Log in

View Full Version : An idiot at work?


Pages : [1] 2

paraclete
May 14, 2019, 05:26 PM
I think it is apparent he is not a genius, so what remains is the possibility he is an idiot

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/comment-trump-has-no-idea-what-hes-doing/ar-AABm3QU?ocid=spartandhp

Trump is bringing brinkmanship to new levels. He doesn't want an agreement with China, he wants abject capitulation. He doesn't want a nuclear accord with Iran, he wants abject capitulation. He wants total nuclear disarmament from North Korea, and so any deal which does not deliver capitulation to his "Great America" is unacceptable. And the excuse is always the other party wouldn't play on his terms, which of course, is send another carrier group to their front door. We can only hope that in 2020, the american people will decide they have had enough of this petulant child

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/donald-trumps-ambassador-to-australia-on-twitter-us-president/11110704

and the advice from his ambassador, "ignore his tweets". Is this what we can expect from the american alliance. Background noise?

talaniman
May 14, 2019, 06:06 PM
What part of lying, cheating bully is it you didn't understand when I was telling you OVER, and OVER, AGAIN. Anyway God appointed him so take it up with HIM. JL will be along to straighten you out, you just wait!

paraclete
May 14, 2019, 07:09 PM
What part of lying, cheating bully is it you didn't understand when I was telling you OVER, and OVER, AGAIN. Anyway God appointed him so take it up with HIM. JL will be along to straighten you out, you just wait!


Tal, I fully understood from the get go. However I will give someone a chance, afterall; I have been known to be wrong, let me see, when was that? Never mind. I don't like the leftist point of view, however, thieving leftists wanting to spend my money on stupid objectives are equally stupid and idiotic from my perspective

You see Tal, I don't like loud mouth bullies either, and Dump typifies that class of idiot. I sometimes wonder whether God has abdicated in the leadership appointment department or has he resorted to punishing us with despotic leaders so we will turn back to him

jlisenbe
May 15, 2019, 04:28 AM
What part of lying, cheating bully is it you didn't understand when I was telling you OVER, and OVER, AGAIN.

There you go talking about Obama again. I keep telling you that he is gone now so you can just let it go.

As for Trump, is he a high character person? We all know he is not, but the economy is in record territory and yet you say he is an idiot? Well if that is the case, we need more idiots in office. It gets old watching the vitriol which has consumed the left. Instead of simply talking issues and policy, they are reduced to name calling such as "idiot" and "dufus". In that regard, they are just like Trump, and all from the same litter.

paraclete
May 15, 2019, 06:52 AM
There you go talking about Obama again. I keep telling you that he is gone now so you can just let it go.

As for Trump, is he a high character person? We all know he is not, but the economy is in record territory and yet you say he is an idiot? Well if that is the case, we need more idiots in office. It gets old watching the vitriol which has consumed the left. Instead of simply talking issues and policy, they are reduced to name calling such as "idiot" and "dufus". In that regard, they are just like Trump, and all from the same litter.

Ah here we are, some dupe to set me straight, the economy is doing what economies do, after a long recession the economy bounces back. When you get the coming recession, will that be down to Dump or will you find another excuse

jlisenbe
May 15, 2019, 07:15 AM
the economy is doing what economies do, after a long recession the economy bounces back

Except, if you will check, that's not what this economy did. First of all, there was no "long recession". The so-called Great Recession lasted about eighteen months. Mr. Obama had eight years and the economy was no better than sluggish. We are now in record low levels of unemployment and in much better shape than under Obama. So this is not a recovery from a recession, but rather a recovery from a sluggish recovery.

If you will check your history, you will find that the economy did not "bounce back" from the worst recession in American history. The Great Depression lasted about ten years and was only stopped by the industrial growth of WW2. Not that I disagree with your basic statement. Recovery generally follows recession, so true enough, but that is not really the case with this present situation. And I say that as no big fan of Trump, but rather as someone who believes in giving credit where credit is due.

As to your name calling, I never realized how childish it looks until I got to this board. Someone disagrees with you, they must be a dupe. President is a "dufus", "idiot", or a "Dump". That is often what happens when a person is motivated by anger or hate, or possibly has nothing really useful to say.

paraclete
May 15, 2019, 04:03 PM
nothing really useful to say.

yes I have noted that is your response to much of what is posted here. With an attitude like that why do you bother?

talaniman
May 15, 2019, 04:14 PM
Right wing revisionist history or spin won't change the fact we were headed in a very good direction economically before the dufus got here after a very extreme global negative event. The hypocrisy of your words here start with not giving the previous prez his credit due but instead twisting the facts to suit your narrative, prejudicial at best. Just like your name calling meme when its a verified FACT he is a bully who lies cheats and steals, just like his daddy taught him, which he took to like a duck to water.

Now he is rewarding the Saudis with nuclear technology, trying to start a war with Iran that congress has yet to be briefed about and continues this tariff nonsense with China. Yeah I would say he is a dufus. See I can give him the credit he is due too.

jlisenbe
May 15, 2019, 05:28 PM
Right wing revisionist history or spin won't change the fact we were headed in a very good direction economically before the dufus got here after a very extreme global negative event. The hypocrisy of your words here start with not giving the previous prez his credit due but instead twisting the facts to suit your narrative, prejudicial at best.

9 trillion of additional federal debt bought us a sluggish economy that, at least, was not in recession. That's the credit I give him. If you want me to say that at least the wheels did not fall off the cart, then fine, but the fact is he had the weakest recovery from a recession EVER.


Just like your name calling meme when its a verified FACT he is a bully who lies cheats and steals, just like his daddy taught him, which he took to like a duck to water.

I think in some ways that is a fair criticism, but it is also true that Obama had no problems with lying when he thought it would advance his cause.


Now he is rewarding the Saudis with nuclear technology, trying to start a war with Iran that congress has yet to be briefed about and continues this tariff nonsense with China. Yeah I would say he is a dufus. See I can give him the credit he is due too.

I think you are over-reaching, but time will tell. My biggest criticism of Trump is that, in the middle of an amazingly good economy, we are still running enormous deficits. I guess that is at least one way that dems and repubs work together.


yes I have noted that is your response to much of what is posted here. With an attitude like that why do you bother?

I rest my case.

talaniman
May 16, 2019, 05:17 AM
9 trillion of additional federal debt bought us a sluggish economy that, at least, was not in recession. That's the credit I give him. If you want me to say that at least the wheels did not fall off the cart, then fine, but the fact is he had the weakest recovery from a recession EVER.

Let's be clear, the economy was only sluggish for some of us. Others have made out very well, in fact they have done great. Give Obama credit though, because part of his deficit spending was in tax cuts for the middle class, and putting the costs of wars we were engaged in ON THE BOOKS. That's a real big deal for any fiscal stability. I must point out here that the repubs took the congress and refused to upgrade bridges, roads, schools and other infrastructure projects because the PAY for was a tax on the rich guys who weathered the financial crisis just fine. They still have not gotten an infrastructure bill together. Let's face it, deficits and debt is challenging but managing it is what's important.

I'm waiting for the Chinese and others who are tariffed now to stop buying American debts or reduce what they buy and we will see about this great economy built on debts that enriched the ones that had the great resources already. So let's not put all the blame for your so called weak recovery without examining the role the congress has played in the fiscal management of the counties money and the health of the states and localities that depend on that fiscal management.

Nor ignore the reality of those at the top setting the market policy with those windfalls over the decades that took the traditional jobs overseas for the cheap labor while importing products we no longer make. You make me laugh when you credit the dufus who stepped into a good economy without recognizing the hard work that got it there in the first place. It's like rich guys taking credit for building a great nation built on the backs of slaves and minorities and poor people and ordinary folks.

Keep holding your nose at the dufus corruption, and pointing out how everybody else is so morally corrupt.


I think in some ways that is a fair criticism, but it is also true that Obama had no problems with lying when he thought it would advance his cause.


That may explain your defending the biggest liar we have ever had in the WH, but doesn't justify it. According to you replacing one liar for a BIFFER one is the solution to our problem...REALLY?


I think you are over-reaching, but time will tell. My biggest criticism of Trump is that, in the middle of an amazingly good economy, we are still running enormous deficits. I guess that is at least one way that dems and repubs work together.


There you go again, dismissing the obvious again. Jared gets money from Saudis the dufus gives the Saudis NUKES. Over reaching? That's only the tip of the iceberg.

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 05:29 AM
That may explain your defending the biggest liar we have ever had in the WH, but doesn't justify it.

I don't know of a bigger lie ever told than Obama's lie about Benghazi.


There you go again, dismissing the obvious again. Jared gets money from Saudis the dufus gives the Saudis NUKES. Over reaching? That's only the tip of the iceberg.

And you're the same guy who said Trump conspired with the Russkies.


Let's be clear, the economy was only sluggish for some of us.

I'm glad to see you admit that the economy was sluggish.

This is all very simple. It is the current norm for American politics and is called partisanship. People hate Trump for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his apparent arrogance, and so grab at every slender thread to try and bring him down. They lose all ability to be reasonable. Everyone is in danger of going down this road.

paraclete
May 16, 2019, 06:01 AM
You know the thing about Trump is he can't have done all this on his own, he had help from the swamp critters

Athos
May 16, 2019, 06:07 AM
.

I don't know of a bigger lie ever told than Obama's lie about Benghazi.



And you're the same guy who said Trump conspired with the Russkies.



I'm glad to see you admit that the economy was sluggish.

This is all very simple. It is the current norm for American politics and is called partisanship. People hate Trump for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his apparent arrogance, and so grab at every slender thread to try and bring him down. They lose all ability to be reasonable. Everyone is in danger of going down this road.


Your reply is as lame as it gets. Read Tal's post 5 or 10 times until it gets through that thick skull of yours.

Equating Obama with Trump is breathtakingly stupid. Have you read a newspaper or watch TV in the last 3 years? Trump's lies and daily idiocy is there for the entire world to see. His ignorance is staggering - see tariffs, diplomacy, NATO, emoluments, cabinet selections, etc., etc. need I go on?

talaniman
May 16, 2019, 06:10 AM
.

I don't know of a bigger lie ever told than Obama's lie about Benghazi.

He said it was a terrorist attack the following Monday, and there were NUMEROUS investigations since, including 7 by REPUBS. Can we not hold the dufus to the same standard?


And you're the same guy who said Trump conspired with the Russkies.

Now that's a shame since you have not read the report, just relying on what the dufus and his sycophants are saying. If you did you would know for FACT they are lying to your face. Fact is he is still colluding with the Ruskies, since it worked so well for him before.


I'm glad to see you admit that the economy was sluggish.


Don't twist my words, I specified who it was sluggish for.


This is all very simple. It is the current norm for American politics and is called partisanship. People hate Trump for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his apparent arrogance, and so grab at every slender thread to try and bring him down. They lose all ability to be reasonable. Everyone is in danger of going down this road.

Yes it's silly season, and the dufus has to keep his support in line for the election, and he got you with LIES and bombastic antics, and he has to keep lying to keep it. It's beyond arrogance, it's survival. Just because you like it doesn't mean I have to, nor anyone else which is the majority of the country. Foolish to think those opposed to him should rollover and let him do as he pleases don't you think?

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 06:44 AM
He said it was a terrorist attack the following Monday, and there were NUMEROUS investigations since, including 7 by REPUBS. Can we not hold the dufus to the same standard?

Then why did he send Susan Rice on to FIVE Sunday morning news programs to say it was not a terrorist attack but just a spontaneous mob action? You need to stop drinking the Kool Aid.


Now that's a shame since you have not read the report, just relying on what the dufus and his sycophants are saying. If you did you would know for FACT they are lying to your face. Fact is he is still colluding with the Ruskies, since it worked so well for him before.

I think you are the only person in America who still believes that. It seems to me that your hatred of Trump tends to blind you. I used to see the same thing on the other side with people who hated Obama. Now it is possible that Trump colluded with the Russians, but Mueller stated he did not find sufficient evidence to prove a criminal case, so there you go. And that was a man who staffed his investigation with a bunch of left-wing people who desperately wanted to nail Trump, but after nearly two years could not do so due to a lack of evidence.


Foolish to think those opposed to him should rollover and let him do as he pleases don't you think?

I doubt that will happen, nor should it, but keeping it honest and non-hateful would be helpful.

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 06:53 AM
Your reply is as lame as it gets. Read Tal's post 5 or 10 times until it gets through that thick skull of yours.

Equating Obama with Trump is breathtakingly stupid. Have you read a newspaper or watch TV in the last 3 years? Trump's lies and daily idiocy is there for the entire world to see. His ignorance is staggering - see tariffs, diplomacy, NATO, emoluments, cabinet selections, etc., etc. need I go on?

Just more of the name calling. Are you always this angry?

tomder55
May 16, 2019, 07:35 AM
I do not like tariffs . That being said ;the Chinese cannot be allowed to continue breaking treaty agreements and stealing intellectual property.

http://fortune.com/2019/03/01/china-ip-theft/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-stole-their-ip-within-the-last-year-cnbc.html

There was an agreement in principle that the Chinese backed away from ? Instead the Chinese have been hiring swamp critters to serve as foreign agents on their behalf including former Speaker Bonehead and former Senator Joe Lieberman .

https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-us-officials-who-now-lobby-for-china

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/01/joe-lieberman-formally-registers-as-lobbyist-for-chinese-telecom-giant-zte/

The Chinese think they can wait Trump out because of all the domestic heat he takes from the opposition due to the false accusations that he was helped by the Russians to win the election. When he is reelected they won't get as good a deal.

If you think the 12ers in Tehran should be allowed to develop nukes you are as nutty as they are .There is no possible agreement where they have nukes and the world or the region is more stable

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 07:56 AM
I do not like tariffs . That being said ;the Chinese cannot be allowed to continue breaking treaty agreements and stealing intellectual property.

Pretty well sums it up.

Athos
May 16, 2019, 08:04 AM
Just more of the name calling. Are you always this angry?


No. I'm only this angry when a New York street thug takes over the presidency of this once-great country. He puts children in cages and hobnobs with global fascists. He "loves" a dictator who is on a par with the worst human beings ever in public life. He is a dangerous narcissist who threatens the security of the entire planet. Most importantly, he is clearly mentally disabled and cannot be trusted to wield the enormous military power that is the US. As I write this, he is playing war games with Iran, putting American soldiers and sailors in jeopardy to satisfy his bizarre hatred of anything Obama ever accomplished.

Is the American electorate at fault? Yes, without a doubt, at least partially and based on an antiquated system of counting votes. A fair vote counting puts Hillary Clinton as president.

Trump's behavior by now should convince those who voted for him that they made a mistake, but it also behooves the rest of us to understand why. If conditions are perceived by those voters as so bad that they made a desperate choice, then it's time for the rest of us to alleviate those problems to the degree they can be solved.

We are NOT two nations. E pluribus unam. We should all be our brother's keeper. If we truly practice this philosophy, we will never see the likes of a Trump again.

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 09:03 AM
Trump's behavior by now should convince those who voted for him that they made a mistake, but it also behooves the rest of us to understand why. If conditions are perceived by those voters as so bad that they made a desperate choice, then it's time for restthe of us to alleviate those problems to the degree they can be solved.

