Uncovering 38 minor violations by staffers out of 33,000 emails, the State Department completed its three year internal investigation of the emails saying it found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information".

Who here will be first in denying this fact?

Athos: I think this subject has been beat to death already, enough! Let us move on. It is all water under the bridge: HC is off-the-hook.

I bring it up because it is a favorite stand-by of Jl who brings it up constantly along with Benghazi. He can't let them go so I thought this may convince him of his error.

If it were up to me, I lost interest years ago. You're new here so you haven't been subjected to the anti-Hillary and anti-Obama business that jl obsesses on. Be glad for that.



Athos: I think this subject has been beat to death already, enough! Let us move on. It is all water under the bridge: HC is off-the-hook.

Agreed.

Seriously who cares, yesterday's news, fake news even

fake news even

Fake news???????????? Hmm...

Athos: Yes, all things have a beginning, a middle, and an end.....once you reach "THE END", it makes no sense to try and extend it...at some point you must stop it and, to me, The State Department's investigation and the results thereof is as good of a stopping point as you are ever going to get...its ridiculous to keep dragging this out and enticing people to glob onto and build conspiracy theories because the next thing you know it will be a "Who killed JFK" scenario that goes on indefinitely....and life is too short!

Since you mention me, I will present this for your consideration lest you try and elevate Saint Hillary to too high a level.

"Since Hillary Clinton's email misconduct was, in fact, a bona fide scandal that warranted intense scrutiny. Some points: (1) Of course her misconduct was deliberate. She went through an enormous amount of trouble to set up a bootleg, woefully under-secured email server, on which she conducted official business -- including quite a lot of classified business. National security officials have stated on the record that it's highly likely that this server and its contents were penetrated by hostile foreign actors. Setting up the server required intent and affirmative steps, as did its continued use. The whole point was to bypass the official system, allowing her total control over her virtual paper train, much of which she permanently and unilaterally deleted, with no oversight.


(2) Of course her ceaseless lying about the whole matter contributes to her culpability. Mrs. Clinton lied repeatedly about her emails, including lies about why she set up the private server in the first place, lies regarding classification markings, and lies about whether any of her 32,000 permanently-deleted emails were work-related (we know for a fact that a significant number were, and some were even classified). Excluding the deleted content, more than 2,000 emails on Clinton's server contained classified material, including dozens at the "secret" or "top secret" levels (and even above top secret). All of this points to systemic and deliberate action, intentionally obscured by a blizzard of untruths. Here's left-leaning Politifact awarding Clinton a "false" rating on an assertion she made publicly, over and over again:

Clinton made the case for a year and as recently as Saturday, hours after being interviewed by investigators. "Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now," Clinton said July 2, 2016. "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."...Now we know it’s just plain wrong...In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status. Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.

(3) Of course the State Department review is not an exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Anyone in the media who is pretending otherwise is being dishonest, and actively working to ensure that future Democratic scandals are soft-pedaled in such a manner as to not pose an electoral threat to journalists' preferred candidates. Various news accounts of the new State Department review acknowledge, but quickly glide by, the fact that excluded from the investigation, out of necessity, were any of the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary and her inner circle permanently deleted. "Not included in the review were emails deleted by Mrs. Clinton," the Times notes. Beyond a small handful of messages recovered through other means, we are in the dark about the contents of the vast majority of the emails she ordered to be destroyed, although we do know she brazenly lied about that subject. May I remind you that this destruction of evidence occurred shortly after the existence of the secret server was first reported by the New York Times, triggering an "oh sh*t" moment, and a frantic deletion process."

The entire article can be found here. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/10/23/no-hillary-was-not-exonerated-on-her-emails-n2555164/

The actual article has many links you can take which, of course, don't work here.

And unsurprisingly, you left out a few "details".

"State Department investigators probing Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state discovered nearly 600 security incidents that violated agency policy, according to a report the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained.

The investigation, conducted by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, found 38 individuals were culpable for 91 security violations. Another 497 violations were found, but no individuals were found culpable in those incidents."

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-violations-state-department-emails/


Uncovering 38 minor violations by staffers out of 33,000 emails,

As can be seen above, that is a incorrect statement, so your "facts" seem to be in question. It was 38 people, not 38 incidents. There were nearly 600 incidents.

Vac, she might decide to jump into this group of otherwise unremarkable candidates for the democratic nomination. If she does, then it all becomes relevant again.

"Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

However, it also made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information.

The investigation covered 33,000 emails that Clinton turned over for review after her use of the private email account became public.

