Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 27,282]

Boris Johnson 'asked for Patel report to be palatable', source claims

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55026137

Boris Johnson is facing questions about whether he tried to tone down an independent report which said Home Secretary Priti Patel broke the ministerial code by bullying staff.

Number 10 has insisted Sir Alex Allan's conclusions were "entirely his own".

But a Whitehall source told the BBC that Sir Alex had resisted pressure to make the findings more "palatable".

And Sir David Normington, a former Home Office chief, said Ms Patel's behaviour was "completely unacceptable".

He said the report had found she was a bully, adding: "You shouldn't have bullies in government".

Ms Patel apologised on Friday, saying: "Any upset I have caused was completely unintentional."

Sir Alex resigned as independent advisor on ministerial standards after Mr Johnson threw his support behind the home secretary, effectively disregarding Sir Alex's findings.

His report found Ms Patel's conduct had fallen below the standards expected of government ministers and cited examples of the home secretary "shouting and swearing" at civil servants.

But Mr Johnson - who has the final say - kept Ms Patel in her job, saying he "does not believe that Priti Patel is a bully".

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Sir David Normington - former permanent secretary at the Home Office, said there had been "no acknowledgement" by either Ms Patel or the prime minister that "she was found to have bullied staff, possibly in three departments - not just in the home office".

"The prime minister has simply put aside the findings of a report... that she is a bully. You shouldn't have bullies in government."

"The system depends on the prime minister standing up for standards in public life and taking action when a minister breaches those standards," he added.

 

[Vesper 27,282]

Officials ‘blocked access to witness’ in Priti Patel inquiry

Sir Alex Allan made repeated attempts to interview former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam, but was stymied

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/21/officials-blocked-access-to-witness-in-priti-patel-inquiry

Boris Johnson’s former adviser on ministerial standards was prevented from interviewing a key witness for his bullying inquiry into Priti Patel’s behaviour.

Legal and Whitehall sources have revealed that Sir Alex Allan sought to interview the former top Home Office civil servant Sir Philip Rutnam about his dealings with Patel, but was blocked by government officials.

The inquiry was launched by the prime minister following the resignation of Rutnam over Patel’s alleged behaviour. Rutman is suing the government for constructive dismissal.

Sources say Allan was informed he could not interview Rutnam because of the legal action. Allan, however, felt that his inquiry was being denied potentially crucial evidence.

[Vesper 27,282]

The Tories' 'chumocracy' over Covid contracts is destroying public trust

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/21/tories-covid-contracts-public-trust-government

Under the cover of an emergency, the government awarded £18bn in coronavirus-related contracts during the first six months of the pandemic, most with no competitive tendering processes. Meanwhile contracts totalling £1.5bn have gone to companies with connections to the Conservative party. Call it a “chumocracy” or straightforward incompetence: it’s clear there’s been a woeful lack of transparency when it comes to how taxpayers’ money is spent.

The more information we have about these contracts, the more complicated it becomes to piece them all together. As the junior health minister Lord Bethell recently told the House of Lords, the government relied on “informal arrangements” to fulfil urgent needs for PPE. One such informal arrangement was a phone call in April between Lord Bethell and Meller Designs, a company owned by a prominent Conservative party donor who has given more than £63,000 to the party. The company, which usually sells home and fashion accessories to retailers such as Marks & Spencer, was later awarded PPE contracts worth £163m.

Benji303 & Lee S. - Fuck The Tories (Sterling Moss & Mark EG Fuck The 303 Remix)

 

[Vesper 27,282]

After Trump loses the election, evangelicals go nuts!

Pastors and prophets incorrectly prophesied Trump would win the election and get a second term. When the Trump prophecies failed, the evangelicals (some of whom sit on Trump's evangelical advisory committee, like Paula White and Kenneth Copeland) had an absolute ballistic meltdown going into denial. When prophecy fails, evangelicals go ballistic! Here is a compilation of some of the best evangelical freak-outs. Enjoy!

 

 

[robsblubot 3,205]

9 hours ago, Vesper said:

After Trump loses the election, evangelicals go nuts!