Many of us voted for Trump simply because the alternative was unimaginably bad. If the dems will run a candidate that understands the economy, will commit to a balanced budget and to a stoppage of packing SCOTUS with SJW's who use the power of the bench to legislate, then I will seriously consider that person. Instead we see, with I believe the exception of Biden, a complete commitment to an idiotic Green New Deal that will cost tens of trillions of dollars which we plainly do not have. So even though I am no admirer of Trump, for now I see no alternative to the craziness which has become the dem party.

If we all truly became our brother's keeper, you would still have poverty, but we would need no welfare program, so you certainly make a valid point. Some people are poor because they became sick, are mentally ill, made some bad choices, etc, but others are poor because they just will not make responsible choices. Many in the first group can be helped, but good luck with the second group. If you were helping that second group personally, with your own money, then you would soon put an end to it.

Thank you for the reasoned reply. I do understand where you are coming from.

waltero
May 16, 2019, 09:34 AM
bizarre hatred of anything Obama ever accomplished.

How's that working for you (bizarre hatred towered Trump)?

What we hate will ruin us.

talaniman
May 16, 2019, 09:40 AM
More of us didn't vote for the dufus. We knew he was a crook and didn't need Mueller to tell us that. Oh how the right hollered and screamed for 8 years, but play dumb now that the shoe is on the other foot. It would be hilarious if not for the seriousness of the level of corruption we have risen too.

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 10:21 AM
Oh how they right hollered and screamed for 8 years, but play dumb now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Yes, just like you just ignore Obama's lying about Benghazi and the four Americans who died there needlessly. Partisanship. We both do it, but you don't like to admit to it.

talaniman
May 16, 2019, 10:49 AM
I ignored the Obama lies, you ignore the dufus lies, that makes us both idiots for ignoring the lies. Admit it, you're as dumb and stupid as I am!

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 11:00 AM
Finally, we agree on something! That really made me laugh, probably because it is closer to being true that I might care to admit.

talaniman
May 16, 2019, 11:45 AM
SEE! It's more relaxing to agree on something if not EVERYTHING. Lets have a great day. At least until I find some more rocks to chunk at ya.

jlisenbe
May 16, 2019, 11:58 AM
Roger that.

paraclete
May 16, 2019, 10:18 PM
Admit it, your as dumb and stupid as I am!

Such bipartisan reparte'. I didn't think it possible that you could have such insight


Tell me Tal, if you ignored Obama's lies, Why are you bleating about Trump?

jlisenbe
May 17, 2019, 04:36 AM
The truth is, we vote for people based on issues more than character. I voted for Trump because of his support for issues important to me. Tal voted for Obama because of issues important to him. I assume the same is true in Aussie land. Then we tend to overlook his mistakes so long as he continues to promote policies we agree with. If we waited for someone with great character to come along, we wouldn't have presidents in most years. That's a sad observation but basically, I think, true.

talaniman
May 17, 2019, 05:31 AM
Such bipartisan reparte'. I didn't think it possible that you could have such insight


Tell me Tal, if you ignored Obama's lies, Why are you bleating about Trump?

Because I can. As my friend says we vote, a truly "civil" war of ideas and thoughts. We can disagree about the LIES each side tells, but neither side is perfect, and all politicians spin because they want our votes. No matter who you vote for, or why, that's your right isn't it? I just think that Obama's lies don't even come close to the lies the dufus and his elected and appointed sycophants tell. He is way over the boundaries of good behavior in my book.

That's my opinion and obviously not shared by everyone, but in America we can express those opinions, vote and move on. There is always an election coming. That's what makes us great! So JL is spot on in that regard.

jlisenbe
May 17, 2019, 06:40 AM
all politicians spin because they want our votes.

Very true observation.

paraclete
May 17, 2019, 06:47 AM
Because I can. As my friend says we vote, a truly "civil" war of ideas and thoughts. We can disagree about the LIES each side tells, but neither side is perfect, and all politicians spin because they want our votes. No matter who you vote for, or why, that's your right isn't it? I just think that Obama's lies don't even come close to the lies the dufus and his elected and appointed sycophants tell. He is way over the boundaries of good behavior in my book.

That's my opinion and obviously not shared by everyone, but in America we can express those opinions, vote and move on. There is always an election coming. That's what makes us great! So JL is spot on in that regard.

Let me try and answer both of you, firstly Tal, you show no sign of moving on, you are stuck in a rut. One might say it is a Trump sized pot hole. I am a conservative voter, that is because I abhor waste and around here the left wastes every opportunity it is given. There was a time when there was great reform, visionary reform, but it was only achieved by consensus, a government actually taking the people with it. But that era also spawned the idea that if the leader didn't move over for the deputy, or some other ego, he should be replaced immediately. And what do we have, a government that cannot do anything. Sound familiar

jlisenbe
May 17, 2019, 07:21 AM
what do we have, a government that cannot do anything. Sound familiar

I see your point and think it is a good one. However, it is rather frequently true that a government not doing anything can be a very good thing. In fact, for those of us who favor a minimalist government, and view government as not the enemy but very much not our good friend, then the idea of the government doing nothing very often sounds good. So far, our government needs to have done about 22 trillion dollars less than it has done. The Constitution clearly lays out five basic functions for the federal government. 1. Establish a system of justice (courts and laws). 2. Provide for the common defense. 3. Promote the general (not the individual) welfare. 4. Insure domestic tranquility. 5. Secure the blessings (Wow! A religious term!) of liberty for us and our posterity.

Additionally, the tenth amendment says that only the federal government only has the powers expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. If we would follow these ideas, our federal government would stay in its place, and the states would do most of the governing.

talaniman
May 17, 2019, 08:00 AM
Circle the calendar folks, me and JL mostly agree! OMG! No matter who you vote for or who gets elected the average citizen has no choice but to move on and handle the business of our daily lives Clete. Personally I cannot afford to be stuck and not deal with REALITY since it's up front and personal.

What you think I just sit and wait for you guys all the time. I wish I could! 8D Some days are busier than others but I do have a life, as well as opinions to share, cause I care.

Cool?

waltero
May 17, 2019, 11:24 AM
Tell me Tal, if you ignored Obama's lies, Why are you bleating about Trump?
Maybe because Trump is the Master of the Game. It's not about lying, to cover up the truth, It's much, much more than that.
Trump is setting a whole new standard. “It’s not just that Trump lies, it is that he lies with purpose—blatantly, to assert power over truth itself.” To alter reality. It’s the lying, the kind of thoroughgoing lying that gives rise to a whole new reality or, better still, to no reality at all.



An idiot at work?

Nothing new.

tomder55
May 17, 2019, 01:06 PM
yeah there is some real bipartisanship going on these days . Even the Schmuckster supports Trump's China initiatives .



https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/978655909198036993/Gpnx2Os2_x96.jpg




(https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSchumer)

Chuck Schumer



@SenSchumer


(https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSchumer)











Hang tough on China, President @realDonaldTrump (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
. Don’t back down.

Strength is the only way to win with China.



But Dem front runner Joe Biden doesn't think China is a threat . That's because his families wealth is tied to the Chinese stealing drone technology and other intellectual property from the US.

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/03/biden-son-china-business/

jlisenbe
May 17, 2019, 03:53 PM
Trump and Schumer agreeing is quite an event, but that's nothing compared to Tal and I agreeing. It has been a great two days.

paraclete
May 17, 2019, 03:56 PM
Circle the calendar folks, me and JL mostly agree! OMG! No matter who you vote for or who gets elected the average citizen has no choice but to move on and handle the business of our daily lives Clete. Personally I cannot afford to be stuck and not deal with REALITY since it's up front and personal.

What you think I just sit and wait for you guys all the time. I wish I could! 8D Some days are busier than others but I do have a life, as well as opinions to share, cause I care.

Cool?

Ok Tal I've put an X on the wall with a date. We all have busy lives Tal, today I'm busy ignoring politicians

Athos
May 17, 2019, 08:17 PM
The Constitution clearly lays out five basic functions for the federal government. 1. Establish a system of justice (courts and laws). 2. Provide for the common defense. 3. Promote the general (not the individual) welfare. 4. Insure domestic tranquility. 5. Secure the blessings


When you quote the US Constitution to support your position or prove your point, and then you misquote that document by adding terms not there in the original, you lose all credibility and are seen as someone who will say whatever they want for whatever reason.

Very much like Donald Trump does every day.

jlisenbe
May 18, 2019, 01:55 AM
When you quote the US Constitution to support your position or prove your point, and then you misquote that document by adding terms not there in the original, you lose all credibility and are seen as someone who will say whatever they want for whatever reason.

I didn't quote the Constitution, so I couldn't have misquoted it. I was going largely from memory, but I think I accurately reflected what the preamble says. I noted my comments by plainly putting them in parenthesis which is a very common practice. If I lost credibility with you, it's because you disagree with my thinking or comments but don't seem to be able to simply explain why, so you instead just lash out. If you have something of substance to say, why not just point out where you think I'm wrong?

You still seem like an angry person to me.

tomder55
May 18, 2019, 02:57 AM
What part of the preamble was misquoted ?



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Regarding limited government ;The measure is that the Constitution allows for what the government can do ;or in the case of some amendments what it cannot do . Anything else the goverment does is outside constitutional law.



“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” James Madison 'Federalist 48'

talaniman
May 18, 2019, 04:10 AM
States can and do govern themselves effectively mostly, but the federal government must be big enough to effectively fulfill it's obligation to all citizens. It's just common sense that as the population grows, so does the federal government. What stops the rich and powerful states from starving the smaller poorer ones? The FEDS. Isn't that what makes a nation, the central government? If not then we would have independent country states, that could do as they please. At least that's the theory, though I suspect the founders wanted some influence on the federal government for their own purposes.

Hello electoral college. Let's not forget senators were appointed by party bosses not the people.

tomder55
May 18, 2019, 10:22 AM
Let's not forget senators were appointed by party bosses not the people.


incorrect . The Senators were appointed by the States legislatures without a popular vote .
As envisioned by the Framers , the Senate was to represent state interests in Congress. The House of Representatives was meant to be the part of the legislative branch closest to the people.It took a lot of thought and debate to come up with the bicameral nature of the Congress. It was designed specifically to address the balance of interests of big and small states .
I'm for repeal of the 17th amendment . If there is a single cause to the rapid growth of the national government and the undermining of federalism ,it is the adoption of the 17th . And that is why I favor an article 5 convention because I know the Senate post 17th amendment can dictate to the state which amendments can be considered without a convention .

talaniman
May 18, 2019, 10:46 AM
The Senators were appointed by the States legislatures without a popular vote .

Like I said party bosses...STATE party bosses. The point being not elected so who where they ACCOUNTABLE to?

jlisenbe
May 18, 2019, 10:59 AM
Like I said party bosses...STATE party bosses. The point being not elected so who where they ACCOUNTABLE to?

So if the state legislature's are composed of party bosses, then who do you think makes up the Congress of the United States? And if it is likewise party bosses, then why should we trust them anymore than the state party bosses?

talaniman
May 18, 2019, 11:03 AM
Like I said party bosses...STATE party bosses. The point being not elected so who where they ACCOUNTABLE to?

Who WERE they accountable TO! Storming like heck here!

tomder55
May 19, 2019, 05:40 AM
They were accountable to the state. State legislatures get elected . Congressional Reps were responsible to the people . It was a good balance in a Federal system. What you want is the elimination of the autonomous state in this country where all decisions are made by representatives of the largest populated states ;or even worse by the swamp critters in the federal beurocracy who are indeed not accountable to the electorate ,the states ,or even some of the elected officials they purportedly serve..

talaniman
May 19, 2019, 10:45 AM
No that's not at all what I want, but we know for fact that whatever party gets power there are many ways to keep it that may not be apparent to everyone, such as gerrymandering the congressional districts, purging the voter rolls, or packing, and all kinds of rules, regulations and laws that challenge one group or another, or favors one group or another.

Athos
May 21, 2019, 08:35 PM
You still seem like an angry person to me.


You're darn right I'm angry. So should you be.

1,700 children separated from their parents and housed in cages the Trump Administration calls detention centers - more like concentration camps. Ingraham calls them "like summer camp".

This is done purposely. Five children dead since December in these camps due to lack of or absence of treatment. Are you angry yet?

Don't deflect with Hillary and Obama. She was cleared by 8 committees re Benghazi mostly led by Republicans and some bipartisan. No evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. Those are facts. The past is history. Now is now.

You claim you don't support Trump's behavior, only his policies. What policies? He doesn't have any, other than what he sees as supporting how own self at any given moment in time. And his behavior informs his "policies" - you can't have it both ways. In for policies, in for behavior.

The world wonders why so many evangelical Christians love the guy. They publicly agree his behavior is despicable, yet they cheer Trump on at rally after rally - "Lock them up, lock them up", they scream. Not exactly an imitation of Christ.

paraclete
May 22, 2019, 05:09 AM
The world wonders why so many evangelical Christians love the guy. They publicly agree his behavior is despicable, yet they cheer Trump on at rally after rally - "Lock them up, lock them up", they scream. Not exactly an imitation of Christ.


I think you need to be careful about bringing Christ into your arguments. Christians, like everyone else, are not perfect, so don't sit in judgment when choosing the lesser of two evils. Yes, political criminals of all persuasions should be tried, but not in the court of public opinion. Trump is continually tried in the court of public opinion. And you do not know whether people at a rally are Christians or agitators

jlisenbe
May 22, 2019, 05:39 AM
1,700 children separated from their parents and housed in cages the Trump Administration calls detention centers - more like concentration camps. Ingraham calls them "like summer camp".

So it would be better to put the children in jail with the parents? The problem lies with the idea that if you bring your children with you, you will have a better chance of being allowed to stay. That needs to be actively discouraged. To call the detention centers concentration camps tells me you must not know much about the Nazi concentration camps.

As to the subject of who evangelical Christians should have supported, there was no godly choice, so I went with the one who did not support abortion and who had some chance of reviving the economy, which was important to everyone looking for a job and for the poor. You will never see the day when I would vote for HC or anyone like her. Your objection is a valid one. Trump's character is pretty low, but the part you leave out of your argument is that there was not much alternative to Trump for the person who lives for Christ.

It's just politics. You object to Trump but, I guess, supported HC and BO, which means you have no entitlement to the moral high ground.

talaniman
May 22, 2019, 08:07 AM
Putting asylum seekers in jail in the first place is no where near a humane process and since you saw them comming then maybe we could be better prepared instead of hollering and screaming. That's the cruel way this dufus operates though and someone suffers whatever he does...except HIM.

jlisenbe
May 22, 2019, 08:17 AM
Note the pic below taken in 2014 when you and the ever supportive (of Mr. Obama) media were saying nothing about cages. The truth is, many of these children were from families who attempted to cross illegally. And you might want to read the link below the pic to find out that the situation is not nearly so bad as you attempt to portray it.

49170

https://www.truthorfiction.com/trump-holding-immigrant-children-in-cages/

tomder55
May 22, 2019, 08:20 AM
we used to have Ellis Island to screen immigrants . When they came here sick they were turned away . Trump should not be blamed when some one comes here with the flu and then dies from the flu.

talaniman
May 22, 2019, 08:47 AM
Naw the dufus hates brown kids and his cruelty knows no bounds.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/05/01/trump-s-quiet-war-on-migrant-kids

jlisenbe
May 22, 2019, 09:32 AM
Yeah. Let's just pay no attention to the truth and go with ignoring the law.

talaniman
May 22, 2019, 09:48 AM
Now what law could that be?