The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases."

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/state-dept-clinton-emails-culpable/

jlisenbe: Don't mistake me for someone who likes HC, I don't and never did, but I think those on the right should focus more energy on more important matters, particularly those of the current Trump Administration: I am not Trump's fanboy, either, as I know you are not, but the other side certainly doesn't have or has not presented what I consider a viable, appealing candidate, either, out of the 20 that are running. I don't know what to make of Gabbard, other than I like her feisty attitude and certainly love her beauty! I agree that if HC does jump into the POTUS election field, everything in her past is, again, fair game. However, as of this moment, I don't see anything about HC that makes her relevant enough to waste any time talking about her or anything she may or may not have done.

Slightly Off-Subject here: I would love to see a Third Party Candidate, preferably a Libertarian, if Gabbard would consider that and prove she was "all-in" in that regard. However, I don't think Tulsi should get into the protracted discussions with HC: Tulsi would be better off not acknowledging HC or HC's attempts to portray her as someone groomed by the Russians, although I do know what is meant by the "grooming" technique: I was once "groomed" by a far Right organization to join their ranks and didn't know it until the day they thought I was going to join their ranks...couldn't get out of there fast enough.....so, I know these things can happen.

jlisenbe: Don't mistake me for someone who likes HC, I don't and never did, but I think those on the right should focus more energy on more important matters, particularly those of the current Trump Administration: I am not Trump's fanboy, either, as I know you are not, but the other side certainly doesn't have or has not presented what I consider a viable, appealing candidate, either, out of the 20 that are running. I don't know what to make of Gabbard, other than I like her feisty attitude and certainly love her beauty! I agree that if HC does jump into the POTUS election field, everything in her past is, again, fair game. However, as of this moment, I don't see anything about HC that makes her relevant enough to waste any time talking about her or anything she may or may not have done.

I think that's a fair enough position. The only reason I posted what I did was to illustrate that the so called "facts" that Athos put up were not even close to being true. He said 38 incidents, but it was 38 individuals who could be identified and many more who could not, and a grand total of nearly 600 incidents.


Slightly Off-Subject here: I would love to see a Third Party Candidate, preferably a Libertarian, if Gabbard would consider that and prove she was "all-in" in that regard. However, I don't think Tulsi should get into the protracted discussions with HC: Tulsi would be better off not acknowledging HC or HC's attempts to portray her as someone groomed by the Russians, although I do know what is meant by the "grooming" technique: I was once "groomed" by a far Right organization to join their ranks and didn't know it until the day they thought I was going to join their ranks...couldn't get out of there fast enough.....so, I know these things can happen.

And that is true as well. I think TG went after HC for two reasons. HC's allegations, at the very least, sounded crazy, and it was also a chance to get some pub by showing she has a backbone. I don't think she'll go for a third party run.

Like you, I don't know exactly what HC meant by "assets" and "grooming". I do know that no one but HC and the people around her can answer those questions.

jlisenbe: I like people with backbone and I think Gabbard has that quality in spades....You can bet that whatever HC throws Tulsi's way, the lady TG will be ready, willing, and able to fire back on it with great gusto.

I really don't know what it will take to raise a viable Third Party Candidate....and I don't know if I will ever see one in my lifetime.....But, I know this: We shouldn't celebrate or brag about how free our POTUS election process is when it is, effectively, a MONOPOLY split between two political parties....two is better than one, I will grant you that but three is better than two in this case....can you imagine if there were only two choices in the color of paint, flavor of ice cream, anything? The American public has become numb to this and just goes with the flow....and that's the problem: There is NO FLOW! The process is completely STAGNANT!

I think that's a fair enough position. The only reason I posted what I did was to illustrate that the so called "facts" that Athos put up were not even close to being true. He said 38 incidents, but it was 38 individuals

You're right - it was 38 violators, not 38 violations. My error. The conclusion stands - NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC DELIBERATE MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

The point is - you are still obsessed. The two lengthy c/ps you posted are from two far right-wing extremist websites. Like you, they feed on all things anti-Hillary without a bit of solid evidence. They are each known to mix false information in with half-truths. I'm glad you revealed your bias by quoting them - gives us all a better picture of where you come from, which is the loony bin right-wing.


Like you (Vacuum 7), I don't know exactly what HC meant by "assets" and "grooming".

V7 gave a perfect example of "grooming". Yet you claim ignorance on his part. Again, you make statements belied in the very post the statement is made.


I do know that no one but HC and the people around her can answer those questions.