Pastors and prophets incorrectly prophesied Trump would win the election and get a second term. When the Trump prophecies failed, the evangelicals (some of whom sit on Trump's evangelical advisory committee, like Paula White and Kenneth Copeland) had an absolute ballistic meltdown going into denial. When prophecy fails, evangelicals go ballistic! Here is a compilation of some of the best evangelical freak-outs. Enjoy!

 

 

Lots of crazy people 

 

[11Drogba 2,000]

At this point, does anybody really believe Trump wouldn't sell national secrets?

[Fernando 6,375]

11 hours ago, Vesper said:

After Trump loses the election, evangelicals go nuts!

Pastors and prophets incorrectly prophesied Trump would win the election and get a second term. When the Trump prophecies failed, the evangelicals (some of whom sit on Trump's evangelical advisory committee, like Paula White and Kenneth Copeland) had an absolute ballistic meltdown going into denial. When prophecy fails, evangelicals go ballistic! Here is a compilation of some of the best evangelical freak-outs. Enjoy!

 

 

And that's why those guys should be discredited. When God gives a prophesy it comes to pass 100 percent. 

These guys, God never spoke to them, they just speak out of their own mind. 

[Vesper 27,282]

13 hours ago, Fernando said:

And that's why those guys should be discredited. When God gives a prophesy it comes to pass 100 percent. 

These guys, God never spoke to them, they just speak out of their own mind. 

 God and Evil - Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Thence whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[Fernando 6,375]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

 God and Evil - Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Thence whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I like philosophy, and I can answer those questions. 

First of all evil came in to humanity when Adam and Eve sin. And after that every human born had that corruption dna in them. 

So the question is then, if we have this corruption how do we "clean" that? 

In addition God being omnipotent cannot create an oxymoron. Example, being omnipotent does not means you can do everything, like lying. If God says he is truth then he cannot lie. There is no lie, so he would not lie to be "omnipotent"

That being said we have learned that God is love, and when you take that into equation love cannot do certain things, so in that sense there's some stuff that God cannot do! 

For example, God cannot force you to love him otherwise it would be forced, rape, etc etc. If I put a gun to my wife and tell her to marry me, if would be forced and would not be loved. 

Giving that god is love there's some things to consider:

Love requires:

1 Freedom

Freedom involves: 

2 Risk

Risk entails:

3 Responsibility

and responsibility enables

4 Growth. 

When ever you think about God, using the concept of "omnipotent" is an incomplete picture. If you start your view with God is love you will see certain parameters that have to be meet. 

[Vesper 27,282]

4 minutes ago, Fernando said:

I like philosophy, and I can answer those questions. 

First of all evil came in to humanity when Adam and Eve sin. And after that every human born had that corruption dna in them. 

So the question is then, if we have this corruption how do we "clean" that? 

In addition God being omnipotent cannot create an oxymoron. Example, being omnipotent does not means you can do everything, like lying. If God says he is truth then he cannot lie. There is no lie, so he would not lie to be "omnipotent"

That being said we have learned that God is love, and when you take that into equation love cannot do certain things, so in that sense there's some stuff that God cannot do! 

For example, God cannot force you to love him otherwise it would be forced, rape, etc etc. If I put a gun to my wife and tell her to marry me, if would be forced and would not be loved. 

Giving that god is love there's some things to consider:

Love requires:

1 Freedom

Freedom involves: 

2 Risk

Risk entails:

3 Responsibility

and responsibility enables

4 Growth. 

When ever you think about God, using the concept of "omnipotent" is an incomplete picture. If you start your view with God is love you will see certain parameters that have to be meet. 

Adam and Eve are a Judeo Christian construct (borrowed from many other religions long before them), therefore of no use answering the conundrum, which is universal (ie. NOT just applicable to one or two religions only)

 

[Fernando 6,375]

12 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Adam and Eve are a Judeo Christian construct (borrowed from many other religions long before them), therefore of no use answering the conundrum, which is universal (ie. NOT just applicable to one or two religions only)

 

Well that is the only answer we have for where evil came from. 

But if you want to go more deep it actually came from Lucifer a created being that rebelled against God. 

So the initial rebellion started with an angel and then trickle down to humans. 

Now evil exist, what we call sin. And the question is how to get rid of sin from our body if we are born with that? 