Athos
May 22, 2019, 09:56 AM
Yeah. Let's just pay no attention to the truth and go with ignoring the law.


You guys are amazing. You're caught supporting an obvious evil, and you go right on supporting that evil. You learned that double-down business from your role model, Donald Trump. Evil laws need to be ignored. Ethics 101.

waltero
May 22, 2019, 10:39 AM
You guys are amazing. You're caught supporting an obvious evil, and you go right on supporting that evil. You learned that double-down business from your role model, Donald Trump. Evil laws need to be ignored. Ethics 101.



There is a loose balance of good and evil, and that the art of living consists in getting the greatest good out of the greatest evil.

jlisenbe
May 22, 2019, 11:23 AM
Now what law could that be?

Entering the United States illegally.


You guys are amazing. You're caught supporting an obvious evil, and you go right on supporting that evil. You learned that double-down business from your role model, Donald Trump

Please tell us that you did not vote for HC. If you did, then your ability to be critical of evil has come to an end.

talaniman
May 22, 2019, 03:59 PM
Migrants seeking asylum is not illegal under US law. Doesn't matter if it's through a port of entry, or over, under, around or through a fence.

PS

HC would have made a better prez than this dufus, darn near anyone would. Repubs would be going nuts trying to impeach her.

Athos
May 22, 2019, 07:27 PM
Trump is continually tried in the court of public opinion. And you do not know whether people at a rally are Christians or agitators


And deservedly so since Trump brings it all upon his head by his bizarre public behavior and public tweets. A sizable fraction of Trump's base are evangelical Christians. Of course, they're at his rallies.

If Trump is the lesser of two evils, who's number one? Beelzebub?

Athos
May 22, 2019, 07:49 PM
So it would be better to put the children in jail with the parents? The problem lies with the idea that if you bring your children with you, you will have a better chance of being allowed to stay. That needs to be actively discouraged.

Your support of the camps is noted. You have chosen one wrong in place of another wrong.



To call the detention centers concentration camps tells me you must not know much about the Nazi concentration camps. Just so you know, those Nazi camps started as detention centers for criminals. They graduated to communists, anti-Nazis, all the way to the Final Solution.


As to the subject of who evangelical Christians should have supported, there was no godly choice, so I went with the one who did not support abortion


As I've said before, to you abortion is the main and only "godly choice" - everything else is secondary.



who had some chance of reviving the economy

As everyone but you seems to know, the economy was reviving under Obama.


You will never see the day when I would vote for HC

She was miles better than Trump. It's about time for you to realize that.


It's just politics. You object to Trump but, I guess, supported HC and BO, which means you have no entitlement to the moral high ground.

You have no idea who I supported. I do not claim any high ground. I am simply observing the facts of what this WH disaster has done and continues to do.

paraclete
May 22, 2019, 08:08 PM
And deservedly so since Trump brings it all upon his head by his bizarre behavior and tweets. A sizable fraction of Trump's base are evangelical Christians. Of course, they're at his rallies.

If Trump is the lesser of two evils, who's number one? Beelzebub?

Beelzebub takes many forms, but evil can also take many forms. Rampant unchecked socialism is an evil, Venezuela is the latest example, Soviet Russia was another. Belligerent, bellicose war mongering is another. So Obama, Bush, Trump are evils in that regard, Hilliary would have been no different. Unfortunately in this world what we have isn't good opposing evil, but evil opposing evil.

Don't blame Christians for this. What they want is peace, prosperity, freedom from oppression and they see the left as oppression. Can't blame them look at the track record

waltero
May 22, 2019, 08:32 PM
She was miles better than Trump. It's about time for you to realize that.

What difference would that make?


observing the facts of what this WH disaster has done and continues to do.

On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows.

paraclete
May 22, 2019, 10:38 PM
What difference would that make?

you are right absolutely none, but then the american people have been spared the draconian taxation of Obamacare, so some upside


On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows.

It cannot end, like the elephant the donkey never forgets

talaniman
May 23, 2019, 03:04 AM
You always have an interesting albeit gloomy view of Americans Clete, but these peace loving Christians made a deal with a devil, who is anything but peaceful, or even orderly for that matter. Chaos would be a better description.

jlisenbe
May 23, 2019, 03:14 AM
As everyone but you seems to know, the economy was reviving under Obama.

Obama is the ONLY eight year pres who never had a single quarter of 3% GDP growth. That's not what I call a "reviving" economy. He kept the wheels from falling off the cart, so give him that, but at a cost of doubling the national debt. You need to engage the facts.


She was miles better than Trump. It's about time for you to realize that.

Completely absurd statement. One of the funnier moments in the campaign was when a democrat was asked to identify HC's greatest accomplishment. The person stammered and stuttered and finally came up with nothing. She had an empty professional life.


I do not claim any high ground. I am simply observing the facts of what this WH disaster has done and continues to do.

Of course you do. No one who voted for HC can be critical of those who voted for Trump, and yet you want to sit in judgement of those who voted for Trump and do so continually.

If this economy is a disaster, then we need a lot more of that kind of disaster.

Athos
May 23, 2019, 04:53 AM
Obama is the ONLY eight year pres who never had a single quarter of 3% GDP growth. That's not what I call a "reviving" economy. He kept the wheels from falling off the cart, so give him that, but at a cost of doubling the national debt. You need to engage the facts.

You always conveniently ignore the fact that Obama inherited a disaster from your Republicans.




She had an empty professional life.

First Lady, senator and secretary of state - you should have such an empty professional life. As much as I dislike Trump, it pales compared to your undying HATRED of all things Hillary Clinton.



No one who voted for HC can be critical of those who voted for Trump.

Talk about absurd. Trump invites criticism every single day. The latest is his temper tantrum leaving a planned meeting because he didn't have a clue what to do. He's 72 going on 8. And you have no idea who I voted for. You have a habit of making assumptions to fit your pro-Trump agenda.




If this economy is a disaster, then we need a lot more of that kind of disaster.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth that were never there. I said TRUMP is the disaster. The economy was saved by Obama who prevented it from becoming a world-wide depression.

paraclete
May 23, 2019, 06:10 AM
You always have an interesting albeit gloomy view of Americans Clete, but these peace loving Christians made a deal with a devil, who is anything but peaceful, or even orderly for that matter. Chaos would be a better description.

How can you talk about deals with the devil with a straight face, Tal? after Obama, after Hilliary. You know nothing of chaos in the US, Tal. Chaos is something that happens elsewhere, probably at the instigation of Washington. I actually think it doesn't matter who is in the WH, chaos is stock in trade

jlisenbe
May 23, 2019, 06:41 AM
First Lady, senator and secretary of state - you should have such an empty professional life. As much as I dislike Trump, it pales compared to your undying HATRED of all things Hillary Clinton.

Those are titles, not accomplishments. I don't hate HC, but I do hate this concept that the holier than thou crowd can sit on top of Mount Righteousness and proclaim judgement on the rest of us, acting as though voting for HC was somehow a vote for character and efficiency. Let me add that being first lady is hardly a professional accomplishment.

Obama inherited nothing worse than what Reagan inherited from Carter, but Reagan had one quarter of almost 8% GDP growth, and he did it without the daily whining we had to hear from Obama. I will give Obama some credit in that things did not get worse with him, but to say that he had a "reviving" economy is overstating the truth. The economy merely limped along with Obama.


And you have no idea who I voted for.

You don't seem to have the courage to say who you voted for, but if I assume you did not vote for Trump, and I think that's a pretty safe assumption, then let's see now. Who would that leave that you might have voted for?

talaniman
May 23, 2019, 06:44 AM
How can you talk about deals with the devil with a straight face, Tal? after Obama, after Hilliary. You know nothing of chaos in the US, Tal. Chaos is something that happens elsewhere, probably at the instigation of Washington. I actually think it doesn't matter who is in the WH, chaos is stock in trade

That's how off track you are Clete as HC was never the president, and Obama was when the GFC hit the world. He saved your Aussie butt too, after the Bush financial disaster. Now that was chaos whether you conservatives acknowledge it or not.

tomder55
May 23, 2019, 10:07 AM
yes Bush shares the blame because he continued the Clintoon housing policies (btw the real culprit was il Duce Andrew Cuomo the miserable piece of human excrement who is the Governor of the state I live in) . Bush also share responsibility because he foolishly got suckered into believing that a bail out of the banks was the remedy . Also don't dismiss the emperor's role in the GWOT . He was a community activist back then that was pressuring banks to give out risky loans to the poor . He also extended the GWOT with his ridiculous economic polices like the stimulus program and his burdensome regulations ,

Athos
May 23, 2019, 02:06 PM
yes Bush shares the blame because he continued the Clintoon housing policies (btw the real culprit was il Duce Andrew Cuomo the miserable piece of human excrement who is the Governor of the state I live in) . Bush also share responsibility because he foolishly got suckered into believing that a bail out of the banks was the remedy . Also don't dismiss the emperor's role in the GWOT . He was a community activist back then that was pressuring banks to give out risky loans to the poor . He also extended the GWOT with his ridiculous economic polices like the stimulus program and his burdensome regulations ,

This is a load of crap and you know it. Goldman Sachs et al falsified packages of mortgages and sold them as AAA securities KNOWING they were toxic. Everything you wrote as a cause is nothing but phony right-wing talking points trying to excuse Wall Street. You didn't mention it but Obama's DOJ could have tried harder to indict the criminals, but it caved.


You don't seem to have the courage to say who you voted for, but if I assume you did not vote for Trump, and I think that's a pretty safe assumption, then let's see now. Who would that leave that you might have voted for?


Courage? The real question is why are you so interested. Probably to make arguments based on voting. Better you should use intelligence and reason based on arguing the points raised. That's how discussions are carried out - not how someone voted.

By the way, for such a self-proclaimed expert on the Constitution, you seem to be unaware of the secret ballot - a hallowed tradition in America.

jlisenbe
May 23, 2019, 02:08 PM
Courage? The real question is why are you so interested. Probably to make arguments based on voting. Better you should use intelligence and reason based on arguing the points raised. That's how discussions are carried out - not how someone voted.

Or you don't want to admit you voted for HC because you know that would destroy your ability to raise cane about Trump's character, sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Athos
May 23, 2019, 02:23 PM
Or you don't want to admit you voted for HC because you know that would destroy your ability to raise cane about Trump's character, sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.


Time for you to admit it. You support Trump in spite of his strange behavior because he proclaims he is anti-abortion (which anyone who has followed Trump from his NY days knows that is simply a matter of convenience designed to attract votes).

As to Hillary, you're conflicted about the role of women in society - a woman president is a bit too much for you. We surmise this from your previous post here commenting how the Bible would advise re a present-day position concerning a woman.

paraclete
May 23, 2019, 03:04 PM
That's how off track you are Clete as HC was never the president, and Obama was when the GFC hit the world. He saved your Aussie butt too, after the Bush financial disaster. Now that was chaos whether you conservatives acknowledge it or not.


Hilliary was secretary of State during the arab spring, enuff said. Saving Aussie butt couldn't be further from the mind of any US president and certainly not Obama, he wasn't even interested in saving US butt just spending you into oblivion. The GFC was much more a disaster for the US than the world, Blame Bush for it if you like but clearly it was social engineering gone wrong and we know who to blame for that

waltero
May 23, 2019, 04:13 PM
That's how off track you are Clete as HC was never the president

Bill (and others) considered her Co-president...how far off are you?

Hillary has nothing to do with anything? Why does her name keep popping up???

Wondergirl
May 23, 2019, 04:32 PM
Hillary has nothing to do with anything? Why does her name keep popping up???
We Republicans have used her as a diversion and as a tennis ball to bounce back and forth.

talaniman
May 23, 2019, 04:52 PM
Hilliary was secretary of State during the arab spring, enuff said. Saving Aussie butt couldn't be further from the mind of any US president and certainly not Obama, he wasn't even interested in saving US butt just spending you into oblivion. The GFC was much more a disaster for the US than the world, Blame Bush for it if you like but clearly it was social engineering gone wrong and we know who to blame for that

LOL, now that's some goofy logic. Clearly big banks and big money got greedy making money hand over fists that destroyed the housing market and led to the GFC, by using tools and gimmicks to exploit eager buyers. That the world went along with this easy money scheme at a time when sovereign finances were a huge deal was predictable.

You must explain this social engineering phrase more Clete, because I think it's just the old dog should be allowed to eat dog philosophy that maintains the status quo class system conservatives so love and adhere to. In layman's terms, tax cuts for the rich because they deserve it and the rest are rabble to justify legal stealing through wealth enhancement through extraction.


Bill (and others) considered her Co-president...how far off are you?

Hillary has nothing to do with anything? Why does her name keep popping up???

Ask JL, but no secret she has garnered absolute FEAR of strong capable females for decades from conservatives.



This is what happens when you lose to an idiot...idiots at work.


Agreed

waltero
May 23, 2019, 05:06 PM
Is it any wonder why some would prefer Trump over Hillary (or any other politician). Trump might be a Bold faced liar but I think people prefer that over a Backstabbing liar.
Who is better equipped to be president; an Idiot or a Lawyer? We know why Hillary wanted to be President, why do you think Trump desired to be president? Maybe in 20/20 you guys will play ball (doubtful). I'm sure it must have felt like an "in your neck" moment when a "female" lost to a so called idiot...Don't take it so hard...it's not you, its Hillary.

talaniman
May 23, 2019, 06:14 PM
Just as some would prefer anyone other than the dufus, of course there would be those that would prefer anyone other than Hillary. Personally I preferred Biden back then, but obviously that didn't happen. It would have been interesting though how HC would have dealt with a republican senate and house though, probably been impeached in a week, like the dufus would be if the senate flips in 2020, and the dufus gets re elected.

jlisenbe
May 23, 2019, 06:51 PM
Time for you to admit it. You support Trump in spite of his strange behavior because he proclaims he is anti-abortion (which anyone who has followed Trump from his NY days knows that is simply a matter of convenience designed to attract votes).

I've said many times that my hopes for Trump were that he would appoint federal judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law, bring about a healthy economy, and balance the budget. So far it seems that I'm 2 for 3. If he were not opposed to abortion, I would not vote for him.


As to Hillary, you're conflicted about the role of women in society - a woman president is a bit too much for you. We surmise this from your previous post here commenting how the Bible would advise re a present-day position concerning a woman.

Wow. Talk about nonsense. I would have no problem with a female pres, especially if she was a Margaret Thatcher clone. The Bible speaks against women having authority over men in the church or being the "lead teacher". It says nothing about a female president.

Athos
May 23, 2019, 07:38 PM
I've said many times that my hopes for Trump were that he would appoint federal judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law, bring about a healthy economy, and balance the budget. So far it seems that I'm 2 for 3. If he were not opposed to abortion, I would not vote for him.


Three Pinocchios. You said you wanted conservative judges.




Wow. Talk about nonsense. I would have no problem with a female pres, especially if she was a Margaret Thatcher clone. The Bible speaks against women having authority over men in the church or being the "lead teacher". It says nothing about a female president.

