Interesting. I am in agreement on something like 99% of your post.
Guess I missed my chance to vote "Runningart" in 2004. :-)
Interesting. I am in agreement on something like 99% of your post.
Guess I missed my chance to vote "Runningart" in 2004. :-)
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
While we’re at it stop believing in miracles and the tooth fairy. There is sound science and there is the imaginary deity of choice in the sky.
Alan
You should never bash Christians and their beliefs. Fat hurts and I may disagree politically, but we do not take kindly to people mocking others for their faith in God.
That was uncalled for.
While I pretty much follow the guideline that you suggest, ("don't mock others for their faith in God"), it does raise an obvious question. Should one also refrain from mocking belief in unicorns and fairies? Or how about being properly respectful of one's belief in the sanctity of banana peels?
I think that the onus should lie with those of faith. If you really have faith, then others mocking that faith should be as consequential to you as a snowflake landing on Pluto.
Well I Dunno wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
You should never bash Christians and their beliefs. Fat hurts and I may disagree politically, but we do not take kindly to people mocking others for their faith in God.
That was uncalled for.
While I pretty much follow the guideline that you suggest, ("don't mock others for their faith in God"), it does raise an obvious question. Should one also refrain from mocking belief in unicorns and fairies? Or how about being properly respectful of one's belief in the sanctity of banana peels?
I think that the onus should lie with those of faith. If you really have faith, then others mocking that faith should be as consequential to you as a snowflake landing on Pluto.
Aye, thus was my point. I didn’t mock because of my opinion of his or any religion.
It was a test of conviction and political motivation.
I can’t stand politics motivated by religion. We would be no better than ISIS.
Alan
Flagpole wrote:
The fair and impartial judge wrote:
Sorry. You can't reject it. You don't have the power.
There are more than two sides. If you think there are, you are wrong.
No "I told you so" or victory lap unless you are 100% correct on all predictions in that post. That's how it will be and you will be held accountable.
Again...nah.
I will spell it all out when it is time. It will be clear that I am right. All reasonable people will agree. I will not respond to you again on this until I have leveled the I Told You So, and only then if you challenge me on it.
You will need to be 100% correct on ALL points outlined in this post in order to claim a victory lap or offer an "I told you so." This post will be the reference by which my judgement will be imparted fairly and impartially.
Those are the ground rules. If you choose not to abide by the ground rules, you will not be able to claim a victory lap or offer an "I told you so." So let it be written, so let it be done.
Capisce?
This political fact check is fake news.
"What is the law currently?
Most legal experts we contacted agreed with this much of the Democrats’ argument: Killing a baby after birth is already against the law."
This is same logic Republicans use against gun control. I will switch a few words and then tell me how idiotic gun control is?
"What is the law currently?
Most legal experts we contacted agreed with this much of the Republicans’ argument: Killing a person with a gun is already against the law."
That’s a terrible analogy. There only exist very tiny gaps in laws concerning abortions and infant protections - republicans were scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to address something that they did not properly understand and that virtually doesn’t ever happen. Again, we are talking about cases whereby an infant was born with disabilities so bad they are incompatible with life and it is a certainty they won’t survive and just a matter of when. Republicans wanted to not only remove decision-making in those circumstances away from doctors and family members, they wanted to make doctors liable for not conforming with their draconian and often impossible standards.
The application of such law would have been extremely rare and burdensome in situations where there is no hope anyway. So yes, existing laws already protect infants from murder and address those issues. There is zero need to have this new measure in place. Zero. Doctors and family members cannot kill an infant. That’s definitive but you want to spin that and call Dems baby killers. Totally out of touch with reality. But why am I bothering to reply, you’re still going to beat the baby killer drum.
As you know, killing someone with a gun is NOT necessarily against the law. Completely different legal applications. A very uniformed analogy really.
Suck on that you turd-lovin unamerican republican pieces of trash.
Warmbier family rebuke Trump's praise of Kim Jong-un
Trump trade war = fewer jobs coming to US :-(
Just wait until Mueller wraps up this investigation and watch as Trump celebrates on Twitter. It's going to be GLORIUS. Poor Clownpole, he's going to need therapy.
The Flagpolian Flops are coming
I will deliver the "I Told You So"
Mueller never
http://www.graphic-buffet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Character_Clown-example.jpg
-pole forever!
Rigged and others,
Why does Trump take the word of dictators over his own intel agencies? Is it because they tell him how great he is? Putin, the Saudi’s, Kim, it’s all the same. Has another president ever done the same in similar circumstances? If so what was the circumstance?
Thanks.
Alan
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
While we’re at it stop believing in miracles and the tooth fairy. There is sound science and there is the imaginary deity of choice in the sky.
Alan
You should never bash Christians and their beliefs. Fat hurts and I may disagree politically, but we do not take kindly to people mocking others for their faith in God.
That was uncalled for.
Since I was mentioned here, I'll be a little more clear on how I feel about posts mocking Christians.
Really, I don't mind. If I didn't know Jesus as Lord and savior, I would think that it's pretty crazy to believe in something as absurd as someone who died and lived again.