[1chelsea 864]

“I Am Convinced That There Is a Creator”

For more than a decade, Frédéric Dumoulin has worked in the field of pharmaceutical research at Ghent University in Belgium. At one time he was an atheist. But later Frédéric became convinced that God created life. Awake! asked Frédéric​—who is now one of Jehovah’s Witnesses—​about his work and his faith.

Did religion have any role in your childhood?

Yes. My mother was Roman Catholic. But when I read about the Crusades and the Inquisition, I felt disgusted with religion and wanted nothing more to do with it. I also read about non-Christian religions and saw that they were no better. When I was 14, I reasoned that the prevalence of corruption in religion proves that God doesn’t exist. So when I was taught the evolution theory at school, I concluded that life originated by natural processes.

How were you attracted to science?

When I was seven, I was given a microscope and it became my favorite toy. Among other things, I used it to examine fascinating insects, such as butterflies.

How did you become interested in the origin of life?

When I was 22, I met a scientist who was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She believed that God created life. That seemed really strange to me. I thought I could easily prove her faith to be ridiculous. But to my surprise, she had sensible answers to my questions. I became curious about people who believe in God.

A few months later, I met another Witness who was quite knowledgeable about medical matters. When he offered to explain what he believed, I accepted his offer because I wanted to know why people believe in God. I wanted to save him from his delusion.

Did you convince him that he was mistaken?

No, I didn’t. I began researching theories on the origin of life. To my surprise, I found that some eminent scientists say that even the simplest living cell is so complex that it couldn’t have originated on earth. Some of them think such cells came from outer space. There is a lot of disagreement about how life began.

Is there a point of agreement?

Strangely, many scientists agree that somehow natural processes caused life to spring from nonliving matter. I began to wonder, ‘If they don’t know how life could come about without a Creator, how can they be so sure that it happened that way?’ I began to look into what the Bible says about the origin of life.

What conclusions did you draw about the Bible?

The more I learned from the Bible, the more I became convinced that it’s true. For example, only recently have scientists found evidence that the universe had a beginning. But the opening verse of the Bible, written some 3,500 years ago, says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”a And I found that whenever the Bible comments on scientific matters, it is accurate.

Did your knowledge of science make believing in God difficult?

No. When I first came to believe in God, I had been studying science at a university for three years. To this day, the more I study the design of living things, the more I am convinced that there is a Creator.

Can you give us an example?

Yes. I’ve studied the effects of medications and toxins on living creatures. A design that impresses me is how our brain is protected from dangerous substances and from bacteria. There is a barrier that keeps our blood separate from our brain cells.

What is remarkable about that?

Over a hundred years ago, researchers noticed that substances introduced into the bloodstream enter every area of the body​—except the brain and spinal cord. That fact is astonishing to me, because an immense network of tiny capillary vessels takes blood to every cell in the brain. All brain cells are cleaned, fed, and oxygenated by blood. So, how can our blood be kept separate from our brain cells? For many years it was a mystery.

How does the barrier work?

Microscopic blood vessels are not like plastic tubes that keep what’s inside separate from what’s outside. The walls of blood vessels are made of cells. These cells allow substances and microbes to pass through them and between them. However, the cells making up the blood vessels in our brain are different. They’re tightly connected to each other. These cells and the tight junctions between them are amazing. A vast array of complex mechanisms ensure that some things​—such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, and glucose—​pass between the bloodstream and the brain in a regulated way. But other compounds, proteins, and cells are kept out. So the blood-brain barrier operates at a molecular level to produce physical, chemical, and electrical barriers. For me, such design simply could not have evolved.

[Vesper 27,282]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Well that is the only answer we have for where evil came from. 

But if you want to go more deep it actually came from Lucifer a created being that rebelled against God. 

So the initial rebellion started with an angel and then trickle down to humans. 

Now evil exist, what we call sin. And the question is how to get rid of sin from our body if we are born with that? 

it is not the only answer, lol

that is ludicrous

the entire concept of Adam and Eve is so new when judging by the overall length of time on the planet

you cannot answer a logical contradiction by using the very subject of the contradiction as the answer

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. 

 

and you are dodging the entire conundrum by thrying to shift the topic off the question/positig asked

that is called sophistry

now

why would an all good, all powerful being allow evil?

it is an inherit conflict

 

re-read it

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Thence whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

 

pro tip

you cannot answer it

it is 100% logically sound and refutes the entire construct of an all-powerful AND all good god (or gods)

 

You and I are both atheists, Fernando.