Four Pinocchios. Do you think women should be preachers just like men?

jlisenbe
May 23, 2019, 07:59 PM
judges who would respect the Constitution and the rule of law


I.e, conservative judges.


Four Pinocchios. Do you think women should be preachers just like men?

You need to come out of your fantasy world. I have consistently said the same thing on this board.

Not sure why we are suddenly talking about female preachers, but with that topic, no, I don't think women should preach in the same capacity as men, nor male preachers always preach in the same capacity as women. I just go with what Paul said.

Wondergirl
May 23, 2019, 09:02 PM
I just go with what Paul said.
Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

tomder55
May 24, 2019, 02:14 AM
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3835827#post3835827)I just go with what Paul said.



Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

some things are timeless .

tomder55
May 24, 2019, 03:09 AM
This is a load of crap and you know it. Goldman Sachs et al falsified packages of mortgages and sold them as AAA securities KNOWING they were toxic. Everything you wrote as a cause is nothing but phony right-wing talking points trying to excuse Wall Street.

The Federal government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets;including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years irrational lending standards were FORCED on lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .
The CRA forced banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. That is just a fact . The loans were then filtered through Freddie and Fannie at taxpayer's expense ; which purchased, and guaranteed loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself was implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. The banks ,in an attempt to salvage some kind of profit out of this arrangement, wrapped up bundles of subprime loans and sold them to Fannie and Freddie whose primary mandate was to "promote home ownership," not to apply sound lending standards. There are other factor like cheap money policies by the Fed . But you get the idea. Free market principles would've prevented GWOT .

And that brings me to il Duce . He was the father of this disaster .
Cuomo was Housing and Urban Development (HUD) director under Clintoon . He helped trigger the financial crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime mortgages to increase home ownership among the poor. Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed. Don't believe me ? Read the very liberal Village Voice's take .
https://www.villagevoice.com/2008/08/05/andrew-cuomo-and-fannie-and-freddie/

What is really disgusting about that human piece of excrement is that then as NY AG ,he aggressively went after the banks he forced to make the loans .


You didn't mention it but Obama's DOJ could have tried harder to indict the criminals, but it caved.

If there was malfeasance then the emperor should've prosecuted .Why didn't he ? Don't you think that is a legitimate question to ask ?Could it be that as a community organizer he strong armed banks into making the loans ? see 'Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance''.
In that case ,on behalf of ACORN ,Obama sued Citibank charging discrimination in lending .Citi settled for roughly $950,000 .That settlement was only the tip of the iceberg. When Citibank, in April 1998, sought federal approval for a merger with Travelers Group, it only got OK from the Clintoon administration after it promised ito provide $115 billion bad loans.Intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars of bad loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.Promises were made by others to the tune of $600 billion between 1993 and 1998.

It was easy to blame Bush and greedy capitalism for the financial melt down ;and I have already given Bush the blame he deserves . Both he and Bubba kept score on how many poor now owned homes . Bush kept the policy in place on his watch. But make no mistake . It was the aggressive progressive socialist polices of Bubba ,Cuomo, and the emperor that were the real cause of the crisis .

talaniman
May 24, 2019, 03:48 AM
Free market principles were abused by big banks and it's called old fashion greed. I mean who offers variable interests rates and deferred ballon payments to low/average income people unless they plan to take over the property and sell it again to another poor victim when conditions cannot be met? That's not a free market principle, thats extraction of wealth or putting an unreasonable obstacle on the younger generation, most of them average wage earners.

Profits over people is not a free market principle, it's an excuse to screw over people because it's profitable. The feckless government had it right, put people in houses but forgot to regulate the dirty tricks that hardline greedy capitalists come up with. That's why big money HATES regulation. Let me add to the to big to fail axiom...to big to jail!

Don't believe me? Take all those rich guys and send 'em to jail and see what happens to banks and consumers when the economic structure collapses. Greed has no ideology. Mo' MONEY is God!

Athos
May 24, 2019, 04:15 AM
The Federal government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets;including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years irrational lending standards were FORCED on lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) .


Good Lord. You're so wrong in so many ways. The CRA existed decades before the crash. Why did it take so long? This is one of the chief false causes put out by the right wing.



Free market principles would've prevented GWOT .

Then why did Bush immediately go to bailouts? Free market principles would have destroyed the world economy, making the 30's depression look like a bump in the road. The rest of that paragraph above (not included) is so much hogwash.


Many of those homeowners eventually defaulted, and the mortgage-backed securities market later collapsed.

It collapsed because the securities were CRIMINALLY RATED AS AAA. Goldman sold them KNOWING they were toxic. Lloyd Blankfein, ex-ceo, had the balls to tell Congress that Goldman was correct in marketing toxic securities while getting rid of those same securities it held in its own portfolio because they were toxic. (Read that twice if it sounds weird. It is weird). Holder settled for fines when what was needed was jail time for the bank crooks. Fines mean nothing to the big banks.



If there was malfeasance then the emperor should've prosecuted .Why didn't he ? He did. Penalties were fines.


Don't you think that is a legitimate question to ask ?Could it be that as a community organizer he strong armed banks into making the loans ? Not a chance. You're way off the mark with this as is the rest of that paragraph. .



It was easy to blame Bush and greedy capitalism for the financial melt down ;and I have already given Bush the blame he deserves . Both he and Bubba kept score on how many poor now owned homes . Bush kept the policy in place on his watch. But make no mistake . It was the aggressive progressive socialist polices of Bubba ,Cuomo, and the emperor that were the real cause of the crisis .

Absolutely amazing how you righties continue to indirectly blame the poor for something they had nothing to do with. Blaming socialism, Cuomo and Obama for the crisis boggles the mind. OBAMA WAS NOT EVEN PRESIDENT WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Athos
May 24, 2019, 04:35 AM
no, I don't think women should preach in the same capacity as men, nor male preachers always preach in the same capacity as women.


Care to clarify that sentence?

jlisenbe
May 24, 2019, 05:56 AM
Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.

So you're saying we should throw the entire NT out the window since this is, after all, 2019? What a strange belief.


Care to clarify that sentence?


Clarification? OK, I'll offer two.

a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

b. Titus 2:4&5. so that they (older women) may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

The first is a prohibition while the second is a clear command. In our modern, 2019, often ineffective church, both are frequently ignored due to, I suppose, cultural influences. When I look at this sick culture we live in, I wonder why the church would consider allowing it to influence us. It's supposed to be the other way around. As Paul puts it in Philippians, " that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and guileless, innocent and uncontaminated, children of God without blemish in the midst of a [morally] crooked and [spiritually] perverted generation, among whom you are seen as bright lights [beacons shining out clearly] in the world [of darkness], 16 holding out and offering to everyone the word of life."

talaniman
May 24, 2019, 02:30 PM
Were these edicts from God, or from ancient man declaring they were from God. No snark, I honestly want to know.

jlisenbe
May 24, 2019, 03:22 PM
Were these edicts from God, or from ancient man declaring they were from God.

As I'm sure you know, there is a wide variety of beliefs about that. If they (and the rest of the Bible) is indeed God's word, then it should be listened to above all else. If it is just the words of deceived ancient people. then it should be thrown away. It's an important question. In fact, it is probably THE important question.

Athos
May 24, 2019, 06:03 PM
Clarification? OK, I'll offer two.

a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.


A clear statement of your belief in the superiority of men over women. Helps to explain your disdain for Hillary Clinton.

Wondergirl
May 24, 2019, 06:14 PM
WG: Paul lived until 64 or so A.D. This is 2019.


So you're saying we should throw the entire NT out the window since this is, after all, 2019? What a strange belief.

I simply reminded you what year this is -- full of human interactions and architectural structures and modes of transportation and styles of clothing Paul would never have dreamed of. Yet his words hold true (but we too readily toss out those words that don't work for us), such as Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

paraclete
May 24, 2019, 06:50 PM
A philosophical argument which leads us nowhere. I can just tell you there appear to have been few successful governments led by women. From the Biblical perspective getting right back to Genesis, it is said woman will try to rule man but he will not let her, why should the weaker vessel rule, because she speaks more words?

Genesis 3
16 To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

If you accept the word of God then he made it plain who should rule

Wondergirl
May 24, 2019, 07:27 PM
A philosophical argument which leads us nowhere. I can just tell you there appear to have been few successful governments led by women. From the Biblical perspective getting right back to Genesis, it is said woman will try to rule man but he will not let her, why should the weaker vessel rule, because she speaks more words?

Genesis 3
16 To the woman he said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

If you accept the word of God then he made it plain who should rule
Exactly! Just as we accept and obey this word of God:

(https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Lev%2019.19)Leviticus 19:19, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

jlisenbe
May 24, 2019, 08:28 PM
A clear statement of your belief in the superiority of men over women. Helps to explain your disdain for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture. It says nothing about men being superior over women. You have so much anger and hate that it clouds your judgement. You really should consider laying that aside.

jlisenbe
May 24, 2019, 08:39 PM
I simply reminded you what year this is -- full of human interactions and architectural structures and modes of transportation and styles of clothing Paul would never have dreamed of.

Pardon me for saying this, but I can't help but doubt that you were merely pointing out what is glaringly obvious to everyone over the age of four. He lived in a culture different from ours, but the truths he spoke of cut across all cultures. The most obvious take on your comment was that you were implying that in our modern age, we don't need some of the antiquated concepts that Paul wrote about, but perhaps that was not your intent. Still, you think they did not have to work through the same human interactions we have to work through?


Yet his words hold true (but we too readily toss out those words that don't work for us), such as Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Why not simply believe them both? The Galatians passage teaches that nationality, social status, or gender are not marks of superiority. We are all equal in worth and importance in Christ, which is a glorious truth and one which was revolutionary in Paul's day as well as ours, but we do not all have the same roles to play. There is no contradiction there. Rather, they are complimentary truths.

Athos
May 24, 2019, 09:59 PM
Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture. It says nothing about men being superior over women. You have so much anger and hate that it clouds your judgement. You really should consider laying that aside.


You confuse anger and hate with objective truth. I'm not surprised by your use of such a tactic.

To the point - You wrote, "Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture". I thought you believed scripture. Do you believe this quote you offered which is from 1 Tim.?

You also wrote, "It says nothing about men being superior over women". Then why are women forbidden to teach when men are not so forbidden. And why are women forbidden to exercise authority over men? Both statements are very clear in placing women in a subordinate position to men.

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

talaniman
May 25, 2019, 01:25 AM
To be honest I have enough problems with what modern man is talking about half the time. So much so that the words of the ancients is beyond me for the most part. I suppose the church can do as they please within their own church, but e
ven Christians disagree among themselves on how we apply the words of the bible and frankly that same disagreement is present in most religions. I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines, and for sure the dufus gives religion little consideration when he does his thing in government or his business.

I would go so far as to say he definitely exploits everything to his own advantage.

paraclete
May 25, 2019, 03:04 AM
To be honest I have enough problems with what modern man is talking about half the time. So much so that the words of the ancients is beyond me for the most part. I suppose the church can do as they please within their own church, but e
ven Christians disagree among themselves on how we apply the words of the bible and frankly that same disagreement is present in most religions. I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines, and for sure the dufus gives religion little consideration when he does his thing in government or his business.

I would go so far as to say he definitely exploits everything to his own advantage.



So this is why your constitution doesn't confer the power to make laws regarding religion, nice try

jlisenbe
May 25, 2019, 05:09 AM
You confuse anger and hate with objective truth. I'm not surprised by your use of such a tactic.

You have no objective truth, only your opinion. Your comments certainly seem to me to be hate and anger driven.


To the point - You wrote, "Actually, it was a clear quote from scripture". I thought you believed scripture. Do you believe this quote you offered which is from 1 Tim.?

You also wrote, "It says nothing about men being superior over women". Then why are women forbidden to teach when men are not so forbidden. And why are women forbidden to exercise authority over men? Both statements are very clear in placing women in a subordinate position to men.

You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

You are drawing conclusions from the text, but it does not explicitly address any issues of gender superiority.

Your disagreement is not with me but with the Bible.

jlisenbe
May 25, 2019, 05:23 AM
I think the law of the land though overwrites any and all religious laws, rules, or doctrines

As far as law goes, that is correct, but if the Bible is really God's word, then nothing overwrites it. Besides, much of western law is based on the moral standards of the Bible and the existence of God.

talaniman
May 25, 2019, 09:55 AM
As far as law goes, that is correct, but if the Bible is really God's word, then nothing overwrites it. Besides, much of western law is based on the moral standards of the Bible and the existence of God.


Does that also apply to those that do not believe the bible is the word of god but accept the premise that it has good values? Or is it because Paul said let it be law? The bible shares many good principles and values with other religions so it would seem that Good Orderly Direction is not exclusively Christian.

waltero
May 25, 2019, 12:06 PM
You still appear to be conflicted re the role of women in society. Your Bible says one thing, and the present day finds many women exercising authority over men. Some even teach.

God is the Creator of the world and the humans who inhabit it (Genesis 1). From the very beginning, God designed the world and people to “function” a certain way. When society doesn’t follow the principles that God gives us in the Bible, life simply doesn’t work as well. God’s the only One with the insight into how life functions to our best benefit, and He shares that wisdom with us in His Word. The Bible is described in Hebrews 4:12 as “alive and active.” This means, in part, that the Bible is as applicable and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.

jlisenbe
May 25, 2019, 12:07 PM
it has good values?

How do you determine what is good?

Wondergirl
May 25, 2019, 12:21 PM
How do you determine what is good?
Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

talaniman
May 25, 2019, 12:26 PM
God is the Creator of the world and the humans who inhabit it (Genesis 1). From the very beginning, God designed the world and people to “function” a certain way. When society doesn’t follow the principles that God gives us in the Bible, life simply doesn’t work as well. God’s the only One with the insight into how life functions to our best benefit, and He shares that wisdom with us in His Word. The Bible is described in Hebrews 4:12 as “alive and active.” This means, in part, that the Bible is as applicable and relevant today as it was when it was first written.

Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.

Who wrote that? Not saying it's not true but rather to explore where they got it from. What does that have to do with a draft dodging morally befreft individual sending my kids to die in a war that brings him personal gain?



How do you determine what is good?

If it's good for ME! I have never had a problem knowing what's best for me.


Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

Great response wish I would have thought of it in those terms.

Athos
May 25, 2019, 02:22 PM
Your comments certainly seem to me to be hate and anger driven.

The hate is all yours. You are projecting, my friend.


You are drawing conclusions from the text, but it does not explicitly address any issues of gender superiority.

Of course, I am drawing conclusions from the text. A conclusion is rarely explicit - that's the nature of a conclusion. It simply needs to follow the rules of reason and logic which inevitably lead to the conclusion. Children learn this by the age of 4 or 5. They don't have the vocabulary of reason and logic, but the method is quite clear at an early age.


Your disagreement is not with me but with the Bible.

This is another familiar - and false - argument from you. If you agree with the Bible, then my disagreement is with YOUR belief. Your failure to stick up for your Biblical beliefs is stunning. You either A) don't believe the Bible teaching re woman as expressed in the quote you gave, or, B) you believe but are unable to defend that belief in today's understanding of women.

jlisenbe
May 25, 2019, 04:05 PM
This is another familiar - and false - argument from you. If you agree with the Bible, then my disagreement is with YOUR belief. Your failure to stick up for your Biblical beliefs is stunning. You either A) don't believe the Bible teaching re woman as expressed in the quote you gave, or, B) you believe but are unable to defend that belief in today's understanding of women.

