Funny (political, religious) pictures

I think this is because we don't have a great, Mexican-American owned restaurant chain yet. Chi-chi's TRIED to be this and failed because it sucked, but if I could get the stuff I get at Tres Potrillos at a sit-down chain, I don't know what I'd do (other than probably never get Taco Bell again).
I don't think that there is a nation-wide chain restaurant that isn't Tex-Mex food period. It doesn't matter who it is owned by. Just about every sit-down Mexican place (that are owned by actual Mexicans) in Oklahoma and North Carolina (so far) have been bland Tex-Mex. They are catering to the white bland-food-eating folks. In Oklahoma, there are some taqueiras (and food trucks) that actually serve Mexican food (tripe, lengua, etc). They are predominately filled with working class Mexicans and the occasional white guy (me). The "real" Mexican places are becoming more and more popular, but I don't we will see a nation-wide chain soon. In 10 more years? Probably.

Also, Chi-Chi in Bangla (language of Bangladesh and W. Begal, India) means "dirty".
 
We have a pretty high Mexican population, but the big restaurants that open up with "We're Mexican made by authentic Mexicans!" tend to close within 6 months with a sticker from the Department of Health on the door.
Chi-Chi in Bangla (language of Bangladesh and W. Begal, India) means "dirty".
You should see what it means in Spanish.

--Patrick
 
What is the magazine holder called? That's an interesting design - requires a little effort before you can use the gun, but keeps the ammo right on the gun near where you need it should you need it.
She'd have to clear the flag that's in the chamber as well (it's a thing that helps prove there is no round in the chamber for in uninformed)
 
Yeah, I just imagine the thing holding the mag is just plastic designed to clip in and detach like the magazine. This way she just needs to expel the mag and insert the real one.

I imagine she's doing her mandatory military period right now.
 
Yeah, I just imagine the thing holding the mag is just plastic designed to clip in and detach like the magazine. This way she just needs to expel the mag and insert the real one.

I imagine she's doing her mandatory military period right now.
When I did my national service, at no point did the occasions when I needed to carry a rifle overlap with the occasions where I got to wear a frilly white dress.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
When I did my national service, at no point did the occasions when I needed to carry a rifle overlap with the occasions where I got to wear a frilly white dress.
From what I hear, the IDF requires you to have your weapon close at all times. All times.
 
Wow - couldn't you substitute "God" for "electricity" in that passage & have the same conclusion?
No, because there are enough people in those circles that have felt God or know him on a first name basis.

But electricity? Weird stuff from nowhere, being chanelled by those mysterious plugs in the wall...
 
Isn't that their point?
Yeah, I assume they're trying to be illustrative: no one would deny electricity is a real phenomenon, so why would you doubt God, when the same statements apply.

The name of the textbook, however, is Bob Jones Science 4 (as in, Grade 4). Bob Jones University is a Christian university with a reputation for fundamentalism. The University Press publishes homeschooling materials, like this text.
 
Yeah, I assume they're trying to be illustrative: no one would deny electricity is a real phenomenon, so why would you doubt God, when the same statements apply.
Where's the on/off switch for God then? And if he has one, why haven't we flipped it to off and broken the fucking switch yet?
 
So when they find out later that electricity has a real basis and is well known and understood, their religious foundation is shaken and they fall away from their faith anyway.

If you're going to teach or profess a faith, at least build a decent foundation.
Oh, I agree. I was merely saying that if you accept, prima facie, their examination of electricity, the metaphor applies well to the concept of the divine. "While there may be many ideas about its source or the way it comes to us, it certainly leaves its mark upon day-to-day existence."

In logic, we're taught to adopt the Principle of Charity, when examining another's statements: that is, to assume the strongest, most coherent explanation of their statement, even though it may be stated with a fallacy. For instance, if I say, "I get ear infections once a year and they only last a day," the 'only' could well apply to 'ear infections' - that is, only ear infections last one day. But what I most likely mean is that ear infections last one day only, and I just placed 'only' in a lexically ambiguous place.

So while I feel the whole excerpt from that textbook is wrong, and ultimately a poor tool for explaining either science or concepts of the divine, I tried to find the most coherent way to understand it.
 
Top