Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Soph0571
Soph0571's Journal
Soph0571's Journal
May 13, 2018
[link:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rudy-guiliani-donald-trump-drag-video-seduce-new-york-mayor-us-president-a8344921.html|
I cannot unsee this so I therefore am sharing it....*shudder*
Video at the link
Bizarre video of Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag while being seduced by Donald Trump resurfaces
A video of US president Donald Trump pushing his face into former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s chest for a drag queen comedy sketch has resurfaced.
The spoof, which was recorded in 2000 when Mr Trump was a property magnate, transpired as part of the Mayor’s Inner Circle Press Roast. This was an annual event which sees New York politicians and White House journalists stage skits and parody themselves for charity.
The clip sees Mr Giuliani, who joined Mr Trump’s legal team last month to represent him through the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election, dressed in drag flirting with the president.
The spoof, which was recorded in 2000 when Mr Trump was a property magnate, transpired as part of the Mayor’s Inner Circle Press Roast. This was an annual event which sees New York politicians and White House journalists stage skits and parody themselves for charity.
The clip sees Mr Giuliani, who joined Mr Trump’s legal team last month to represent him through the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election, dressed in drag flirting with the president.
[link:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rudy-guiliani-donald-trump-drag-video-seduce-new-york-mayor-us-president-a8344921.html|
I cannot unsee this so I therefore am sharing it....*shudder*
Video at the link
May 13, 2018
Ignorance is not bliss
Racism is not dying
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/994556847175561216Ignorance is not bliss
May 12, 2018
All of the vileness. Do you think if he looks at picture of himself he realises the repulsive person he is???
Dorian Gray Potrait
All of the vileness. Do you think if he looks at picture of himself he realises the repulsive person he is???
May 12, 2018
https://twitter.com/BettyBowers/status/995328473119051777
Depopulation is the new BEST American thing...
https://twitter.com/BettyBowers/status/995328473119051777
May 12, 2018
Who knew the Ayatollah had a sense of humour????
Could it get more embarrassing on the world stage?
Who knew the Ayatollah had a sense of humour????
May 12, 2018
I recently interviewed a chap from my alma mater – different year and different degree so I did not know him back in the day. During our chat about the school he mentioned that his degree had been conferred by Margaret Thatcher. I responded that I could not remember who had conferred my degree but Maggie must have been after my time.
The other night I was telling my sister about the conversation to which she commented along the lines of – you did get your degree from Margaret Thatcher you idiot, I sat and watched you get it, Mum has photo’s somewhere.
So. The. First. Female. Prime. Minister. Gave. Me. My. Degree.
I shook hands with Maggie. I got given a piece of paper that demonstrated years of slog. And I had no recollection of it. At. All. Now I have been prompted I vaguely remember it but not in any meaningful way.
Seriously? I mean, how ridiculous is that?
I challenge you to beat that brain fart!
Can you beat this brain fart?
I recently interviewed a chap from my alma mater – different year and different degree so I did not know him back in the day. During our chat about the school he mentioned that his degree had been conferred by Margaret Thatcher. I responded that I could not remember who had conferred my degree but Maggie must have been after my time.
The other night I was telling my sister about the conversation to which she commented along the lines of – you did get your degree from Margaret Thatcher you idiot, I sat and watched you get it, Mum has photo’s somewhere.
So. The. First. Female. Prime. Minister. Gave. Me. My. Degree.
I shook hands with Maggie. I got given a piece of paper that demonstrated years of slog. And I had no recollection of it. At. All. Now I have been prompted I vaguely remember it but not in any meaningful way.
Seriously? I mean, how ridiculous is that?
I challenge you to beat that brain fart!
May 12, 2018
Some kind of ritualised behaviour and religious beliefs and practices are probably as old as man and women kind. The earliest signs of religious conviction or feeling is seen in the graves of primitive man who was kicking around in the long and distant past (225000-100000 years back). However – while we may have had some sort of faith construct it took early man until roughly 10,000 BC to get organised about our belief systems and it was another 5,000 years before Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion, began to develop in the Indus Valley. Evidence does suggest that as Homo sapiens emerged 100,000 – 150,000 years ago and as our brains gradually advanced so seemingly we started to need to believe in something. So the question has to be, did God show himself to man, or did man feel the need to create God?
