|
Post by Village Idiot on Oct 31, 2020 19:35:04 GMT -5
Isn't it hunter's moon out there tonight? Blue moon.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Oct 31, 2020 20:12:55 GMT -5
I thought maybe the hunter conspiracists might pick up on that.
tho it is a blue moon--second full one in a calendar month--it's also the first full moon after the harvest moon, which is a hunter's moon.
So bill, is it a blue hunter's moon, or a hunter's blue moon?
Either way, perhaps just being full is enough to account for some craziness.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2020 20:20:16 GMT -5
So bill, is it a blue hunter's moon, or a hunter's blue moon? Yes!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 31, 2020 20:26:44 GMT -5
So bill, is it a blue hunter's moon, or a hunter's blue moon? I would guess it depends on how cold it is. Much below about 10 or 20 degrees out and it's probably definitely a hunter's blue moon.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 31, 2020 20:44:48 GMT -5
So bill, is it a blue hunter's moon, or a hunter's blue moon? Yes! Technically it's a "Hunter's Moon". USA TODAY has details: "Halloween night will feature the moon event of the year. For the first time in decades, there will be a full moon visible across the entire U.S. on Halloween night, Oct. 31. The last time that a full moon was seen in all U.S. time zones on Halloween was 1944, according to the Farmers' Almanac. The next time we’ll see an equally spooky Halloween full moon is 2039, so plan your werewolf costumes accordingly. The Halloween full moon is also known as a "blue" moon because it's the second full moon of the month..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 15:30:31 GMT -5
Jawbone Avatar Oct 23, 2020 22:59:47 GMT -5 Jawbone said:
Nancy did not bring up the 25th amendment just about Trump.... it is more about Biden.
"I've been wondering if Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, being effectively amoral at this point in time, even remember what religion is about."
Probably could add Harris to that list too. She will be our next pres if Joe wins. Joe will go away somehow, heath most likely.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 2, 2020 16:24:55 GMT -5
Charging politicians with being insuffiently religious and lacking morals is frankly, if using Trump and his repulsive minions as your yardstick for devoutness and moral fortitude, ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 2, 2020 17:04:57 GMT -5
If I was going to show off by holding a bible, I'd show the gilt fore edge.
Nobody would be able to tell if it was upside down.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 2, 2020 17:18:40 GMT -5
Jawbone Avatar Oct 23, 2020 22:59:47 GMT -5 Jawbone said: Nancy did not bring up the 25th amendment just about Trump.... it is more about Biden. "I've been wondering if Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, being effectively amoral at this point in time, even remember what religion is about." Probably could add Harris to that list too. She will be our next pres if Joe wins. Joe will go away somehow, heath most likely. Nice first post, but we're a friendly group here. Please take a moment and introduce yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 17:47:58 GMT -5
I’m just a guy who strums and rides. And who dislikes both parties. Trust is not given but earned.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 2, 2020 17:53:27 GMT -5
I’m just a guy who strums and rides. Hopefully not at the same time! Whereabouts you live, if you don't mind revealing that?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 2, 2020 17:54:42 GMT -5
I’m just a guy who strums and rides. And who dislikes both parties. Trust is not given but earned. Rides? Now you're speaking my language. Whatcha running?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 18:33:36 GMT -5
Bicycles. Rivendells these days with fat road tires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2020 18:36:40 GMT -5
With the possible exception of Peter (and I think his views are more nuanced than might be gleaned from off the cuff posts), I don't see anyone expressing unreserved support for either candidate. For some reason, we're presented with a stunningly, bafflingly, historicaly, impossibly bad pair of candidates. Most partisans, when confronted with the pathologies of their candidate, don't defend him. They point to the other guy's pathologies. That reason, or reasons, is what interests me. There is something going on with what you might call our national psychology that's worth understanding. Personally, I stopped caring when Romney lost. That's when I decided there wasn't any point. I wouldn't say I've gone full on accelerationist, but I don't see any soft landing. We're all slaves to math now. my parents always said it was about the lesser of evils. Not much seems to have changed.
|
|
|
Post by Marty on Nov 2, 2020 19:07:33 GMT -5
With the possible exception of Peter (and I think his views are more nuanced than might be gleaned from off the cuff posts), I don't see anyone expressing unreserved support for either candidate. For some reason, we're presented with a stunningly, bafflingly, historicaly, impossibly bad pair of candidates. Most partisans, when confronted with the pathologies of their candidate, don't defend him. They point to the other guy's pathologies. That reason, or reasons, is what interests me. There is something going on with what you might call our national psychology that's worth understanding. Personally, I stopped caring when Romney lost. That's when I decided there wasn't any point. I wouldn't say I've gone full on accelerationist, but I don't see any soft landing. We're all slaves to math now. my parents always said it was about the lesser of evils. Not much seems to have changed. Pretty much my feelings also. If you vote for our best choice you may be throwing your vote away. All you can really do is hopefully keep the worst choice from winning by voting for the second worst.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 2, 2020 19:26:50 GMT -5
"For some reason, we're presented with a stunningly, bafflingly, historicaly, impossibly bad pair of candidates."
I still disagree. I realize I'm not blazing a new trail by disagreeing with a political post.
|
|
|
Post by Marty on Nov 2, 2020 19:32:12 GMT -5
"For some reason, we're presented with a stunningly, bafflingly, historicaly, impossibly bad pair of candidates." I still disagree. I realize I'm not blazing a new trail by disagreeing with a political post. That's because you're old and boring. Oh! Wait, so am I. We need to do something about that. But first a nap.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 2, 2020 19:39:34 GMT -5
"For some reason, we're presented with a stunningly, bafflingly, historicaly, impossibly bad pair of candidates."
Not a pair of candidates--three.
Covid is running unopposed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2020 6:11:55 GMT -5
I have to express sadness and amusement ("sadment"?) at people who look at the candidates and refer to them as "stunningly, bafflingly, historically, impossibly bad." As if the parties are required to give you a candidate you agree with 100 percent of the time. When does that ever happen? As the saying goes, a vote isn't a valentine. The candidates were apparently stunningly, bafflingly, historically and impossibly bad enough to survive the primaries and win their parties' nomination at the conventions. Somebody liked them, and those somebodies were apparently in the majority.
I'm also guessing those who complain about "stunningly, bafflingly, historically, impossibly bad" candidates have never been a delegate to a national convention.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 3, 2020 6:59:03 GMT -5
Even Nixon seems noble when compared to these two.
I take our last half-dozen elections as an indictment of where we've fallen as a people.
I wish tonight would be the end of this cycle, but I doubt that. Batten down the hatches, y'all!
|
|