022. #ReleaseEpsteinFiles
As humans, we should strive to understand multiple perspectives, then apply critical thinking (a skill sorely lacking in modern discourse) to reach our own conclusions. Real wisdom comes from engaging with opposing views, not dismissing them outright.
I’m not saying there isn’t a valid point being made, but humans don’t make moral decisions in a vacuum. Even people we disagree with arrive at their conclusions based on their knowledge, experiences, and social context. Understanding this is crucial for meaningful dialogue.
This is a generalisation, and all generalisations are false. It’s lazy thinking dressed up as wisdom. Don’t let personal biases create false information that ignores the complexity of moral decision-making. Real people blend external guidance with personal reasoning regardless of religious labels.
Nixon?
bsky.app/profile/vict...
This guy was on the fence tonight; don’t know what he decided. Still hovering over his options I guess.
bsky.app/profile/jfal...
How about just release #EpsteinFiles.
substack.com/@terrymoran/...
bsky.app/profile/rpsa...
Sooo your president is so real and manly!! A bully when in control, but look at his deferential body language with Putin versus how Obama stands tall and confident. You claimed Trump could ‘handle’ Putin…how can you explain these photos?
@saintedithstein.bsky.social thinking of the needs of your eternal soul. ‘Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me.’ - Mt 25:40
🤔🤔🤔
Hilarious! Can’t wait to hear what he has to say next. And thanks to the @halfwaypost.bsky.social for this well timed nugget.
The Don should also have been refused entry into Canada during the G7. But here we are, in a divided world; where the chasm of our differences is ever increasing.
This is illogical scapegoating. Catholic bishops don’t set minimum wage (Congress does) or control food prices (market forces do). You appear to be blaming religious leaders for complex economic issues they have no authority over. What’s the actual connection here?
This is spot on. Trump has shown a shocking level of deference toward Putin; think back to his 2017 Oval Office meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak; no US press allowed but Russian photographers were welcomed in😱. I remember the alarms going off even then. This is just one of many such ‘interactions’.
I understand. I was simply hoping you’d share your sources so I could learn from your perspective. When we make claims about events, citing where we got our information helps others evaluate and potentially learn from our analysis. Thanks for the exchange.
The main obstacle would be getting current officeholders to vote for limits that affect them; and that’s the catch 22, and exactly why such limits are needed in the first place.
The strongest argument might be that these positions require stamina, adaptability, and long-term thinking about consequences the officeholder will actually live to see. A mandatory retirement age treats public service like other demanding professions rather than as a lifetime sinecure.
I believe you’re correct in this sense; the longer you’re in a position of power the more entrenched you can become. I argue that the US needs an age limit on all senators and congress, POTUS & SCOTUS. Say 70-75? Plenty of other countries function effectively with a much younger political age.
According to which news media coverage outlets? There are multiple different US takes to this event; including international. While many don’t agree with your assessment, some do. This is why I ask for your source(s). Here’s one I like for its balanced approach. www.readtangle.com/trump-zelens...
Fair point, that picture is obviously subjective 🥴; got me. But if Biden or Obama met Putin 1:1, I’d have the same concerns!! Any president facing a trained intelligence operative without proper preparation and advisors present is at disadvantage. This isn’t partisan; it’s strategic risk assessment.
We’ll have to wait and see the outcome of the talks. But how do I admire Putin exactly? Calling someone a skilled KGB agent isn’t admiration - it’s threat assessment. As a non-US observer, I can evaluate this objectively without partisan investment; can you claim the same?
Some music for anyone needing a laugh. Secretos ln5.sync.com/dl/b36e1bbd0... We Don't Talk About Epstein ln5.sync.com/dl/69d9107a0...
Some music for anyone needing a laugh. Secretos ln5.sync.com/dl/b36e1bbd0... We Don't Talk About Epstein ln5.sync.com/dl/69d9107a0...
