Speakeasy forum

Alert

Onward & upward in friendly, small-town America.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Onward & upward in friendly, small-town America.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Onward & upward in friendly, small-town America.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
A "convince" store?

In reply to: Onward & upward in friendly, small-town America.

The word is used twice so not a normal mistake. I live in Ohio. We don't have "convince" stores here. We may have places that attempt to convince but none that promise results.

Collapse -
Ahh...they edited it.

In reply to: A "convince" store?

and changed "convinced" to "convenience". Smart move. I suspect some spellchecker was initially at fault.

Collapse -
CAIR??? Really????

In reply to: Onward & upward in friendly, small-town America.

Although some of the signs are offensive to some, I didn't see 'racist' as a factor for the signs. Instead I see this as 'pushback' from an American who actually has been totally ignored by the elites of DC exactly because of the 'friendly, small-town' environment that they have continuously (both parties) walked all over and who has had enough of a 'leader' who caters to certain elements of our population over others....and has a long record of doing so from day one.

Have you seen some of the signs about Trump that protestors have carted around and held high for the last year and a half with no intention of stopping even after he's inaugurated? Chicago was so proud of the fact that one of his first rallies was shut down as he circled above in his plane......the rest of the country shook their heads and yelled "Hell NO" and even the top cop has stated in an interview yesterday that BLM groups are a joke because they don't care that Chicago and other inner cities are killing far more black males than any police force across the entire country.....and not a peep out of BO in 8 years regarding HIS home town and where his library is going.

Friendly, small-town Americans have fought back and won.....and liberals everywhere are crapping all the bricks Trump will need to build our wall.

Collapse -
RE: liberals everywhere are crapping all the bricks

In reply to: CAIR??? Really????

liberals everywhere are crapping all the bricks Trump will need to build our wall.

I think there are already enough "bricks" to build a wall....

Organize a work crew...and gather up all the bricks the Conservatives/Tea Partiers have been dropping for the last 8 years...and "FIRE UP THE CEMENT MIXER!!!!!"........

Wasn't it you that claimed TheRUMP didn't need "bricks" to built HIS wall something about electronic surveillance?
Collapse -
The Tea Party didn't even begin

In reply to: RE: liberals everywhere are crapping all the bricks

until 2010....and even then the BO administration, via the IRS, went out of their way to shut down their ability to be larger than they already were, which only made the group more determined. It took another six years, but even with those obstacles in place, we won. We became the silent majority once again.

Again...look up the definition of 'wall' and you will find your answer.......we have specific terrain that will be dealt with in areas where a brick and mortar wall isn't feasible. You're nitpicking again trying to make your point and it doesn't work now any more than it did months ago, JP.

Collapse -
RE:You're nitpicking again

In reply to: The Tea Party didn't even begin

You're nitpicking again trying to make your point and it doesn't work

The Tea Party didn't even begin until 2010.

They weren't dropping bricks BEFORE they began?

So, it wasn't 8 years, it was 6 years? AND I'm nitpicking? The Tea Partiers were/are professional brick droppers...they dropped more bricks in 6 years, than others could in 8 years...

Collapse -
On second thought

In reply to: RE:You're nitpicking again

you might be right....all those bricks against the obstacles that this administration deliberately put in their way, and they used them to not only build steps over the tops of those obstacles, but they built their own wall against those obstacles in the form of votes. OUR bricks got put to good use, and so will those of the Dems and liberals that they are releasing now.....Trump will use them to build his infamous wall against illegal immigration and drugs and guns.

Collapse -
RE:Have you seen some of the signs

In reply to: CAIR??? Really????

Collapse -
Did Trump's campaign

In reply to: RE:Have you seen some of the signs

pay for or endorse any of them? They look to me like they were signs that individuals were involved with. Whereas most of the anti-Trump signs in protests were provided by the hilLIARy campaign or her organized supporters, such as BLM or SEIU or George Soros. Huge difference, JP.

Keep trying........

Collapse -
RE:Keep trying........

In reply to: Did Trump's campaign

To satisfy you?

Mission impossible?

Even if you were, you wouldn't admit it.

Did Trump's campaign pay for or endorse any of them?

Some might find out IF he ever releases HIS tax returns.

Collapse -
So you honestly believe

In reply to: RE:Keep trying........

that his taxes will show that he paid for the signs you posted links to? That money would have come from his campaign and those financial records are public knowledge, JP. His taxes have nothing to do with your babble as usual.

He's the first president since Nixon that has NOT given his tax returns during a campaign because it isn't a requirement to run. You go away unhappy....oh, well.

Collapse -
RE:On second thought

In reply to: So you honestly believe

YOU?........... having a second thought?

One small step for man....One giant leap for mankind

Collapse -
At least get the quote correct, JP....use 'google'

In reply to: RE:On second thought

It was actually "one small step for A man....One giant leap for mankind"

Collapse -
RE:one small step for A man

In reply to: At least get the quote correct, JP....use 'google'

you're "A man"?

Collapse -
It was good enough during the pre-PC days, JP

In reply to: RE:one small step for A man

'mankind' included ALL humans, and not the select few of only "MEN"....

It's good enough for me, but not you?

Can't admit you got the quote wrong, can you? Or will you blame on ALZ selective memories?

Collapse -
RE:Can't admit you got the quote wrong, can you?

In reply to: It was good enough during the pre-PC days, JP

"quote"?

Did you see any quote marks, in

One small step for man....One giant leap for mankind

Quoting: To quote is to include the identical wording from the original source in your paper. Quoted material in your paper is distinguished from your own words by the use of " " or by indenting the quoted text (if quoting a longer passage). In addition to quotation marks or indenting, all quoted material should also be cited, using either footnotes, endnotes, or in-text citation.