1. Yes, it's my belief, but it comes from the Bible, so if you disagree with it, you are in disagreement with the source. It is a completely logical position to take.
2. There is no "sticking up" to be done. There is nothing to defend.
3. I believe that women are the absolute equal of men in worth and value. Their role in the church is different. That is where you are completely missing it. You reach an unwarranted conclusion unsupported by the text which addressed the role of women in the church but says nothing about men being superior to women.


Love. Does it promote love, selflessness? Many religions have the Golden Rule as a central teaching.

Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

talaniman
May 25, 2019, 04:09 PM
Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?

Sounds more like an appeal to the better nature of man to me! Not to speak for WG, but she did reference the Golden Rule as a central teaching of many religions.

Wondergirl
May 25, 2019, 05:53 PM
Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good? Are you making an appeal to religion?
Man has free will. He can choose to be loving and unselfish. He doesn't need religion and a moral code for that.

Athos
May 25, 2019, 06:02 PM
1. Yes, it's my belief, but it comes from the Bible, so if you disagree with it, you are in disagreement with the source. It is a completely logical position to take.

My disagreement is with YOU. If you need to include the Bible in that disagreement, that's fine with me. The disagreement remains.


2. There is no "sticking up" to be done. There is nothing to defend.

What you need to defend is your position re women. If you wish to narrow your position to their role in the church, that's fine with me.


.I believe that women are the absolute equal of men in worth and value.

That's not what your Bible quote says. Yet you maintain that you believe the Bible quote. The conflict remains.


Their role in the church is different. That is where you are completely missing it. You reach an unwarranted conclusion unsupported by the text which addressed the role of women in the church but says nothing about men being superior to women.

My conclusion is neither unwarranted nor false. Here are the words for women - "not permitted to teach" and "not permitted to exercise authority over men". How you can construe from these words anything but the subordination of women to men (in church, if you must) is not possible.

jlisenbe
May 25, 2019, 06:07 PM
What you need to defend is your position re women. If you wish to narrow your position to their role in the church, that's fine with me.

No, I don't need to defend that. Your argument is with the text of 1 Tim. 2:12.


That's not what your Bible quote says. Yet you maintain that you believe the Bible quote. The conflict remains.


Again, the text said nothing one way or the other about the equality of men and women. It only speaks of roles. There is no conflict.


My conclusion is neither unwarranted nor false. Here are the words for women - "not permitted to teach" and "not permitted to exercise authority over men". How you can construe from these words anything but the subordination of women to men (in church, if you must) is not possible.

It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men. Women, in fact, are not subject to the general authority of men. A wife is subject to her own husband, but not to someone else's husband, just as a husband's love for his wife is unique to her and not intended for all women. You are simply reading your own prejudices into the text.

Athos
May 25, 2019, 06:48 PM
No, I don't need to defend that. Your argument is with the text of 1 Tim. 2:12.

Well, you ARE consistent in refusing to engage in discussion on the matter by leaving it to the Bible which, of course, cannot respond.



I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men.

Thank you. At least you admit that much. It's a start.



A wife is subject to her own husband, but not to someone else's husband

But she is. That's EXACTLY what your quote says. Shall not exercise authority over MEN. Plural.



just as a husband's love for his wife is unique to her and not intended for all women.

With this reading, you're out in left field - stretching the meaning to a place it was never intended to go.



You are simply reading your own prejudices into the text.

Not so. I am reading the text based on the meaning of the words.

(This is another tactic I notice you use. When you're out of ideas, you revert to charging the other side with biases and prejudices).

jlisenbe
May 25, 2019, 07:34 PM
But she is. That's EXACTLY what your quote says. Shall not exercise authority over MEN. Plural.

I can only assume you are joking. That, in fact, is exactly NOT what the text says. Saying that women are not to exercise authority over men is a million miles from saying that all women are subject to all men. If I say I cannot exercise authority over the governor of Georgia, that certainly does not have the meaning that the gov can exercise authority over me. Your argument is total nonsense.


With this reading, you're out in left field - stretching the meaning to a place it was never intended to go.

Think a little. It was a comparison. Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women. It's a crazy interpretation.


leaving it to the Bible which, of course, cannot respond.
I assure you the Bible can respond. Try reading it. It defends and explains itself quite well.

paraclete
May 25, 2019, 07:49 PM
Think a little. It was a comparison. Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women. It's a crazy interpretation.

.

Talking about crazy interpretations, what you are arguing for is apartheid, separate development. Men have been given a leadership role. Some have abdicated

Wondergirl
May 25, 2019, 07:59 PM
It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men.
That makes absolutely no sense!

Athos
May 26, 2019, 05:06 AM
Saying that women are not to exercise authority over men is a million miles from saying that all women are subject to all men.

I didn't say that - I merely stated what your reference said.


Saying that the husband is to love his wife is NOT the same thing as saying he should love ALL wives. Saying that women cannot exercise authority over men in the church is NOT the same thing as saying that all men have authority over all women.

The quote is not about love but refers to authority. It contains no modifiers. If you wish to make it mean something other than what the words mean, that's fine with me.


I assure you the Bible can respond. Try reading it. It defends and explains itself quite well.

You are referring to INTERPRETING the Bible, not the ability of the Bible to respond - unless you have a talking Bible. You continue to have difficulty with words and their meaning.

jlisenbe
May 26, 2019, 05:52 AM
I merely stated what your reference said.

No, you did not. You stated your own silly opinion that the text gave all men authority over all women. Any competent second grader could read the passage and tell it did not, in any form, say that.


The quote is not about love but refers to authority. It contains no modifiers. If you wish to make it mean something other than what the words mean, that's fine with me.

Like I said, sometimes you have to think a little. It was stated as an illustration.


You are referring to INTERPRETING the Bible, not the ability of the Bible to respond - unless you have a talking Bible. You continue to have difficulty with words and their meaning.

The Bible does speak, but only to those willing to listen. It might be that you are not included in that group.

Wondergirl
May 26, 2019, 10:47 AM
[Athos said] the text gave all men authority over all women. Any competent second grader could read the passage and tell it did not, in any form, say that.

It's very simple. I just go with what the text says. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. It does not say that women, as a group, are subjugated to men.
What???? This must be why there are legions of Christian denominations.

waltero
May 26, 2019, 01:50 PM
Why do you believe that love and selflessness are good?

Man has free will. He can choose to be loving and unselfish. He doesn't need religion and a moral code for that.

I think that is the point. If there is a God (or even gods/creators), would they not imbue or at least have impacted us with some essence of themselves (moral code)?


Where there is no honor of God, a society will fail to respect His creation, and people will suffer as a result.


What does that have to do with a draft dodging morally befreft individual sending my kids to die in a war that brings him personal gain?

Let me think about that one.

@ATHOS

The hate is all yours. You are projecting, my friend.

We are often influenced by our Love, or our Hatred, before we are aware of it our selves.


a. 1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.

Does than mean I shouldn't listen to a woman who teaches? I consider it something between God and women. Just the same as Tithing. God says we must pay tithes...has nothing to do with me if you Don't tithe.

jlisenbe
May 26, 2019, 02:18 PM
Does than mean I shouldn't listen to a woman who teaches?

I think it means exactly what it says, that Paul did not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men, probably meaning that he did not allow women to be what we would refer to as lead or senior pastors. Now did Peter or John allow this? That is possible, but it is not addressed anywhere in the NT that I know of. I do not want to be the one arguing with Paul on this issue, but others no doubt do not feel the same way.

But very plainly it does not state that all men have authority over all women, and to say that it implies that is, I would think, an enormous stretch.

talaniman
May 26, 2019, 03:27 PM
What does any of that have to do with the dufus selling nukes to the Saudis over the objection of the congress? Opinions and debate is great but pales in real applications. Do you think the dufus listens to the bible? I give you this JL, you have turned the other cheek to a lies of the dufus and his antics, because he delivered to you two of three things you deem important?

Current conditions and events warrant a more practical approach than the writings of ancients which may, or may not be the word of god, when it comes to picking our leaders. Sorry I cannot take their word for it that half of humanities voices should be discounted, and contributions forbidden.

That's crazy and one would hope we have evolved past this man domination stuff, but I guess we have not...some of us any way.

waltero
May 26, 2019, 03:58 PM
1 Tim. 2:12. I do not permit a woman to teach

Some understand it to mean; I will not listen to a woman while she is speaking behind the pulpit.

jlisenbe
May 26, 2019, 04:04 PM
I give you this JL, you have turned the other cheek to a lies of the dufus and his antics, because he delivered to you two of three things you deem important?

What caused you to turn the cheek to the lies of Mr. Obama? What did he deliver for you?


Current conditions and events warrant a more practical approach than the writings of ancients which may, or may not be the word of god, when it comes to picking our leaders.

Such as?


Sorry I cannot take their word for it that half of humanities voices should be discounted, and contributions forbidden.

What are you talking about?


Some understand it to mean; I will not listen to a woman while she is speaking behind the pulpit.

And they are entitled to that understanding, but it would not be proper at all to say that the text says that because it does not.

Wondergirl
May 26, 2019, 04:42 PM
Tal: Sorry I cannot take their word for it that half of humanities voices should be discounted, and contributions forbidden.

JL :What are you talking about?
"Half of humanities voices ... and contributions" = women's voices and contributions

jlisenbe
May 26, 2019, 05:58 PM
"Half of humanities voices ... and contributions" = women's voices and contributions

Got it. Just call me dense. However, I think the world's women would be amazed to find out that they are not able to raise their voice or contribute to humanity without being a senior pastor or exclusively hold a position of authority over men in the church. I think they would say that is decidedly not true.

Wondergirl
May 26, 2019, 06:46 PM
I think the world's women would be amazed to find out that they are not able to raise their voice or contribute to humanity without being a senior pastor or exclusively hold a position of authority over men in the church. I think they would say that is decidedly not true.
Please rewrite this as several simple sentences without the negatives. I have no idea what you're saying.

jlisenbe
May 26, 2019, 06:56 PM
However, I think the world's women would be amazed to find out that they must be a senior pastor or be able to exercise authority over men in order to raise their voice or contribute to humanity. I think they believe otherwise and have, in fact, done otherwise.

Better??

Wondergirl
May 26, 2019, 07:20 PM
However, I think the world's women would be amazed to find out that they must be a senior pastor or be able to exercise authority over men in order to raise their voice or contribute to humanity. I think they believe otherwise and have, in fact, done otherwise.

Better??
Nope. Maybe Athos or Tal can figure it out. All I'm reading is that we women must be a senior pastor if we want to have authority over men or contribute to society.

Athos
May 26, 2019, 07:29 PM
I think it means exactly what it says, that Paul did not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men, probably meaning that he did not allow women to be what we would refer to as lead or senior pastors

In one sentence you have contradicted yourself. Does it mean EXACTLY what it says or does it mean what you PROBABLY claim it means? It can't be both exactly AND not exactly (probably).


I do not want to be the one arguing with Paul on this issue

Ergo, you agree with Paul. The more you write, the more you reveal yourself in little ways.


But very plainly it does not state that all men have authority over all women, and to say that it implies that is, I would think, an enormous stretch.

Those are your words.

paraclete
May 26, 2019, 07:51 PM
argument for the sake of argument

Wondergirl
May 26, 2019, 08:18 PM
argument for the sake of argument
No. I don't understand what he said -- and meant. Do you?

paraclete
May 26, 2019, 09:56 PM
No. I don't understand what he said -- and meant. Do you?

Yes he is saying women can contribute without being in senior positions, and do. Women have influence however you find that their perspective is oriented to women and may not cover the entire spectrum. I find when women preach they go into too much detail, too much justification of their position. We have a debate about insufficient women in senior positions as if they are entitled to a quota of 50%, but the reality is they don't offer themselves and many who do, don't have the ability, so when you have a quota, you get incompetence. This is not to say there are not incompetent men, however, they tend to be weeded out earlier.

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 05:55 AM
Yes he is saying women can contribute without being in senior positions, and do

Very nice summation. I would only add that the Timothy passage refers to the church and not to the world in general. Merit should be the determining factor.


In one sentence you have contradicted yourself. Does it mean EXACTLY what it says or does it mean what you PROBABLY claim it means? It can't be both exactly AND not exactly (probably).

In most Bible passages you find the explicit meaning, and then you determine an application. That is what I have done, and that is why I used the word "probably" to indicate that it is my opinion and not the explicit reading of the text. There is no contradiction.


Ergo, you agree with Paul. The more you write, the more you reveal yourself in little ways.

It's beyond even that. I agree with the text of the Bible and regard it as God's word, so it is not my place, or this culture's place, to judge it. The day will come when we will be judged by its content. The more you write, the more you reveal you do not have a high regard for the Bible.

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 07:32 AM
Who cares who controls the pulpit of your church, but I would rather focus on who's the best qualified for public office and can deliver on the basics of good governance. Gender makes no difference. The dufus in the WH has made the case that conservatives have lost their freaking minds.

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 08:02 AM
conservatives have lost their freaking minds.

Yep. Record low unemployment is a sure sign of insanity. Trump managed to do in about eighteen months what Obama could not do in 96 months. We could use some more of that craziness.

The sad part of this deal is that the dems in congress are so intent on trying to impeach Trump for anything they can make up, they are not dealing with serious issues. Social Security will be in the red within ten or fifteen years. Not talked about. We continue to run ridiculous deficits. Don't hear about it. Medical costs continue to skyrocket. Not talked about. I found a receipt yesterday where my grandmother spent five days in the hospital in 1949. Cost? 89 dollars TOTAL. Now it would be a thousand times that. These are the things we should be addressing. Instead, we talk about supposed collusion with the Russkies. Pitiful, and it is not much better for the repubs who still control the senate but propose and do next to nothing.


focus on who's the best qualified for public office and can deliver on the basics of good governance. I would agree completely with that.

Wondergirl
May 27, 2019, 08:35 AM
JL to Athos: The more you write, the more you reveal you do not have a high regard for the Bible.
...which really means, "The more you write, the more you reveal you do not have a high regard for my interpretation of the Bible."

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 08:45 AM
Yep. Record low unemployment is a sure sign of insanity. Trump managed to do in about eighteen months what Obama could not do in 96 months. We could use some more of that craziness.

The sad part of this deal is that the dems in congress are so intent on trying to impeach Trump for anything they can make up, they are not dealing with serious issues. Social Security will be in the red within ten or fifteen years. Not talked about. We continue to run ridiculous deficits. Don't hear about it. Medical costs continue to skyrocket. Not talked about. I found a receipt yesterday where my grandmother spent five days in the hospital in 1949. Cost? 89 dollars TOTAL. Now it would be a thousand times that. These are the things we should be addressing. Instead, we talk about supposed collusion with the Russkies. Pitiful, and it is not much better for the repubs who still control the senate but propose and do next to nothing.

I would agree completely with that.

Clearly you delude yourself as FACT is the good economy is a product of years of good economic policy despite your own fiction that it was no big deal when the banks destroyed our finances and we were bleeding jobs everywhere. You also delude yourself with your denial of another FACT that despite your blasting dems for investigating the lies of the dufus, you neglect repubs failing to address those very issues of which you speak, and they have had the power to do so since 2011. Yeah you talk a lot of my name calling, but have enough of your own to account for, but of course you are unable to admit your part in the failures of your party to make sound policy either.