I pitty the cell mate more. He who has to put up with Diaper Don's stench and pant streaks.
At least you're able to admit you provided quid pro quo. Too many follow these tactics: attack, admit nothing, and never admit defeat.
Its a sad fact of current US politics I'm afraid. I'm workshopping the title of for the Burrito Stand from Trump Always Chickens Out to now They Always Compromise Outcomes, however it's late and I want to read everyone else's suggestions for #TACO!
Why aren’t the women who’ve come forward being listened to or believed?
What do you think is going to happen to Don when he meets with Putin? A lifelong KGB agent, with people persuasion skillz, vs Trump, lifelong illiterate with KFC eating skillz. Trump will likely abandon Ukraine within hours of that meeting. At what point do we acknowledge Putin might be his handler?
I feel you on the blocking frustration. They seem to be all in cahoots; completely ignorant of intelligent conversation and arguments. Same pattern everywhere: when challenged on substance, they flood with memes and talking points instead of actual reasoning. Quality discourse is becoming extinct.
@saintedithstein.bsky.social and there you have it folks. It’s too bad you tried to take the easy way out. I feel you only want to talk to ppl who share your beliefs: I do. But am afraid you’re weaponising belief, and not being that vessel JC asks us to be; think of Prayer of St Francis.
Fr Mike had an interesting homily the other day, about prayer. podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/s...
Not at all. Just testing the bounds of your knowledge and resourcefulness for finding answers. Manage to translate it yet?
Latine non intelligis? Latine non loqueris? Elementarem cognitionem habere debes.
Ita sane faciunt. Bene erat ambo homines persuasi esse qui sciunt ubi vita aeterna invenitur.
Dicis me esse. Sed cur? Num hoc modum quo mecum communicare vis mutabit?
As a Christian Catholic you’ve already failed what you promised to do when you last left Mass. Being Christian is a lot more than posting pictures online; if we truly follow JC, then how we act in the world will be how we act online. You promise to all of these when dismissed. Orémus pro invicem.
Then maybe think about the whole context here. You’re pushing pictures, memes and links as proof positive. But most of those looking at/ engaging with your posts won’t or don’t believe your initial premise. You have to convince them.
By removing one simple two letter word you would have grounds to call me an atheist. But that word is there. Can she find it? 🤔
Where do I say I was an atheist? Please point it out to me. I use the word, yes, but using the word doesn’t make me an atheist. Take a few minutes to read and parse the phrase.
If a condition of salvation is “believe or die” you’re not helping yourself. You might be ready for a red martyrdom; I’m not, but wouldn’t renounce faith to avoid it. Remember, you catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. Change up your approach for more constructive audience engagement.
This is good; at least a promising start. Now how do you expect viewers to interact with your posts? Are you expecting someone to reach out? Or must they click the link before you engage? If (1) this will only reach like minded; who don’t need convincing. If (2) then why post at all?
What did I say? Because I never said anything about being an ‘atheist’.
How does my faith standing affect crafting convincing arguments to extend your reach and (hopefully) help more people become Christian? Aren’t the children of this world better suited for such practical wisdom, as Scripture itself teaches?
Repeating the same spiritual interrogation with AI-generated Jesus images perfectly demonstrates your complete abandonment of rational argument. You started claiming scientific proof and devolved into demanding personal faith declarations. I’ve already implicitly indicated what I DO/ DON’T believe.
This question is ignorant of why this thread exists. Whether I believe in Jesus Christ is irrelevant to you being able to make a good argument in support of your faith. You’ve completely abandoned the original topic to interrogate my beliefs instead.
Your reply is indicative of toxic Christianity. We’re called to be salt and light for the earth, but when you remove the light and just leave the salt, you kill everything. ‘I don’t care what you think’ is the opposite of Christ’s love for all people.
This comment is extremely dangerous and contradicts Christ’s teachings. ‘In the world, but not of the world’ : we’re called to engage society, not create separate ones. The Great Commission requires reaching non-believers, not avoiding them. This is isolationism, not Christianity.