Human beings are funny old things. We develop our communities, our social groupings and within this societal environment we unite around shared faith (or lack thereof!) structures. The development of a homogenous belief system within a social group has always been a hugely powerful mechanism to help other members of the group identify who is a member of ‘your gang’, especially within an environment where you have to take your belief system on trust (because of inevitable absence of evidence?. Over time as our brains evolved so did our need to try and make sense of who, what, why, where and when. For our early ancestors (and for us) an unpredictable world can be a frightening and disorientating place. Not understanding how or why things worked and not being able to control the outcome of all manner of things (animal migration, weather patterns, harvest success etc.) early man looked left, looked right, scratched his head and found comfort in activities which he hoped might help him exert some control over things he did not understand. Ergo, early man praying to or sacrificing to a deity to try an influence the outcome of events. Seemingly, religious ritual was a twofer for early man, in that it arguably served a purpose in trying to explain the world around them alongside being a mechanism to coalesce social groups.
It was only about 5,000 years ago that the idea of a single creator God developed, prior to this man kind worshipped all manner of polytheistic deities, examples including a strong belief in the supernatural world, animism, river sprites and the Gods of Thunder! Surely God, is a little late to the game? Why do you think it is that idea of a single divine entity came so late to man and women kind? The fact that we worshipped multiple deities in time past suggests that there is a tendency for a construct of multiple divinities to coalesce over time into the sense of a single divinity, after all a single divinity could be seen as more powerful and complex than many divinities and so is therefore a more satisfying experience of worship for the end user. Consequently one could argue that the creation of all monotheistic religions are examples of socially responsive creations, rather than the creator creating them. They reflect the makeup of any given society at any given time, they do things that society wants them to do.
Does it matter if man created God, or God created man? If God has been created by man as a social imperative for mankind to try and understand his purpose, one might suggest that this is a good thing that leads to more settled and happier communities than if the world had always lived with an absence of God. However, this presupposes that God is good (or at least what mankind has done with the construct of God is good). When we look at the term religion are we actually discussing theocracy? In truth theocracies are merely dictatorships with an invisible immortal ruler who cannot be removed and must be obeyed. And therein lies the problem, the God created by man is the ideal tool for anyone wanting to exert political power within a social construct. However, if God created man he compels man to behave in the way dictated by ancient religious text and exerts control through fear. Either way, oh my, what a conundrum!
Does it matter if man created God?
Some kind of ritualised behaviour and religious beliefs and practices are probably as old as man and women kind. The earliest signs of religious conviction or feeling is seen in the graves of primitive man who was kicking around in the long and distant past (225000-100000 years back). However – while we may have had some sort of faith construct it took early man until roughly 10,000 BC to get organised about our belief systems and it was another 5,000 years before Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion, began to develop in the Indus Valley. Evidence does suggest that as Homo sapiens emerged 100,000 – 150,000 years ago and as our brains gradually advanced so seemingly we started to need to believe in something. So the question has to be, did God show himself to man, or did man feel the need to create God?
Human beings are funny old things. We develop our communities, our social groupings and within this societal environment we unite around shared faith (or lack thereof!) structures. The development of a homogenous belief system within a social group has always been a hugely powerful mechanism to help other members of the group identify who is a member of ‘your gang’, especially within an environment where you have to take your belief system on trust (because of inevitable absence of evidence?. Over time as our brains evolved so did our need to try and make sense of who, what, why, where and when. For our early ancestors (and for us) an unpredictable world can be a frightening and disorientating place. Not understanding how or why things worked and not being able to control the outcome of all manner of things (animal migration, weather patterns, harvest success etc.) early man looked left, looked right, scratched his head and found comfort in activities which he hoped might help him exert some control over things he did not understand. Ergo, early man praying to or sacrificing to a deity to try an influence the outcome of events. Seemingly, religious ritual was a twofer for early man, in that it arguably served a purpose in trying to explain the world around them alongside being a mechanism to coalesce social groups.