So thanks for proving my point that righties have lost their freaking mind, and sunk to the most insane and crazy talking points I have ever heard. Sad that you believe it, sadder that you think everyone else should too! Feel free to keep talking and making my point for me.

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 08:48 AM
the good economy is a product of years of good economic policy Sure is funny how the economy did not take off and grow effectively until Obama left office. What a strange coincidence. Stop drinking the kool aid.


repubs failing to address those very issues of which you speak, and they have had the power to do so since 2011

Remember when the republicans tried to take a stand in 2013 and we ended up with no budget and much of the fed government shut down? Remember how Obama and his friends, the national media, placed all the blame on the republicans? Remember any of that? Remember how your hero, Obama, nearly doubled the national debt in only eight years?

But I will still largely agree with you. The repubs should have declared a road to a balanced budget and put their rear ends on the line in the pursuit of it. They were too fearful to do it, just like the dems are now.

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 10:15 AM
Are you crazy? Repubs still hold all the power to pass stuff and are stalling the dems passing solutions on the very issues of which you still speak. The only claim to fame repubs had after 2011 was repeal and replace of which they failed to repeal, and we never got the replace so nice try at spin the failures of repubs.



Sure is funny how the economy did not take off and grow effectively until Obama left office. What a strange coincidence. Stop drinking the kool aid.

Obviously whatever you are drinking has you loopy. Sure repubs juiced the game making it look like the economy took off after the dufus got here with those rich guy tax cuts, but main street still struggles, and all of us are paying for this trade war with everybody.

Be glad when you sober up from your dufus election party.

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 10:27 AM
Repubs still hold all the power to pass stuff I'm sane enough to know that the dems have control of the House and the House is the first source for all revenue bills. You didn't know that?


but main street still struggles, and all of us are paying for this trade war with everybody.

Absolute lunacy. Average wages, which barely grew at all with Obama, are up substantially. You need to become better informed.

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 11:40 AM
Wrong on both counts since you had house and senate for nearly 8 years and did nothing with it while the loss of the house in 2018 gave it to dems for the last few months and many bills have been passed only to die in Slick mitch's senate. One of the consequences of the house changing hands was the states raising the mimimum wage while the private sector is lagging behind both rising prices and those darn taxes. So don't try to spin iy like you and the dufus have something to crow about, you don't and what little has been done is despite the dufus not because of him.

My advice is to save the temprary tax break you may be enjoying because repubs always screw the money up and the dems always clean up your mess after exposing your lies and exaggerations about how great you are and how much you have done for everybody. I've laid out the evidence of my case since you got here and before so try that with an uninformed sheeple because homey don't play your game.

Neither of us is completely right or wrong in truth so get with the program, and get off that right wing loony noise machine.

waltero
May 27, 2019, 12:04 PM
Neither of us is completely right or wrong in truth so get with the program, and get off that right wing loony noise machine.

I would say you best get on "that right wing loony noise machine". If you can't beat 'Em, join 'Em!
Hard Left went off the rails. You are now taking a Hard Right...Wild ride indeed.


The dufus in the WH has made the case that conservatives have lost their freaking minds.

Obama and Hillary have been trying to point out that fact before he even entered the WH...Lookie over there!
Stop looking back.

America was tired of a defunct Obama/Hillary administration. Youz people should get over it.
With Israel for us who can stand against us ;-)

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 12:45 PM
Show me the bills the House has passed to balance the budget and we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you're just spouting left wing noise.

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 01:20 PM
OMG, the budget hasn't been balanced but once in history, and you expect the dems to do it after a few months? Why didn't your repubs balance the darn thing in their years of full control, or did they even try? Then you could gloat, and I would have to just shut up. Fat chance of that. You don't get to call foul after failing yourself. A right wing tactic you loonies just love to pull.

I tell YOU what, show me the bills that repubs passed to balance the budget under Bush, Obama, or Dufus. Then we can talk.

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 02:32 PM
OMG, the budget hasn't been balanced but once in history, and you expect the dems to do it after a few months? Why didn't your repubs balance the darn thing in their years of full control, or did they even try?

The last time it was balanced, I think 98 and 99, we had a republican congress and a dem pres who worked together to get the job done. What a novel idea!!

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 03:14 PM
We agree there. Wonder if we agree on why they don't work together now?

waltero
May 27, 2019, 03:24 PM
We agree there.

NO! I won't allow it. I like it better when the two of you argue...Now Argue Damn you!
Obama and Hillary had it all figured out. Why did Trump have to get involved and mess everything up...WHY, WHY, WHYYYY!
Don't forget that Trump is a lying, Backstabbing Dufus while Obama and his side kick were Hornswoggled out of office. It's not fair just not fair.

talaniman
May 27, 2019, 04:07 PM
Patience Hoppergrass, it's early yet. Go get a dog off the grill.

jlisenbe
May 27, 2019, 05:35 PM
Patience Hoppergrass, it's early yet. Go get a dog off the grill. That one made me laugh!

They don't cooperate because politics has become so toxic and the two sides are so completely apart on policy.

paraclete
May 27, 2019, 06:39 PM
NO! I won't allow it. I like it better when the two of you argue...Now Argue Damn you!
Obama and Hillary had it all figured out. Why did Trump have to get involved and mess everything up...WHY, WHY, WHYYYY!
Don't forget that Trump is a lying, Backstabbing Dufus while Obama and his side kick were Hornswoggled out of office. It's not fair just not fair.


Politics is not fair, that there should be people who dare to disagree with socialism is just incredible, don't those idiots know we just want to make things better for them, help them to have health care they can pay for, help them to be relieved of the burden of spending their money on essentials

talaniman
May 28, 2019, 05:45 AM
Stick the socialism label on anything and make it a bad thing. Ain't mass manipulation grand?

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 06:12 AM
Yeah. I mean, see how well it worked in Venezuela.

paraclete
May 28, 2019, 06:28 AM
mass manipulation, you mean when the system doesn't work the way you want it to?

talaniman
May 28, 2019, 09:02 AM
Yeah. I mean, see how well it worked in Venezuela.

What do you expect from self serving incompetence. Has nothing to do with the label you put on it. Dysfunctional is dysfunctional.


mass manipulation, you mean when the system doesn't work the way you want it to?

No, when the system is rigged no matter who runs it. Top down is not efficient nor effective when the top skims the cream off and leaves nothing.

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 09:43 AM
What do you expect from self serving incompetence.

Self serving competence produces capitalism. Self serving incompetence produces a welfare state, socialism, and excuse-making.


Top down is not efficient nor effective when the top skims the cream off and leaves nothing.

You've got to drop drinking the kool aid. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. earn 34% of the income but pay almost 60% of fed income tax. You better be glad for those people or your share (and mine) would be much higher.

Might add that amongst the world's nations, the U.S. currently ranks fourth in average wages, behind only the very small nations of Luxembourg, Sweden, and Iceland. We are far ahead of Germany, U.K., France, Japan, and even Norway and Finland, and those countries pay a much higher percentage of their income into taxes than we do. Yes, we are even far ahead of the Aussies. So we should probably stop our whining and thank God every day that we have the prosperity we have. Possibly our biggest problem is we do not appreciate what we have.

talaniman
May 28, 2019, 10:36 AM
Self serving competence produces capitalism. Self serving incompetence produces a welfare state, socialism, and excuse-making.

You are in error, as self serving produces GREED.


You've got to drop drinking the kool aid. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. earn 34% of the income but pay almost 60% of fed income tax. You better be glad for those people or your share (and mine) would be much higher.

Might add that amongst the world's nations, the U.S. currently ranks fourth in average wages, behind only the very small nations of Luxembourg, Sweden, and Iceland. We are far ahead of Germany, U.K., France, Japan, and even Norway and Finland, and those countries pay a much higher percentage of their income into taxes than we do. Yes, we are even far ahead of the Aussies. So we should probably stop our whining and thank God every day that we have the prosperity we have. Possibly our biggest problem is we do not appreciate what we have.

Your data is accurate but your understanding of economics is completely flawed as it doesn't account for any economic activity other than governmental. I am grateful for life and prosperity is relative. I have no clue about drop drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm sure you will inform me.

Athos
May 28, 2019, 11:14 AM
Self serving competence produces capitalism. Self serving incompetence produces a welfare state, socialism, and excuse-making.

Trump's most important economic policy was the tax cut for the wealthy in December 2017. It was supposed to raise business investment but it did do only for a miniscule 0.1% boost in the GDP growth. His much-touted deregulation had little impact since most of the important deregulation moves weren't economic. Any GDP growth came from an exploding federal budget deficit, long term environmental damage, and reduced protection for workers, consumers, the poor, and small investors.

The above is from the conservative Wall Street Journal.

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 11:29 AM
You are in error, as self serving produces GREED.

And what else do you think motivates economic activity? It is the desire for self improvement. I guarantee that is what motivated you, me, and just about everyone. We wanted to meet our needs and the needs of our families.


Your data is accurate but your understanding of economics is completely flawed as it doesn't account for any economic activity other than governmental.

What???


Any GDP growth came from an exploding federal budget deficit, long term environmental damage, and reduced protection for workers, consumers, the poor, and small investors.

Debt itself does not spur economic growth. It's just amazing to me how liberals love to tout the supposed economic success of Obama and refuse to give Trump any credit for the current strong growth.

Now if you want to be critical of the debt we are incurring, I will be completely on your side.

Wondergirl
May 28, 2019, 11:51 AM
And what else do you think motivates economic activity? It is the desire for self improvement. I guarantee that is what motivated you, me, and just about everyone.
My colleagues and I worked for the benefit and improvement of our communities. We certainly didn't do these jobs and line our pockets with money from the miserable salaries we received!

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 11:55 AM
My colleagues and I worked for the benefit and improvement of our communities. We certainly didn't do these jobs and line our pockets with money from the miserable salaries we received!

I'll bet you would not have worked for free. You worked, first and foremost, for a salary. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm sure you helped people. So did I. I'd like to think that, as a school teacher and principal, I made an impact on the lives of children, but I had a wife and children to take care of. I work for free now at a drug rehab facility, but I am able to do that only because I ended up with an adequate retirement package.

If a guy making a million dollars a year decides to build a house twice as big as what he needs, you might complain about greed at work, but think about the jobs and income produced for many people by that building project. That's a good thing. We tend to think that giving a poor person money is the best thing we can do for him/her. I would say that giving them a job and some guidance in his/her life is the best we can do.

Wondergirl
May 28, 2019, 12:39 PM
I'll bet you would not have worked for free.
Yup, I would have. I loved every job I ever had. That's why I also did volunteer work. The paying jobs I had were very low pay even when I was a department head at a public library. I had a resume/cover letter business and later did counseling (both on a sliding scale), helping those who couldn't afford high-class services.

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 01:12 PM
Yup, I would have. I loved every job I ever had. That's why I also did volunteer work. The paying jobs I had were very low pay even when I was a department head at a public library. I had a resume/cover letter business and later did counseling (both on a sliding scale), helping those who couldn't afford high-class services.

So if you had worked for free, how would you have paid the bills? I loved teaching and I would have gladly taught school for free. It was both my job and my hobby, but working for nothing just was not an option. How would it have been an option with you?

Wondergirl
May 28, 2019, 01:56 PM
So if you had worked for free, how would you have paid the bills? I loved teaching and I would have gladly taught school for free. It was both my job and my hobby, but working for nothing just was not an option. How would it have been an option with you?
I was married to a guy just starting out in his field. His paycheck was a joke until he joined their union. Meanwhile, with my low pay (Lutheran schoolteachers don't get paid much), we were able to survive. Thanks to my mom's (Lutheran pastor's wife) training, I'm a creative, thrifty cook and baker. The very small two-bedroom (both 10x10) house we bought in 1972 has become our retirement home. We were never greedy or took expensive vacations (think tent camping instead).

To change the subject, I'm looking forward to what Lori Lightfoot will accomplish as Chicago's new mayor!

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 02:09 PM
I was married to a guy just starting out in his field. His paycheck was a joke until he joined their union. Meanwhile, with my low pay (Lutheran schoolteachers don't get paid much), we were able to survive. Thanks to my mom's (Lutheran pastor's wife) training, I'm a creative, thrifty cook and baker. The very small two-bedroom (both 10x10) house we bought in 1972 has become our retirement home. We were never greedy or took expensive vacations (think tent camping instead).

Yes, but you did take vacations, and your husband joined the union so he could make more money, and you lived a life better than 80 or 90 percent of the rest of the world. I don't say that to ridicule you in any way. You made your life count for something and for that I commend you, but the guy worth 100 mil whose business provided jobs for hundreds of people also did well. It still comes down to trying to make a living, paying the bills, and being able to help others.


I'm looking forward to what Lori Lightfoot will accomplish as Chicago's new mayor!

What makes you hopeful?

Athos
May 28, 2019, 05:18 PM
It's just amazing to me how liberals love to tout the supposed economic success of Obama and refuse to give Trump any credit for the current strong growth.


It's equally amazing to me how the fringe right-wing loves to blame liberals on every problem under the sun - while rarely understanding what the word actually means.

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 05:36 PM
It's equally amazing to me how the fringe right-wing loves to blame liberals on every problem under the sun - while rarely understanding what the word actually means.

I don't think you have found anyone on this board who is doing that.

talaniman
May 28, 2019, 07:14 PM
Any president that followed Obama would have the same economy as the dufus. The actual economic trend lines from the past decade show that to be the case, and I have shared those with you as well as the ones you yourself have produced.
,
You righties bought into his big lie that it was all him.. In Truth the dufus has never paid for a thing and is in hock up to his big orange butt. The question is to whom. You want great growth, then circulate a lot more money to main street so they can buy stuff, instead of giving mo'money to the guys who hoard it and play the rules to suck up the countries wealth.

What a disgusting display for the dufus overseas in Japan. I remember when Obama was blasted for going to a ball game with the Cuban president, but lo and behold those same critics are silent when he romances Kim who is shooting rockets and disparaging the dufus 's enemies, takes Vlad's side against our own intel community despite the evidence, and while the Chinese laugh about our tariffs that Americans pay for waiting for this grand deal.

Fascinating you accuse me of drinking the Kool-Aid JL, while you are the one talking crazy. Sorry to break up the civility and sharing with my crap.

Athos
May 28, 2019, 07:50 PM
I don't think you have found anyone on this board who is doing that.


You mean, other than you?

jlisenbe
May 28, 2019, 09:27 PM
You mean, other than you?

I haven't blamed libs for everything under the sun. You need to start dealing with the truth instead of your own prejudiced fantasies.

Tal, you claim that anyone following Obama would have had a great economy. You might have a point. Obama produced the weakest recovery from a recession in history. With him out of the way, the economy has really taken off with Trump. Maybe you're right in that the secret was to get Obama out of the way.

paraclete
May 28, 2019, 10:40 PM
I haven't blamed libs for everything under the sun. You need to start dealing with the truth instead of your own prejudiced fantasies.

Tal, you claim that anyone following Obama would have had a great economy. You might have a point. Obama produced the weakest recovery from a recession in history. With him out of the way, the economy has really taken off with Trump. Maybe you're right in that the secret was to get Obama out of the way.