I just believe in one less god than you do.

When you truly understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods except for your god,

then you will understand why I dismiss your god as well and you shall then cast it aside.

 

cheers

[Atomiswave 6,072]

Can any of you do astral projection? I did it first when I was 8, have done it many many times ever since. My point is there is indeed a creator, you didnt come from some totally unrealistic hokus pocus big bang. This is an intelligent reality, you are clearly an intelligent design, everything is perfect and in harmony, everything has a purpose. No big bang through trillions of years could possibly create what you are witnessing. All the proofs are around you. They even have classes in all majour universities for the evolution THEORY, yet not 1 proof has been shown, they say you come from monkeys, that we have evolved from that. If thats the case why are there still plenty monkeys/ apes around? Where they too stupid to evolve? Why havent other animals evolved to something totally different? Its BS. BTW the dude that came up with the evolution theory was a 33 degree mason....that should tell you all about it if you know what that degree represents. And no im not a religious nut, I dont need a book or a prophet to know we dont come from empty space along with space dust and gas etc. One look at your anotomy and how advanced and majestic you are should be enough evidence. You are not some random act of sneeze as they would have you believe, you are indeed special.

[Vesper 27,282]

2 minutes ago, Atomiswave said:

Can any of you do astral projection? I did it first when I was 8, have done it many many times ever since. My point is there is indeed a creator, you didnt come from some totally unrealistic hokus pocus big bang. This is an intelligent reality, you are clearly an intelligent design, everything is perfect and in harmony, everything has a purpose. No big bang through trillions of years could possibly create what you are witnessing. All the proofs are around you. They even have classes in all majour universities for the evolution THEORY, yet not 1 proof has been shown, they say you come from monkeys, that we have evolved from that. If thats the case why are there still plenty monkeys/ apes around? Where they too stupid to evolve? Why havent other animals evolved to something totally different? Its BS. BTW the dude that came up with the evolution theory was a 33 degree mason....that should tell you all about it if you know what that degree represents. And no im not a religious nut, I dont need a book or a prophet to know we dont come from empty space along with space dust and gas etc. One look at your anotomy and how advanced and majestic you are should be enough evidence. You are not some random act of sneeze as they would have you believe, you are indeed special.

 

 

 

[Atomiswave 6,072]

6 minutes ago, Vesper said:

 

 

 

Your not a believer I assume Vesper huh? If not its totally fine....we all have our views.

[Fernando 6,375]

20 minutes ago, Vesper said:

it is not the only answer, lol

that is ludicrous

the entire concept of Adam and Eve is so new when judging by the overall length of time on the planet

you cannot answer a logical contradiction by using the very subject of the contradiction as the answer

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. 

 

and you are dodging the entire conundrum by thrying to shift the topic off the question/positig asked

that is called sophistry

now

why would an all good, all powerful being allow evil?

it is an inherit conflict

 

re-read it

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Thence whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

 

pro tip

you cannot answer it

it is 100% logically sound and refutes the entire construct of an all-powerful AND all good god (or gods)

 

You and I are both atheists, Fernando.

I just believe in one less god than you do.

When you truly understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods except for your god,

then you will understand why I dismiss your god as well and you shall then cast it aside.

 

cheers

I answer, I said how you can create an oxymoron?

Omnipotent in what way? 

Is Omnipotent to create an oxymoron? then no! 

Can an omnipotent God force people to love and yet God in it's nature be love? It's an oxymoron. 

So your fundamental question is flaw because you take one side of the aspect of God and reject all other aspect. 

[Vesper 27,282]

3 minutes ago, Fernando said:

I answer, I said how you can create an oxymoron?

Omnipotent in what way? 

Is Omnipotent to create an oxymoron? then no! 

Can an omnipotent God force people to love and yet God in it's nature be love? It's an oxymoron. 

So your fundamental question is flaw because you take one side of the aspect of god and reject all other aspect. 

as usually with you religion types

you are playing semantic games

you are leaving out half of the construct

all good and all powerful

please do not don't bad faith (pardon the pun, roflmaooo) post with me