muzik wrote: 
You Nazarene, you. Oh, wait. That was hobbitt.

 kcar wrote: 
I won't say the name - let's just say it was VERY fundamental, independent, evangelical and strict!  To know me now, you'd never guess I was "one of them"!

 muzik wrote: 
Yeesh! Which crazy-train cult religion was this? I know a guy who was raised Seventh-Day Adventist (no Christmas for you kids!) and somehow he turned out OK. I've been watching an old docudrama on the Salem witch trials ("Three Sovereigns for Sarah") and you quickly realize how readily a strict religion becomes a mind-warping prison. I knew a fair number of casual Catholics who conveniently ignored church teachings that didn't suit them but still couldn't shake that pervasive feeling of guilt. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
  2.1 is just fine.  Turn it up loud enough and it doesn't matter how many channels you don't have.

 kcar wrote: 
God, you are lucky.  My sisters and I had to go every time the doors opened.  My parents didn't, but we had to listen to those looooong boring sermons telling us that people who smoke and drink were going to hell...like my mom and dad and this was like in 2nd grade.  It only got worse until I reached my 40s.  SO thankful I'm now agnostic...sometimes atheist...depending on the topic of conversation.  

 bokey wrote: 
Sorry, but now it's 5.1 and all the cool kids are doing it in Dubly.

 bokey wrote: 
The four horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Mercifully, my parents took my brothers and me to church less than ten times during our collective childhood and then gave it up. Virgin birth, holy ghost, rising from the dead, trans/consubstantiation...we missed out on all that stuff.

Apparently a lot of people can remember the doctrine and miracle stories but can't apply moral lessons to their own lives. Amazing how many devoted churchgoers are spiteful, smug and hypocritical despite having to listen to someone yawp about being Christian for hours. 

Maybe the Donald could start his own religion with levels of Trumpiness that you could purchase. It'd be like Trump University meets Scientology.  

 kcar wrote: 
I could never get past the duality of Man.
Is there a quad thing? Sometimes I do better if I skip ahead.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Thucydides, Whitman and Trump's hair as the manifestation of the triune nature of God. Brilliant. 

 Antigone wrote: 
First step: telling one of the marriage parties that you're on their side against the other person.

 meower wrote: 
I think you should change your focus as a counselor ... you need to be a marriage counselor. With SeS.

SeS and I have added the following way of managing disagreements in our household:

 

One person will say something that is incorrect

and the other will let the wrong person (WP) know that they are wrong

WP will not admit to being wrong until proof is shown that WP is in fact W.

Once proof is shown WP will then say "I never said that"

Once proof is shown to WP that they actually DID say that, WP will call other person a "Hater"

 

it's done wonders for our marriage.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
what results if you accidentally leave Guy Fieri in a microwave... I spewed.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
This Style Guide to Covering Trump Honestly and Fairly is too late for me, since I work at The Post, which has had its credentials revoked by the Trump campaign. But it may not be too late for you, other members of the media! Please read and implement!

The Pillars of Covering Trump:
1. Donald Trump is never wrong. Donald Trump is infallible — like the pope but with more raw sexual charisma. If Donald Trump appears to be wrong in a story, either because of a statement or an action, or some combination of the two, it should be rewritten so that he is not wrong. A good baseline for what is fair and honest coverage is that fair and honest coverage depicts Donald Trump as the shining, golden god he is, envied of men and beloved of women. Unfair, dishonest coverage does not depict Donald Trump this way.

2. Style is as important as substance. A good post about Donald Trump includes at least one of the following words: “huge,” “great,” “manly,” “terrific,” “incredible,” “fantastic,” “remarkable,” “big”/”bigly,” “immense,” “girthy,” “magisterial,” “gargantuan,” “tumescent.” Ideally, this word would be in the headline. A bad post about Donald Trump includes the words or phrases “puny,” “dangerous,” “Godwin’s law,” “cocktail shrimp in a toupee,” “husk of dead skin and hyperbole,” “garbage fart,” “what results if you accidentally leave Guy Fieri in a microwave.”

3. Does Donald Trump contradict himself? Very well; he contradicts himself. Donald Trump is large. Donald Trump contains multitudes.

4. Who among us has not been in the position where what he means to say is something wise and temperate and what actually comes out of his mouth is a garbage fart? Equipped with this knowledge, it is often best to take into account what Donald Trump should have said and to report that instead of what he actually did say. (The great historian Thucydides used to do this, which is why Pericles’s Funeral Oration is so lovely.)

5. Remember the transitive property of Trump: Whenever Donald Trump loves something, it loves him back. Donald Trump loves women. Therefore, women love Donald Trump. Donald Trump loves Hispanics. Therefore, Hispanics love Donald Trump. Any polls that obscure these truths should be disregarded.

6. Donald Trump’s hair is real. Well, no. “Real” is putting it too mildly. Donald Trump’s hair is a fact that transcends reality or unreality, not to be questioned, merely to be admired, like the triune nature of God or the singular beauty and excellence of a Donald Trump building.

7. Two words: LARGE HANDS.

8. Facts are often biased against Donald Trump and should be used sparingly in reporting, if at all. Think of them as a garnish, not an entree.

9. Donald Trump’s word suffices. Fact-checking is at best gauche and at worst treasonous. What is fact? Donald Trump speaks truth, which is bigger than fact. Donald Trump loves you. You love Donald Trump.

10. Donald Trump believes that criticism is healthy. As Noel Coward put it, Donald Trump can take any amount of criticism, so long as it is unqualified praise.

Some Frequently Asked Questions on Fair Trump Coverage

Q: Can I just print a transcript of what Donald Trump actually said?
A: No. This is very mean and bad. What Donald Trump actually says is, of course, uniformly good and correct. But sometimes if you just write it out and give it to people to see, they will not think so. Therefore, this is to be avoided.

Q: What is a fair question?
A: An example of a fair question is “Donald Trump, why are you so good at business?” An example of an unfair or gotcha question is “Why did Lincoln succeed?”

Q: Can I describe what someone did at a Donald Trump rally?
A: Yes, if that someone is Donald Trump and what that someone did was “be awesome without interruption.”

Q: What if Donald Trump didn’t answer my question?
A: Not true. Donald Trump has given you the answer. Your question was not correct. This isn’t hard, just think of it like “Jeopardy!”

Q: In the statement issued by the Donald Trump campaign stating that it will stop credentialing Post reporters, the campaign said, “Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.” What is a bad story that is honest that Mr. Trump would not mind?
A: A story about Hillary Clinton.

Alexandra Petri writes the ComPost blog, offering a lighter take on the news and opinions of the day. She is the author of "A Field Guide to Awkward Silences."  Follow @petridishes

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
not giving them my email. nope.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 

Henceforth whenever a post mentions Drumph, here or on Facebook, my default response will be thus: Fuck you, Drumph.

This man has proven himself so undeserving of respect that even that response is more than he deserves. He is a piece of human excrement.