No, it's only you that doesn't get it. The rest of the world is moving on, like V7 suggested. I can do that. Can you?

Vac, how about five political parties. Would you favor that?


The point is - you are still obsessed.

Uhm...you're the one who brought it up, not me.


V7 gave a perfect example of "grooming". Yet you claim ignorance on his part. Again, you make statements belied in the very post the statement is made.

I did not say Vac was ignorant of HC's meaning. I said we were ALL ignorant. Neither you, nor I, nor any of us here know exactly what meaning of "grooming" she used. She hasn't said, so that's it. As to the meaning, I was knowingly groomed to become a school principal when I was a teacher and an assistant principal. I knew that was taking place. So there is my experience, very different from Vac's, and yet it gives us no more revelation of HC's use of the word than his example did. You completely miss the point.


No, it's only you that doesn't get it. The rest of the world is moving on, like V7 suggested. I can do that. Can you?

If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up. If you bring it up, as you did, then don't whine about it when people comment on it.

Now will I move on from Hillary's corruption? We'll see, but it won't be determined by you. The reason we are talking about HC the past few days is because of her comments about Stein and Gabbard. Those are all recent. But I'll make a deal with you. If you won't comment when Trump says something dumb, then I won't comment when HC says something dumb. I doubt you will take that deal, and I can't really say I blame you.

jlisenbe: I know what you are getting at: When is enough really enough? I'm not that smart, I only know that having just two is something of a farce....but, then again, I sure as heck don't want the U.S. to become ITALY where they have an absurd amount of political parties.

Somehow, the POTUS election process, and to a great extend both the Congressional and Senatorial election processes, have been highjacked by TWO parties. How you break that cycle is beyond me....having a candidate is probably a good start, though!

jlisenbe: I know what you are getting at: When is enough really enough? I'm not that smart, I only know that having just two is something of a farce....but, then again, I sure as heck don't want the U.S. to become ITALY where they have an absurd amount of political parties.

Somehow, the POTUS election process, and to a great extend both the Congressional and Senatorial election processes, have been highjacked by TWO parties. How you break that cycle is beyond me....having a candidate is probably a good start, though!

I think we have, in our history, almost always been a two party system, so that has not been a recent development. Maybe not, but I don't think so.

jlisenbe: You are correct about the U.S. always traditionally being a two party system.....I will contend to you, however, that the same Two Party System has never been so dysfunctional than it is right now....and why is that the case? It could be that now the country is very divided and the division is so deep that the two parties are solving problems, much at all, when it comes to problems that take the two sides having to work together on to accomplish. Having a third party would eliminate that problem because coalitions could be formed to keep things moving forward.

How can anything good come out of a time in our nation where the topic of the day is what is "What's next to investigate?" Everyone is investigating like hell but there isn't much being accomplished.....and, I think people are taking notice of how lethargic the form and function of Federal Government has become.

I did not say Vac was ignorant of HC's meaning. I said we were ALL ignorant. Neither you, nor I, nor any of us here know exactly what meaning of "grooming" she used. She hasn't said, so that's it. As to the meaning, I was knowingly groomed to become a school principal when I was a teacher and an assistant principal. I knew that was taking place. So there is my experience, and it gives us no more revelation of HC's use of the word than Vac's example did. You completely miss the point.


You should speak for yourself as to what HC meant by assets and grooming because the reference is to the games that Vlad plays in the cyber world of information and disinformation and she was clear and specific that a third party candidate would syphon dem votes.. That was her very clear warning whether you understand that or not. Given the data already collected and reported from Mueller, Congress, and the intel community we know as fact that Vlad has improved on his previous techniques and is actively engaging in them again. Need more proof? Facebook, just one platform to launch such an attack, (https://www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-shuts-down-new-accounts-from-iran-and-russia-spreading-disinformation)has been and still are (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/facebook-takes-down-russian-iranian-accounts-attempting-to-meddle-in-2020-elections/) removing Russian and Iranian accounts. (https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/10/facebook-czech-republic-shut-down-more-russian-influence-espionage-efforts/160783/)

From the last link,


Peter Singer, a New America (https://www.newamerica.org/) strategist whose latest book is LikeWar, told Defense One in a message, “The latest news shows yet again the central lesson that Russia and every other actor took from 2016, that these ‘LikeWar (https://www.amazon.com/LikeWar-Weaponization-P-W-Singer/dp/1328695743)’ campaigns not only work, but that you will pay little to no cost for running them. Until both sides of that dynamic are shifted, limiting their effectiveness through digital literacy and company action, as well as creating consequences for attacking our democracy (which the White House has been, well, on the wrong side), we’ll see it continue. Indeed, we’ve already seen copycats by other groups and governments ranging from China to Turkey to targeting at state and local level.”Indeed, Facebook’s Monday announcement also disclosed that the company had shuttered Iranian accounts as well for engaging in similar behavior.The trend will continue, said Alina Polyakova, the director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution. “The Russian toolkit is increasingly being copied by other state actors,” she told Defense One in a phone interview, describing the imitation of Russian techniques as a pattern she had seen build over the last few months.