But as Tertullian said, Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). I'll leave it to the philosophy students among you to wrestle with that one.
Religion and science have one thing in common. The diligent adherent is led to astounding truths that defy common wisdom.
Runningart2004 wrote:
Also
Rigged, I respect your religion. But religion has no place in politics. It is not the goal of Christianity to change the law of man. Follow Christ’s teachings.
Alan
It is the goal of Christianity to change the hearts of man. In a democracy, that will eventually change the laws.
This is what modern evangelicals have forgotten. They have "forsaken the love you had at first" (Rev. 2:4)
These evangelicals decided that instead of seeking first the kingdom of God, they would seek political power in the kingdom of man. That is why they are rejected by the younger generation who see no authenticity in their ministry.
Fat hurts wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Also
Rigged, I respect your religion. But religion has no place in politics. It is not the goal of Christianity to change the law of man. Follow Christ’s teachings.
Alan
It is the goal of Christianity to change the hearts of man. In a democracy, that will eventually change the laws.
This is what modern evangelicals have forgotten. They have "forsaken the love you had at first" (Rev. 2:4)
These evangelicals decided that instead of seeking first the kingdom of God, they would seek political power in the kingdom of man. That is why they are rejected by the younger generation who see no authenticity in their ministry.
That is a secular goal of Christianity.
There is a difference between spreading the word of Christ and “changing the hearts of man” by force.
Too often Christians will demonize those who do not share their beliefs and the people are in turn turned off by Christianity.
Heck man the 10000 different sects of Christianity all differ in that approach.
Accept Christ as your lord and savior. Praise the lord. Do good works and spread the love. If you do that people will come to you.
Alan
Amen
Runningart2004 wrote:
Rigged and others,
Why does Trump take the word of dictators over his own intel agencies? Is it because they tell him how great he is? Putin, the Saudi’s, Kim, it’s all the same. Has another president ever done the same in similar circumstances? If so what was the circumstance?
Thanks.
Alan
because trump wants to be in the big boys club. His definition of the big boys club is a man who is in charge of everything. He sees cooperation among people as weak. That's why he worships the big Manhattan real estate familes and married his daughter to one of them. It's why he won't have anyone on staff with any power.
Dictators are the ultimate big boy - one guy in charge of a country, no other people making decisions. Trump admires that.
agip wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Rigged and others,
Why does Trump take the word of dictators over his own intel agencies? Is it because they tell him how great he is? Putin, the Saudi’s, Kim, it’s all the same. Has another president ever done the same in similar circumstances? If so what was the circumstance?
Thanks.
Alan
because trump wants to be in the big boys club. His definition of the big boys club is a man who is in charge of everything. He sees cooperation among people as weak. That's why he worships the big Manhattan real estate familes and married his daughter to one of them. It's why he won't have anyone on staff with any power.
Dictators are the ultimate big boy - one guy in charge of a country, no other people making decisions. Trump admires that.
Yeah Alan isn’t going to get a response to that one or even other simple questions such as: is there any valid reason why Trump would order his staff to just give Kushner the highest security clearance against everyone’s advice? I can think of a very selfish reason, to give Kishner access to all resources to do the most effective back room dealing to enrich the family. At the very least Trump is incompetent and at worst a blatant criminal - it’s like this across most issues.
Agip I’ll add to your comment that dictators always blame the other side for the need to take drastic measures and consolidate power.
And you know what, I so glad Trump got dog walked by Kim and came back empty handed. I don’t believe he is capable of striking any deal that would be more beneficial to us than to the other party. He hasn’t shown the ability or intent to do effective deal medaling yet. I’m still puzzled as to how you show up to a second summit with Kim without having done any groundwork to ensure you walk away with something. He basically just went on a little field trip to Vietnam (bone spurs didn’t bother him this time) on our dime. Much better for all of us that he fails.
He went to the summit to keep himself in the headlines. Trump knows that his main attraction to voters is his entertainment value, so staying in the headlines is his job #1. He has to keep himself on the front page, no matter what it takes. That's how he gets reelected.
As for Kushner...nepotism is part of the big boy theory - Trump can't possibly have competitors to himself in the WH, so he only has people around him who will spout his line. Obvioulsy kushner owes everything to spanks, and is taking the place of otherwise smart diplomats who would you know challenge Trump on things. Keeping it all in the family makes it easier for trump to run the show. The country be damned.
“I can think of a very selfish reason, to give Kishner access to all resources to do the most effective back room dealing to enrich the family.”
This is the sole reason Trump exists. It’s always about the brand. Trump will still be Trump after the election and once his time as president is over. Reality TV saved his financial self. Politics had kept him relevant as a brand.
Alan
All senators are educated people and are likely to understand the current laws regarding late term abortions. Framing the issue as killing healthy babies after birth is a winning political strategy and is accepted at face value by many potential voters. Many LR posters have done so. One even referred to it as aborting healthy babies after birth even though abortion occurs only during pregnancy. His using that terminology shows that he/she has zero understanding of the issue.
Trump follows the Russian Orthodox religion. The leader is also head of the church. “If the Tsar has enemies, let him dispose of them as he wills.” Too bad for him, we’ll never let Russia rule us.