One small step for man....One giant leap for mankind

One small step for man/ME....One giant leap for mankind

ME/man getting YOU to have a second thought....

Me man...you woman...go back in cave and prepare supper Devil

Collapse -
so, you admit that...

In reply to: RE:Can't admit you got the quote wrong, can you?

"Did you see any quote marks, in

One small step for man....One giant leap for mankind"


Was not a quote on your part, but plagiarism instead?
Collapse -
Have you just shown your

In reply to: RE:Can't admit you got the quote wrong, can you?

misogynist side publicly, JP, by suggesting that I need to assume my 'role' in society (devil emoji doesn't make it pc or even sarcastic humor).

Unfortunately, James brought up the plagiarism charge I was going to level on you since it's ONLY attributed to ONE person in the entire world. In case you've forgotten the meaning: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
synonyms: copying

And you just used it again in another post of yours.

Collapse -
RE:devil emoji doesn't make it pc

In reply to: Have you just shown your

devil emoji doesn't make it pc or even sarcastic humor).

IF it put a smile on even one persons face...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!

IF my post made you cry...I'm truly sorry and I'm passing you a tissue.

Collapse -
Like the Romance tongues, Hebrew is a gendered

In reply to: It was good enough during the pre-PC days, JP

language. Angels are always masculine in the Bible. Just a heads-up for those raised in the Hallmark school. Happy

Collapse -
Zechariah chapter 5

In reply to: Like the Romance tongues, Hebrew is a gendered

"Then lifted I up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there came forth two women, and the wind was in their wings; now they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah between earth and heaven. Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah? And he said unto me, To build her a house in the land of Shinar: and when it is prepared, she shall be set there in her own place."

Just a head's up for those raised in the Kingdom Hall schools.

We only have 4 actual names of angels from the bible. Gabri-el, Micha-el, Rapha-el, and Phanu-el.
Collapse -
No gender with angels

In reply to: Zechariah chapter 5

They are pure spirits or intellects. Languages that imply gender tend to default to the use of male terms when gender isn't evident. Gender is purely a human thing referring to an ability to reproduce. Angels would have no such ability. There is a scattering of scriptural reference to some of this but that's open to interpretation. One such reference suggests that gender is lost by folks who go to heaven in that they don't marry and are like the angels. Look it up. It has something to do with an argument about which wife you end with if you've had more than one. Happy

Collapse -
Many misunderstand that passage

In reply to: No gender with angels

"One such reference suggests that gender is lost by folks who go to heaven in that they don't marry and are like the angels. Look it up. It has something to do with an argument about which wife you end with if you've had more than one."

the only part that applied to angelic comparison was "free, like the angels in heaven". That was actually Jesus saying the rules, customs and laws of this world didn't apply in the hereafter. It really says nothing concerning marriage or not in heaven. That's why it said "marrying and giving in marriage". That was the world's way, of selling a daughter as a bride, and the price the groom paid, such as dowry. No one would have the power over the person (in this case the woman) in the time to come, which during Jesus day they did. In short, things will be different in that time and nobody will have such authority over another, especially a woman, who can make up her own mind, because she was "free" then.
Collapse -
It was the answer given to a specific question

In reply to: Many misunderstand that passage

I understand it was designed to put Jesus on the spot. He was put through that test a number of times. The actual question was a challenge to the idea of the resurrection of the dead. The question posed had to do with the custom of brothers taking the wives of their deceased bothers for their own under certain circumstances. It asked which wife will be theirs. You'd be right about it dealing with a custom but those asking the question weren't in agreement that a hereafter even existed.

Collapse -
True

In reply to: It was the answer given to a specific question

He managed to side step them on the matter all while affirming a resurrection.

Collapse -
Yes. And some will say this is also small

In reply to: True

hint that angels are of one gender in that Jesus said the risen dead will be like them. I know that using marriage as the linking reason may sound like a stretch but I'll presume the lack of gender was already understood by some. Man's desire to use "visual aids" causes his images of angels look like sexually dimorphic humans. The names we hear today that were given to angels were descriptive terms....sort of like what the Welsh do when naming a town. Happy

Collapse -
The problem then is rejection of

In reply to: Yes. And some will say this is also small

Genesis chapter 6 which plainly states that angels had gender and could also fall victim to lusts.

Collapse -
''languages that imply gender'

In reply to: No gender with angels

Languages that specify gender, rather.
"They are pure spirits or intellects". Like Jehovah? He, therefore has no gender?
I know this much of Hebrew: The masc. pl. ending is "-im"; the fem. is "oth".

Collapse -
''languages that imply gender'

In reply to: No gender with angels

Languages that specify gender, rather.
"They are pure spirits or intellects". Like Jehovah? He, therefore has no gender? Not so, even in the Douay. Happy
I know this much of Hebrew: The masc. pl. noun ending is "-im"; the fem. is "-oth". There are cherubim and seraphim in the Bible but no cheruboth or seraphoth. (Isa 6:3) No female angels in scripture; no Kewpies.

Collapse -
"4 names". Citations, please? I choose to

In reply to: Zechariah chapter 5

disbelieve you without them. When someone tells me something about the Bible, I ask for a citation so I can see it for myself. No citation, no teaching. I also might compare two or more Bibles, 'to be sure of the more important things'.
BTW here's Jude chapter 1, verse 26; took me a while to find it: " ."
That's from Byington's. How does yours read?

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GRAMMYS 2019

Here's Everything to Know About the 2019 Grammys

Find out how to watch the Grammy Awards if you don't have cable and more.