Maybe I’m too used to reading Aquinas and Kreeft, expecting people to follow basic intellectual rigor when making arguments. They built cases through systematic reasoning, not memes and deflection.
Remarkable: from ‘science proves Jesus’ to ‘don’t follow Jesus.’ I’m not an atheist - I used that perspective to show how your audience thinks. You’ve moved from evidence-based claims to pure tribalism, proving exactly why your argumentative approach fails to persuade.
I’ve never denied the existence of Eucharistic miracles. I’m trying to help you make a convincing argument that substantiates your case and gets people to see what you want them to see. Posting links without written summaries means sceptics won’t engage.
Another link you want me to read? If I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe Jesus existed…why would I ever click on this link? It makes no sense that I’d follow what you say when I don’t believe what you say. You need to make a compelling written argument that compels me to click that link.
The point I’m making is that posting pictures and memes without substantive argument actually diminishes your credibility and integrity to those not already aligned with your worldview. You’re preaching to the choir whilst alienating potential converts through lazy reasoning.
‘I didn’t deflect’ followed immediately by another meme instead of written evidence perfectly proves my point. You’ve now posted: book covers, political memes, confession questions, Trump worship, and now Lemaître - everything except actual scientific data for your original claim.
You deflected from Eucharistic miracles to Trump memes and spiritual interrogation when challenged on methodology. That’s pure evasion from your original scientific claim. If you want to make intelligent arguments, provide written facts here; not links. Write the actual evidence down now. #PSA
Exactly, here’s a list for you: - intellectual dishonesty - bearing false witness (my position) - refusing correction - sloth - wrath - hypocrisy - presumption - making idols of politicians - using sacred topics for partisan point-scoring - scandal (making faith look foolish through poor reasoning)
Finally some progress; after a whole bunch more pointless posts. I never said eucharistic miracles were fake news. I was trying to help you craft a substantive argument for them.
You’re making cyclical arguments. You seem to be stuck in an echo chamber. Let’s stay on topic please; believe it or not I’m trying to help strengthen your position.
Notice how quickly we went from ‘peer-reviewed science’ to political cheerleading? This is why people dismiss your original claims; you abandon them the moment they’re challenged.
Also, your subject matter carries far more scepticism than fake Lincoln quotes. If you want genuine engagement rather than dismissal, be thoughtful in your approach. Eucharistic miracles face inherently more resistance than internet memes, so the argumentative bar needs to be much higher.
You’re doing exactly what this Lincoln meme warns against! Posting links with quotes expecting others to do your homework. If you have compelling evidence, present it here. Otherwise you’re just preaching to the choir whilst giving sceptics nothing substantive to engage with.
This is comedy. But it does serve a purpose…people are showing their true colours, from both sides of the aisle. Keep up the satire @theonion.com team
This feels exactly what you’re criticising materialists for, making claims without substance. Complaining about people demanding evidence, only to post a title as ‘proof’ is intellectually lazy. It gives sceptics nothing to engage with; you’re just virtue signalling to believers who already agree.
I was always under the impression he was prevented because or Article 3 or the US Const. or was that part made invalid once SCOTUS ruled anything he did in an official capacity legal? I don’t remember whether SCOTUS ruled on Jan 6 though.
It’s just common sense, you fly the national flag of the country you’re in higher than your flag, if you are a non-national of that country. So I think more Canadians should go down to the US and fly the Canadian flag higher than the US flag.
Wouldn’t trust a word. AI would be used to stitch together all of the awkward pauses and make Ms Maxwell say anything that Trump wanted her to say in the first place. As for releasing the transcript, I wouldn’t trust that that it was written impartially either.
You stopped being a great and serious country in the mid 1980s. It’s just taken 40 years for the moral depravity to crack the surface. I saw cracks forming in the late 90s and early aughts.
