The Barber

If speaking about the Establishment Clause, the more recent Secular Humanism Religion is probably more likely to be intermingled with Government right now, than the old world religions. Is it a religion? In 2014 a federal district court held that “Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.” DOCTRINE - Rejection of religious dogma, supernatural, and elevation of science as measure of truth, including mostly liberal social science views (which aren't measured by the scientific method) DISPLAYED ICONOGRAPHY - Pride Flag RELIGIOUS CALENDAR - Pride Month HOLY SPACES - University Campuses; Government; Woke spaces? (not sure what "woke" means anymore, though, but woke prevents certain "irreverent" behaviors) PROPHETS? - Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut, and Salman Rushdie, as well as scientists like Francis Crick and Carl Sagan, and activists like Paul Kurtz and Gloria Steinem --- influence the doctrinal beliefs ACCEPTING DOCTRINES SOLELY ON FAITH? - e.g., genders are without number; this doctrine cannot be proven with scientific measuring, and must be accepted on faith EVANGELIZING OF DOCTRINAL BELIEFS? -- Yes, on the internet. Attacking competing belief systems of alternative religions and/or evangelizing beliefs of Secular Humanism as "revealed truth", that will bring the most benefit to society. HERESY: those individuals who speak against the faith (e.g., saying something like there are only 2 genders as a heresy, which can lead to excommunication (cancellation)) publicly burn a pride flag (would be no different than burning a bible -- would not be appreciated and would be highly offensive to adherents) Are their evidences of these doctrines being implemented in government? Yes. @halfmanhalfbronco thoughts?

Dude, you totally own these debates. You should be a lawyer or something...

I sometimes wonder if EVs are the actual "green" solution as they are advertised to be. I don't have the data, admittedly. What is the lifespan of an EV until they are "mechanically totaled" because the battery has failed? If a Tesla is "totaled" at 175,000 miles (battery dies). But an old technology, 4 cylinder Toyota Corolla can go 350,000 miles before it dies. Have we saved anything, or reduced the carbon footprint? It would take manufacturing 2 Teslas to replace what an older 4-cylinder ICE car could do. I realize not too many cars last 350K miles, but many can go 250K miles.... You can say the same thing for modern small displacement turbo engine cars that don't seem to be lasting as long as the older, naturally aspirated engines. If a turbo fails on a car at 150,000 miles, and the repair bill is $4000-$5000 for parts and labor, the car might easily be junked. We have lower emissions now, but have to manufacture 2 cars to replace the life span of 1 car, that we previously had available.

Yes. We need to find a solution to the war between Russia and Ukraine, as we can't afford to keep funding it, and Ukraine is at risk of getting overrun because they are running out of men, And Ukraine is likely to lose more territory (we don't want Ukraine to lose something like Odesa). There is not a clear solution to Ukraine's military problem. There is no stomach to deploy American troops to fight Russia in Ukraine. There is no European country that wants to deploy troops to fight Russia in Ukraine. The public in Ukraine does not want to sacrifice the younger generation 18-22. I don't agree with Trump's negotiation "tactic" (if you can call it that), of insulting Zelensky and calling him a dictator. I don't think a deal will be perfect for Ukraine, either. Hopefully we can get a good solution, because Trump is all we have, the Democrats were not in favor of ending the war.

This is great news! Let's hope we have massive cuts to this wasteful spending. Military spending is corrupt. I'm sure it will be strongly opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in congress.

I was thinking of this, which I guess there was one Trump biased host in attendance. Trump did not look great at the event --- but he attended it, even though it was mostly hostile

Huh? What policy of Trump's that I support do you find offensive? (I don't necessarily agree with everything Trump does, so give it a rest). Clearly you are responding to a strawman you've created in your head. Not sure what you are angry about, or mad at, but it's not me.

My bad.

Well, I think her handlers were aware of this, and hence their legit fears about hear doing a Rogan interview where she'd have to speak unscripted for 3 hours. To be fair, the "hide the candidate" and avoid public appearances strategy worked in 2020-2021 for Biden, when his handlers could say that because of COVID he needed to social distance and avoid public appearances, and he only did very few carefully scripted interviews with he and Jill in their basement. They tried that with Kamala at first (avoiding all public appearances), and eventually relented to do friendly media public appearances. Trump, in contrast, seemed to be willing to do any and all public appearances including at unfriendly media.

Well, I hadn't really paid attention to you, but now you've peaked my interest in looking you up.

Fair point. But, I think if it was a guy like Gavin Newsom (not saying he was a better choice than Kamala), he would have gone on Rogan, and not been too scared. He probably would have done a great job, too. Kamala was just not capable and too scared. It is hard to argue with the exposure, and a Rogan appearance, if anything, could have somewhat humanized a robotic politician.

Kamala Harris was too scared to do a 3 hour Joe Rogan interview. I guess it was a calculated risk that didn't pay off. Probably wouldn't have mattered anyway.

You sound very original in your thoughts, not at all borrowed.