It was only about 5,000 years ago that the idea of a single creator God developed, prior to this man kind worshipped all manner of polytheistic deities, examples including a strong belief in the supernatural world, animism, river sprites and the Gods of Thunder! Surely God, is a little late to the game? Why do you think it is that idea of a single divine entity came so late to man and women kind? The fact that we worshipped multiple deities in time past suggests that there is a tendency for a construct of multiple divinities to coalesce over time into the sense of a single divinity, after all a single divinity could be seen as more powerful and complex than many divinities and so is therefore a more satisfying experience of worship for the end user. Consequently one could argue that the creation of all monotheistic religions are examples of socially responsive creations, rather than the creator creating them. They reflect the makeup of any given society at any given time, they do things that society wants them to do.
Does it matter if man created God, or God created man? If God has been created by man as a social imperative for mankind to try and understand his purpose, one might suggest that this is a good thing that leads to more settled and happier communities than if the world had always lived with an absence of God. However, this presupposes that God is good (or at least what mankind has done with the construct of God is good). When we look at the term religion are we actually discussing theocracy? In truth theocracies are merely dictatorships with an invisible immortal ruler who cannot be removed and must be obeyed. And therein lies the problem, the God created by man is the ideal tool for anyone wanting to exert political power within a social construct. However, if God created man he compels man to behave in the way dictated by ancient religious text and exerts control through fear. Either way, oh my, what a conundrum!
May 12, 2018
[link:https://thedailybanter.com/2018/05/trumpers-will-believe-anything/|
Proof if proof is needed that it is a waste of time trying to reason with these idiots!
Trumpers Will Believe Anything And Here's Proof
Okay, bear in mind that none of that actually happened because we have the entire scene on video ("...and God bless the United Sssshashh"
. But Trump keeps telling his Red Hat army that he plans to build the embassy for roughly the same price as a two bedroom condo in a rural suburb. Forget physical security in the face of terrorism. Forget the all-import cyber security that'll need to be installed. Trump is so determined to reinforce his horseshit brand as a deal-maker that he's promising something that's almost literally impossible without putting the embassy, and the United States, in significant danger.
Naturally, however, the Red Hats thought it was the greatest thing the world. Indeed, they even gave a standing ovation to Trump's description of how he correctly spelled his first name on the signature line of the order. This demographic of impotent, easily-deceived nincompoops blindly accepts as truth everything and anything that Trump farts out of his overly articulated yapper.
--------------
When Michael J. Fox in The American President analogizes how citizens lost in the desert are so starved for leadership, they'll drink the sand, he and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin couldn't have known that in 2018 nearly every Red Hat disciple of Trump is drinking the sand and loving every disgusting, gritty handful.
. But Trump keeps telling his Red Hat army that he plans to build the embassy for roughly the same price as a two bedroom condo in a rural suburb. Forget physical security in the face of terrorism. Forget the all-import cyber security that'll need to be installed. Trump is so determined to reinforce his horseshit brand as a deal-maker that he's promising something that's almost literally impossible without putting the embassy, and the United States, in significant danger.
Naturally, however, the Red Hats thought it was the greatest thing the world. Indeed, they even gave a standing ovation to Trump's description of how he correctly spelled his first name on the signature line of the order. This demographic of impotent, easily-deceived nincompoops blindly accepts as truth everything and anything that Trump farts out of his overly articulated yapper.
--------------
When Michael J. Fox in The American President analogizes how citizens lost in the desert are so starved for leadership, they'll drink the sand, he and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin couldn't have known that in 2018 nearly every Red Hat disciple of Trump is drinking the sand and loving every disgusting, gritty handful.
[link:https://thedailybanter.com/2018/05/trumpers-will-believe-anything/|
Proof if proof is needed that it is a waste of time trying to reason with these idiots!
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: UK
Home country: UK
Current location: UK
Member since: Fri Oct 13, 2017, 06:59 PM
Number of posts: 9,685