Ah you agree you are fringe right wing, and yes, with a business environment more in tune with their aspirations the economy boomed

jlisenbe
May 29, 2019, 04:03 AM
Ah you agree you are fringe right wing,

I'd say politically conservative, but follower of Christ more than anything.

paraclete
May 29, 2019, 06:37 AM
I'd say politically conservative, but follower of Christ more than anything.

You and me, both

jlisenbe
May 29, 2019, 06:54 AM
You and me, both

I suspected as much. Glad to hear it.

talaniman
May 29, 2019, 09:51 AM
Hello you wingers, the idiot is still at work while you smooze each other. Get a room why don't ya!

Dear Nancy,

Please start impeachment proceedings on the idiot in the WH

Thank you

The Lefty in the Bunch

PS

Don't forget his sycophants too!

jlisenbe
May 29, 2019, 12:47 PM
The Lefty in the Bunch

One of three.

talaniman
May 29, 2019, 12:59 PM
So What? I am as American as you are. I VOTE too.

jlisenbe
May 29, 2019, 04:11 PM
I agree completely and was not suggesting otherwise.

talaniman
May 29, 2019, 04:28 PM
I know, just pokubg the bear after feeling GREAT that Mueller stated what he said in his report he cannot exonerate the dufus of any crimes. Makes a difference when you see him say it in person.

See other thread in this forum.

paraclete
May 29, 2019, 06:33 PM
I know, just pokubg the bear after feeling GREAT that Mueller stated what he said in his report he cannot exonerate the dufus of any crimes. Makes a difference when you see him say it in person.

See other thread in this forum.

He is just a sad old man

jlisenbe
May 29, 2019, 07:07 PM
he cannot exonerate the dufus of any crimes.

That made me laugh. "Innocent until proven guilty" has become "Guilty until proven innocent."

talaniman
May 29, 2019, 07:21 PM
That's what the congressional investigation will determine. Mueller never said he was guilty, just can't say he was innocent either.

paraclete
May 29, 2019, 09:54 PM
An investigation in search of a crime, and what did it find? we cannot say a crime was not committed. I'll walk out my door and they will not be able to say a crime was not committed before hand

talaniman
May 30, 2019, 03:08 AM
You don't think it wise to take a look at the business partners and financial dealings of a guy in the WH, or wants to be in the WH, surrounded by now convicted crooks, liars, grifters, and international criminals? Really Clete?

jlisenbe
May 30, 2019, 04:43 AM
You don't think it wise to take a look at the business partners and financial dealings of a guy in the WH, or wants to be in the WH, surrounded by now convicted crooks, liars, grifters, and international criminals?

I'm OK with that as long as we do it for every member of Congress as well. After all, if we're just on a wild goose chase, then let's chase everyone's geese.

tomder55
May 30, 2019, 06:47 AM
You don't think it wise to take a look at the business partners and financial dealings of a guy in the WH, or wants to be in the WH, surrounded by now convicted crooks, liars, grifters, and international criminals? Really Clete? isn't that the stuff that gets done BEFORE someone gets elected ? They are looking at Trump's finances because they already looked under the collusion rock and found nothing . They are desperate to remove him from office because all the indicators show Trump will win a 2nd term . Of all the incumbents who ran for 2nd terms since WWII only 2 lost .Carter and GHW . Both had really bad economies . So the Dems have 2 choices .The can hope for a really bad economy ;or they can force him out .

paraclete
May 30, 2019, 06:48 AM
You don't think it wise to take a look at the business partners and financial dealings of a guy in the WH, or wants to be in the WH, surrounded by now convicted crooks, liars, grifters, and international criminals? Really Clete?

Surely that is a political witch hunt. After searching for a crime without probable cause you found some events which may contravene laws committed not by the subject of the investigation but some associates, therefore Trump is guilty by association. paying off call girls to avoid scandal is about as close as you come to Trump. No doubt he expressed a wish for the investigation to stop, he is still doing that. Obstruction of justice presumes that justice would be rendered in the first instance, slim chance

jlisenbe
May 30, 2019, 06:52 AM
Trump Derangement Syndrome. The same kind of shoddy work we saw with the Kavanaugh situation. Guilty until proven innocent.

talaniman
May 30, 2019, 09:04 AM
Surely that is a political witch hunt. After searching for a crime without probable cause you found some events which may contravene laws committed not by the subject of the investigation but some associates, therefore Trump is guilty by association. paying off call girls to avoid scandal is about as close as you come to Trump. No doubt he expressed a wish for the investigation to stop, he is still doing that. Obstruction of justice presumes that justice would be rendered in the first instance, slim chance

Do I need all caps or can you hang your head around the FACT that all the Indians are corrupt convicted or about to be and you can't find probable cause for the guy they work for? Or is he that much of a dufus?

talaniman
May 30, 2019, 09:13 AM
isn't that the stuff that gets done BEFORE someone gets elected ? They are looking at Trump's finances because they already looked under the collusion rock and found nothing . They are desperate to remove him from office because all the indicators show Trump will win a 2nd term . Of all the incumbents who ran for 2nd terms since WWII only 2 lost .Carter and GHW . Both had really bad economies . So the Dems have 2 choices .The can hope for a really bad economy ;or they can force him out .

Party politics aside that's what opposition parties do. They always try to make the guy a one term president, but with the dufus, it's an imperative. Problem is most repubs have no clue about this guy except what right wing media says which is nothing. You are the only one I know who read the Report, and is not disgusted. Oh wait, your disgusted by Mueller and the dems. Nothing new there.

Snide remarks aside though most of the country hasn't including dems, elected or not, aren't on the impeachment train.


Trump Derangement Syndrome. The same kind of shoddy work we saw with the Kavanaugh situation. Guilty until proven innocent.

Try PO'd and mistrustful. You would be too if dems had stolen a Scotus pick.

jlisenbe
May 30, 2019, 12:18 PM
You would be too if dems had stolen a Scotus pick.

You couldn't make a ridiculously unsupported allegation from 40 years ago stick, and that's what you refer to as "stolen". Wow. That's a strange point of view.

tomder55
May 30, 2019, 01:36 PM
there was nothing stolen about it. The Senate invoked the 'Biden rule' .Besides ,the Republicans returned the favor by selecting Kavanaugh. If something tragic happens to another justice in 2020,I'm sure the Dems will argue the '80 -year rule' .

talaniman
May 30, 2019, 02:56 PM
To my knowledge the Biden rule was a speech and never made a rule. It was used as a tool to steal a nomination. Mitch just said if an opening came up during the coming election he would fill it. Yes I'm sure the dems would argue as well they should but repubs have done the deed, and will again. Pretty much like the nuclear option to get the dufus judges on a fast track.

paraclete
May 30, 2019, 03:05 PM
Do I need all caps or can you hang your head around the FACT that all the Indians are corrupt convicted or about to be and you can't find probable cause for the guy they work for? Or is he that much of a dufus?

Zeig heil! You swallow that guilt by association crap. Did Trump tell a minion to pay some one off? Yes. Are there brown noses who do things to keep their boss out of the public gaze. Yes, Dig the dirt on their opponents. Yes. What you have done is make it a crime to win an election

tomder55
May 30, 2019, 03:25 PM
Mueller got none of Trump's hirlings on conspiracy to collude with the Russians to steal an election .He has Manafort rotting in solitary for the same crime he refused to charge the Podesta Brothers with . There is frankly more evidence of Ukraine tampering in the 2016 election than there is about Russian. Mueller says the President would never face trial if Mueller cited charges . Sounds like all the Ruskies he indicted knowing they would never be tried .

talaniman
May 30, 2019, 05:08 PM
Vlad said his goons are innocent and had nothing to do with it. case closed said the dufus. between the dufus domain in NY and The WH or ML, no telling who he is seeing or why.

jlisenbe
May 31, 2019, 06:48 AM
between the dufus domain in NY and The WH or ML, no telling who he is seeing or why.

A president meeting people in secret??? Who ever heard of such a thing. It's a good thing that Loretta Lynch didn't secretly meet with Bill Clinton when his wife was under active FBI investigation. I'm sure Tal would have been greatly concerned about a meeting like that.

tomder55
May 31, 2019, 08:17 AM
https://www.wsj.com/video/im-still-angry-a-tiananmen-survivor-confronts-painful-memories/31248482-0CAB-4C7E-AC3D-943CE7A50DB2.html

talaniman
May 31, 2019, 09:02 AM
A president meeting people in secret??? Who ever heard of such a thing. It's a good thing that Loretta Lynch didn't secretly meet with Bill Clinton when his wife was under active FBI investigation. I'm sure Tal would have been greatly concerned about a meeting like that.

That meeting was inappropriate in the appearance but pales in comparison to what the dufus has done which is much more than suspicious on it's face and for what we don't know. but suffering from Clinton Traumatic Syndrome as you have been makes it understandable why you would conflate the two as equally dumb. The words, actions, and behavior of the dufus is demonstrably much more egregious than Lynch and the Clintons by far.

waltero
May 31, 2019, 09:53 AM
So What? I am as American as you are. I VOTE too.

Voting for candidates is not enough.
Oh, That Time When Clinton Said Anyone Who Doesn’t Accept The Results Of An Election Is A Threat To Democracy

It's easy to talk about Trump having no Honor (deal breaking with Iran...you are joking?). Quote: "How can you Trust a deal breaker"...
Honoring the vote???

I do believe the future of this country would have suffered for a very long time if Hillary had been elected. Voting by its very nature is an “instrumental” act: a means to an end. Voting is most commonly the act of choosing the best option among the viable options available. It is not an endorsement of the candidate’s character or even his or her positions. Many, many considerations may factor into one’s vote. By contrast, Hillary was supported foursquare by her party, its institutions, and its elected officials, who would not support her impeachment even if she were caught personally leading a burglary at the RNC. Neither candidate was fit for office, but only one candidate has a chance at being removed for unfitness.


How strange it is to argue that we voted for the impeachable candidate

jlisenbe
May 31, 2019, 11:52 AM
That meeting was inappropriate in the appearance but pales in comparison to what the dufus has done which is much more than suspicious on it's face and for what we don't know.

How could you possibly know? Where you there? Do you know what was said? Do you know what has been said in Trump's private meetings?

Politics. All politics.

waltero
May 31, 2019, 12:35 PM
Do you know what has been said in Trump's private meetings?

Yes, it went something like this; Durr Duh, Durrr which way did he go, which way did he go...


"Trump is going to start a WAR!" Durr Duh.

Nobody is going to start sh*t while Trump is in Office.

talaniman
May 31, 2019, 02:57 PM
How could you possibly know? Where you there? Do you know what was said? Do you know what has been said in Trump's private meetings?

Politics. All politics.

I don't have to know, but I do know you NEVER trust a liar, a cheater, and a bully without VERIFICATION. Until then I'm highly suspicious.



Nobody is going to start sh*t while Trump is in Office.

Does that include the dufus not starting one?

jlisenbe
May 31, 2019, 06:04 PM
I don't have to know

The motto of liberals. "Knowledge is not necessary."

Wondergirl
May 31, 2019, 06:23 PM
The motto of liberals. "Knowledge is not necessary."
The motto of conservatives: "We don't need no stinkin' knowledge!"

waltero
Jun 1, 2019, 01:17 PM
The motto of conservatives: "We don't need no stinkin' knowledge!"

AKA, NeverTrumpers.


Conservatism is an actual intellectual application. Liberalism is just the easiest choice anybody can make. All you have to do is pretend to care about things and say so. Conservatism, all of these values and principles of conservatism require action to implement, not just thought.

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 01:48 PM
Conservatism is an actual intellectual application. Liberalism is just the easiest choice anybody can make. All you have to do is pretend to care about things and say so. Conservatism, all of these values and principles of conservatism require action to implement, not just thought.
For a few weeks recently, I was a member of a Christian conservative group. There were no "intellectual applications," no values, no principles except "we are right in how we think." As Dr. Phil would say, they were right-fighters*. They didn't DO anything to help anyone, were basically white male supremacists pounding their chests.

*A right-fighter is someone who insists on having the last word in an argument or refuses to back down no matter what. Challenges of Being a "Right-Fighter". 1) People who are right-fighters, (or those who are driven by the need to be right), have their value or worth literally attached to the outcome of being right.

waltero
Jun 1, 2019, 02:07 PM
For a few weeks recently, I was a member of a Christian conservative group. There were no "intellectual applications," no values, no principles except "we are right in how we think." As Dr. Phil would say, they were right-fighters*. They didn't DO anything to help anyone, were basically white male supremacists pounding their chests.

*A right-fighter is someone who insists on having the last word in an argument or refuses to back down no matter what. Challenges of Being a "Right-Fighter". 1) People who are right-fighters, (or those who are driven by the need to be right), have their value or worth literally attached to the outcome of being right.

AKA, NeverTrumpers.

Well Tal, there you have it. Dr. Phil has figured you out.

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 02:16 PM
AKA, NeverTrumpers.

Well Tal, there you have it. Dr. Phil has figured you out.
Um, not Tal!!!!

jlisenbe
Jun 1, 2019, 02:35 PM
For a few weeks recently, I was a member of a Christian conservative group.

Why did you become a member?

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 04:41 PM
Why did you become a member?
I was raised and lived much of my adult life as conservative Christian and figured I'd know some of the other group members. And I did or had known their parents and grandparents.

jlisenbe
Jun 1, 2019, 06:00 PM
So what turned you away from being a conservative Christian? I know a lot of them and they are active in deed as well as word.

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 06:12 PM
So what turned you away from being a conservative Christian? I know a lot of them and they are active in deed as well as word.
I know a lot of them, too. Most are not active in word OR deed, especially the latter. It's a whole 'nother layer of conservatism today, a superficial layer, not the conservatism I have known much of my life. Instead, it's a conservatism I don't want any part of or to be part of.

jlisenbe
Jun 1, 2019, 06:26 PM
I know a lot of them, too. Most are not active in word OR deed, especially the latter. It's a whole 'nother layer of conservatism today, a superficial layer, not the conservatism I have known much of my life. Instead, it's a conservatism I don't want any part of or to be part of.

I can't speak for the people you know, but I can tell you this. The drug rehab facility I work with would not be there if not for conservative Christians. I would guess there are twenty to thirty churches and individuals who help out, and virtually all are Christians who love Jesus and love those men. I just don't see anyone out there who is excited about gay marriage, abortion, the welfare state, or other items from the liberal point of view.

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 06:39 PM
I just don't see anyone out there who is excited about gay marriage, abortion, the welfare state, or other items from the liberal point of view.
Ah, your Christian love DOES have limits! (P.S. Those aren't liberal points of view; they're human situations that need unconditional love.)

paraclete
Jun 1, 2019, 06:46 PM
unconditional love

Yes, the philosophy of the liberals that says; I can have my sin but you must give me your compassion. We can sympathise with those in these situations, however, there are alternatives. Come out from among them.

jlisenbe
Jun 1, 2019, 06:54 PM
Ah, your Christian love DOES have limits! (P.S. Those aren't liberal points of view; they're human situations that need unconditional love.)

And your Christian faith seems to have no grounding in God's will. Kill babies with abortion? Fine. Two men get married. No problem. Your moral values seem to be more shaped by the values of the democrat party than by the Bible.

BTW, the love of God is limitless in the sense that He offers mercy to everyone, but not in the sense that He accepts and approves of all our actions. Jesus Himself allowed people to walk away and reject Him.

And yeah, they are liberal points of view. You will not find gay marriage, abortion, or the federal welfare state in the Bible.

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 06:59 PM
And your Christian faith seems to have no grounding in God's will. Kill babies with abortion? Fine. Two men get married. No problem. Your moral values seem to be more shaped by the values of the democrat party than by the Bible.
I didn't say we must agree with them. I said people in those situations need our unconditional love.

BTW, the love of God is limitless in the sense that He offers mercy to everyone, but not in the sense that He accepts and approves of all our actions. Jesus Himself allowed people to walk away and reject Him.
They haven't rejected Him. Christians have rejected them.

And yeah, they are liberal points of view. You will not find gay marriage, abortion, or the federal welfare state in the Bible.
You'd better read your Bible a bit more carefully and be sure to interpret correctly what you read.

jlisenbe
Jun 1, 2019, 07:10 PM
I didn't say we must agree with them. I said people in those situations need our unconditional love.

You seem to be offering unconditional acceptance of behavior. That is not Biblical and it is not love. To refuse to oppose gay marriage and abortion is not a loving act at all. It is just going along to get along, and giving your liberal views an outlet.


They haven't rejected Him. Christians have rejected them.


Just a general statement with no meaning. "They", "Christians", and "them" are large groups that you can't possibly be that familiar with. I, for instance, belong in the "Christians" group, but I have not rejected anyone that I know of.


You'd better read your Bible a bit more carefully and be sure to interpret correctly what you read.

I'm open to you showing me gay marriage, abortion, and the federal welfare state in the Bible.

Wondergirl
Jun 1, 2019, 07:44 PM
You seem to be offering unconditional acceptance of behavior. That is not Biblical and it is not love. To refuse to oppose gay marriage and abortion is not a loving act at all. It is just going along to get along, and giving your liberal views an outlet.
You so want me to be "liberal" and are painting me with that brush.

Unconditional love is not unconditional acceptance.


Just a general statement with no meaning. "They", "Christians", and "them" are large groups that you can't possibly be that familiar with. I, for instance, belong in the "Christians" group, but I have not rejected anyone that I know of.
I was responding to 'Clete and using pronouns whose antecedents were the nouns he used.

I'm open to you showing me gay marriage, abortion, and the federal welfare state in the Bible.
Have you read it yet?

Athos
Jun 1, 2019, 07:59 PM
Ah, your Christian love DOES have limits! (P.S. Those aren't liberal points of view; they're human situations that need unconditional love.)


Well said!

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 04:31 AM
Have you read it yet?

Many times.

I would hope you would stop being evasive. If you can find those practices being approved in the Bible, then post it. Otherwise, you should stop supporting them. You don't do people favors by doing so. It's as bad as saying you don't support slavery, but wouldn't want to seem to be unloving by opposing it.

All love has limits.

paraclete
Jun 2, 2019, 06:12 AM
I was responding to 'Clete and using pronouns whose antecedents were the nouns he used.


Your response was a bit obscure, I couldn't see what I had said in it. The liberals demand acceptance of whatever people want to do because we Christians are required to be different. I live, I breathe, I have an opinion which is informed by God's Word. My answer to them you will be forgiven if you repent, in the meantime, I am not required to agree with them

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 06:22 AM
I have an opinion which is informed by God's Word. My answer to them you will be forgiven if you repent, in the meantime, I am not required to agree with them

Good response. I would only add that I will help a person if I can in some way that does not add to their disobedience of God. In dealing with addicts, for instance, you learn quickly that most of them are good deceivers and you cannot assist them in their addiction. It can lead to some tough decisions.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 09:11 AM
Many times.

I would hope you would stop being evasive. If you can find those practices being approved in the Bible, then post it. Otherwise, you should stop supporting them. You don't do people favors by doing so. It's as bad as saying you don't support slavery, but wouldn't want to seem to be unloving by opposing it.

All love has limits.
I haven't supported "those practices" nor have I been evasive. I said they need unconditional love. For instance, the Bible writers didn't know about fetuses being swamped in hormone baths that changed how their brain interpreted their sexuality.

Jesus' love doesn't have limits.

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 11:38 AM
I haven't supported "those practices"

That's what you like to claim, but you don't oppose them. You like to live in the middle, not against, but not in favor of. At some point you need to state your position.


nor have I been evasive.

Yes, you are. I ask you to give Biblical support for gay marriage or abortion, and your reply is to tell me to read my Bible. It's basically a non-response in meaning.


I said they need unconditional love. For instance, the Bible writers didn't know about fetuses being swamped in hormone baths that changed how their brain interpreted their sexuality.

Even if your answer was accurate, and it largely is not, how would that effect our discussion? You still have not made reference to any scripture showing an acceptance of gay marriage or abortion.


Jesus' love doesn't have limits.

Oh it most certainly did. When the rich young ruler approached Jesus, He told the man what he needed to do to enter the Kingdom of God. It specifically says that Jesus loved the man, but the ruler chose to do otherwise. Jesus did not pursue him and try to change his mind, and on the day of judgement, his love will be shown to have a limit. Jesus loved everyone, but He did not accept everyone, nor did He allow anyone and everyone to follow Him. If you think He did, then you need to read your Bible.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 11:50 AM
That's what you like to claim, but you don't oppose them. You like to live in the middle, not against, but not in favor of. At some point you need to state your position.
I would eat with them as Jesus would and tell them about His love for them.

Yes, you are. I ask you to give Biblical support for gay marriage or abortion, and your reply is to tell me to read my Bible. It's basically a non-response in meaning.
Tell me where in the Bible it says anything at all about gay marriage and abortion.

A completely senseless, non-scientific answer.
Actually, it IS scientific.

Oh it most certainly did. When the rich young ruler approached Jesus, He told the man what he needed to do to enter the Kingdom of God. It specifically says that Jesus loved the man, but the ruler chose to do otherwise. Jesus did not pursue him and try to change his mind, and on the day of judgement, his love will be shown to have a limit. Jesus loved everyone, but He did not accept everyone. If you think He did, then you need to read your Bible.
Have you approached anyone to tell them what they must do to enter God's kingdom? Hmmmm, I wonder what you'd say....

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 11:53 AM
I would eat with them as did Jesus would and tell them about His love for them.

Again, a non-response. What is your position about the morality of gm or abortion?


Have you approached anyone to tell them what they must do to enter God's kingdom? Hmmmm, I wonder what you'd say....

I would tell them to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Have done so many times. Holds true whether you are a prostitute or the bank president.

What do you tell them?


Tell me where in the Bible it says anything at all about gay marriage and abortion.

Funny how your response is always evasive. You have no support, so you ask me give support. I'm happy to do it, but just another example of your non-responses.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 12:22 PM
Again, a non-response. What is your position about the morality of gm or abortion?

I would tell them to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Have done so many times. Holds true whether you are a prostitute or the bank president.

What do you tell them?
I first get to know them and start to become a friend.

Funny how your response is always evasive.
Huh? I told you what I believe and think.

You have no support, so you ask me give support. I'm happy to do it, but just another example of your non-responses.
Non response. No, I don't agree with you. Guess that's a non response.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Gay couples can love each other and be as one flesh.

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul (nephesh - “an animated, breathing, conscious, and living being).”

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 12:32 PM
Gay couples can love each other and be as one flesh.

So the truth comes out. You have no support for this other than your own opinion. At least you finally came out with something concrete. You did not reach this conclusion by reading the Bible. It is the result of being influenced by your liberal views. Sad.

So if someone asks you what he/she must do to enter the Kingdom of God, your answer is to become their friend and get to know them? Is that how, in your mind, a person enters the Kingdom of God? Jesus did not take that approach with the ruler. He simply told him the truth. There is really a place for that. He did it frequently.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 12:44 PM
So the truth comes out. You have no support for this other than your own opinion. At least you finally came out with something concrete. You did not reach this conclusion by reading the Bible. It is the result of being influenced by your liberal views. Sad.
There is no Biblical support for your belief about gays. I'm guessing St. Paul may have been gay.

So if someone asks you what he/she must do to enter the Kingdom of God, your answer is to become their friend and get to know them? Is that how, in your mind, a person enters the Kingdom of God? Jesus did not take that approach with the ruler. He simply told him the truth. There is really a place for that. He did it frequently.
That wasn't what you asked me. You asked what I would do. Shouting Bible verses in their face certainly wouldn't get me very far.

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 01:57 PM
There is no Biblical support for your belief about gays. I'm guessing St. Paul may have been gay.

There is not Biblical support other than the many verses which show homosexual activity to be a sin? And Paul was gay? Congratulations for losing all credibility as a student of the Bible. There is not a single scripture to back up your ideas about gay marriage. None.



That wasn't what you asked me. You asked what I would do. Shouting Bible verses in their face certainly wouldn't get me very far.

Uhm...actually, you started the questioning when you asked, "Have you approached anyone to tell them what they must do to enter God's kingdom? Hmmmm, I wonder what you'd say...." So I'm still wondering what you would say. No one has suggested shouting. No one has even suggested Bible verses. You are making things up as you go.

I think we have arrived at the truth. You care nothing for the Bible. Your belief is that God loving everyone makes whatever a person wants to do OK with God. When the Bible contradicts that, then you just ignore it. So here we are. I don't care about your opinion or my opinion. I care about God's opinion. I would encourage you to do the same.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 02:16 PM
There is not Biblical support other than the many verses which show homosexual activity to be a sin? And Paul was gay? Congratulations for losing all credibility as a student of the Bible. There is not a single scripture to back up your ideas about gay marriage. None.
As I said, there are no verses about homosexuality being a sin. Jesus never mentioned it either. And why else would Paul have suffered and endured so many beatings and abuse? Because he had a skin disease???? Give me a break!

Here's an article for you to chew on:
https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/12/01/dear-evangelicals-leave-lgbtq-people-alone/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John%20Pavlovitz

waltero
Jun 2, 2019, 02:49 PM
As I said, there are no verses about homosexuality being a sin. Jesus never mentioned it either. And why else would Paul have suffered and endured so many beatings and abuse? Because he had a skin disease???? Give me a break!

Wow!
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Beware When Bad Becomes Good, And Good Becomes Bad.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 02:58 PM
Wow!
Please post one.

waltero
Jun 2, 2019, 03:28 PM
Please post one.

How so? A person has to die to self first.



2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will ""turn away from listening to the truth"" and wander off into myths.


You already have your Truth/myths.

'You' are a good person, 'you' are helping people, 'you' have a loving understanding of things...it's all "you."

It has nothing to do with what 'you' or I believe or understand. I no longer exists, it's Christ Jesus in me...all understanding, all love all life comes from Jesus, Jesus (the Bible) is the living word in the flesh.

Isaiah 5:20 20Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 03:35 PM
How so? A person has to die to self first.

You already have your Truth/myths.

'You' are a good person, 'you' are helping people, 'you' have a loving understanding of things...it's all "you."

It has nothing to do with what 'you' or I believe or understand. I no longer exists, it's Christ Jesus in me...
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

waltero
Jun 2, 2019, 03:59 PM
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

No worries, your not alone.

What I am saying; For those who are in Christ Jesus, this life and this world no longer has anything to do with self...what I think, what I do, what I feel, Where I go, who I help Etc. It's no longer about you or what you want, it's all about the Word of life/truth. Everything else is going to pass away.



Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.

paraclete
Jun 2, 2019, 04:17 PM
No worries, your not alone.

What I am saying; For those who are in Christ Jesus, this life and this world no longer has anything to do with self...what I think, what I do, what I feel, Where I go, who I help Etc. It's no longer about you or what you want, it's all about the Word of life/truth. Everything else is going too pass away.

Let us be practical for a moment, if you spend your life waiting for everything to pass away you will get nothing done, so bless those around you and don't spout scripture. Jesus came into this world to do some specific things, this he accomplished, in his own words, "it is finished". So the message is; believe in Jesus. You have to put Paul in the context of his pharisaic training, he had a very legal view which was basically sin is sin, thus when he speaks of homsexuality it is in the context of many sins. The lesson of Jesus is go and sin no more

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 04:36 PM
As I said, there are no verses about homosexuality being a sin. Jesus never mentioned it either. And why else would Paul have suffered and endured so many beatings and abuse? Because he had a skin disease???? Give me a break!

Romans 1:26 ff
Jude 1:7
1 Tim. 1:10
1 Cor. 7:2
1 Cor. 6:9
Lev. 20:13


Enough? And add to that there is not a single verse to lead us to believe that same gender sex is approved of God. To suggest that Paul was homosexual is simply ludicrous. You might as well say he was a communist. There is not a shred of Bible evidence to show that. He was persecuted for the preaching of the Gospel. Any effort at all, even a minimal effort, at reading the Book of Acts will show that.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 05:30 PM
No worries, your not alone.

What I am saying; For those who are in Christ Jesus, this life and this world no longer has anything to do with self...what I think, what I do, what I feel, Where I go, who I help Etc. It's no longer about you or what you want, it's all about the Word of life/truth. Everything else is going to pass away.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.
Okay. What is this in reference to?


Romans 1:26 ff
Jude 1:7
1 Tim. 1:10
1 Cor. 7:2
1 Cor. 6:9
Lev. 20:13

Enough? And add to that there is not a single verse to lead us to believe that same gender sex is approved of God. To suggest that Paul was homosexual is simply ludicrous. You might as well say he was a communist. There is not a shred of Bible evidence to show that. He was persecuted for the preaching of the Gospel. Any effort at all, even a minimal effort, at reading the Book of Acts will show that.
Apparently, you don't know what was going on in the Roman world back then.

waltero
Jun 2, 2019, 06:02 PM
if you spend your life waiting for everything to pass away you will get nothing done

My point exacly.


it is finished

What is it 'you' are wanting to get done (it is finished)?



What is this in reference to?

Galatians 2:20 It is no longer I who live...
Don't rely on your own understanding.

jlisenbe
Jun 2, 2019, 06:20 PM
Apparently, you don't know what was going on in the Roman world back then.

You asked for scriptures. I gave you scriptures and this is the best reply you can come up with? Don't you know that it makes no difference what corruption was in place in Rome? The Christian faith does not adapt to this world, it changes it. It sure seems that modern, liberal doctrine has taken the place of the Bible in your life.

As it says in one of my favorite scriptures,

Seek the Lord while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 07:39 PM
You asked for scriptures. I gave you scriptures and this is the best reply you can come up with?
Those verses are mistranslated or definitely misinterpreted in their respective Biblical, cultural, and historical contexts. The authors were warning Christians not to get caught up in Roman pagan worship practices.

paraclete
Jun 2, 2019, 07:46 PM
Those verses are mistranslated or definitely misinterpreted in their respective Biblical, cultural, and historical contexts. The authors were warning Christians not to get caught up in Roman pagan worship practices.

Indeed and homosexuality and adultery were prime parts of those practices, but in the broader context such things are not acceptable in everyday life

Wondergirl
Jun 2, 2019, 08:49 PM
Indeed and homosexuality and adultery were prime parts of those practices, but in the broader context such things are not acceptable in everyday life
Who says?