Learn to read and understand!

PS

Anyone find it strange the Dufus administration absolves HC? Either they got paid, or it was a nothing burger the whole time.

You should speak for yourself as to what HC meant by assets and grooming because the reference is to the games that Vlad plays in the cyber world of information and disinformation and she was clear and specific that a third party candidate would syphon dem votes.. That was her very clear warning whether you understand that or not. Given the data already collected and reported from Mueller, Congress, and the intel community we know as fact that Vlad has improved on his previous techniques and is actively engaging in them again. Need more proof? Facebook, just one platform to launch such an attack, has been and still are removing Russian and Iranian accounts.

I do not know, nor do you, which meaning of "grooming" and "assets" HC used. We don't live in her head, so we don't know. It's just that simple. As to the rest of your statement, there is a lot of truth there.


Indeed, we’ve already seen copycats by other groups and governments ranging from China to Turkey to targeting at state and local level.”Indeed, Facebook’s Monday announcement also disclosed that the company had shuttered Iranian accounts as well for engaging in similar behavior.The trend will continue, said Alina Polyakova, the director of the Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology at the Brookings Institution. “The Russian toolkit is increasingly being copied by other state actors,” she told Defense One in a phone interview, describing the imitation of Russian techniques as a pattern she had seen build over the last few months.


Learn to read and understand!

You should try it yourself. I've never contended that what is described above is not going on. The question, in this thread, has been HC's use of "grooming" and "assets", and whether or not there was collaboration with Trump in the Russian efforts.


I will contend to you, however, that the same Two Party System has never been so dysfunctional than it is right now....and why is that the case? It could be that now the country is very divided and the division is so deep that the two parties are solving problems, much at all, when it comes to problems that take the two sides having to work together on to accomplish. Having a third party would eliminate that problem because coalitions could be formed to keep things moving forward.

Vac, I completely agree with the first part of your paragraph. I'm not convinced that a third party will help at all. How do you think it would help?

I do not know, nor do you, which meaning of "grooming" and "assets" HC used. We don't live in her head, so we don't know. It's just that simple. As to the rest of your statement, there is a lot of truth there.

Didn't I just suggest you speak for yourself? Just because you don't know or understand doesn't mean others don't. It's really a simple formula, Putin + assets + grooming = political calculation.


You should try it yourself. I've never contended that what is described above is not going on. The question, in this thread, has been HC's use of "grooming" and "assets", and whether or not there was collaboration with Trump in the Russian efforts.

Or the dufus was groomed as an asset long ago.


Vac, I completely agree with the first part of your paragraph. I'm not convinced that a third party will help at all. How do you think it would help?

There are many examples of multi party governing and Israel, and England come to mind and the head of state has to form a coalition for governing. Even our main parties have morphed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States)through the years swallowing minor parties which do win state and local elections to this day. Even so called independents go with one party or the other as a practice. Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders come to mind as well as Angus King.

Naw I don't see any third party candidates breaking through since Ross Pierrot ruined it for Pappy Bush, and it could be said that Jill Stein hurt HC.

Didn't I just suggest you speak for yourself? Just because you don't know or understand doesn't mean others don't. It's really a simple formula, Putin + assets + grooming = political calculation.

How many times do you have to be told that that was not the topic before it finally begins to sink in??? Good grief. The topic was Hillary's accusations against JS and TG.


Or the dufus was groomed as an asset long ago.

Congratulations!! You have now joined with HC in the "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories Club", characterized by making outrageous accusations for which is not a shred of evidence. Hey. For all we know, you might be being groomed as a Russkie asset right now!



There are many examples of multi party governing and Israel, and England come to mind and the head of state has to form a coalition for governing. Even our main parties have morphed through the years swallowing minor parties which do win state and local elections to this day. Even so called independents go with one party or the other as a practice. Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders come to mind as well as Angus King.

Naw I don't see any third party candidates breaking through since Ross Pierrot ruined it for Pappy Bush, and it could be said that Jill Stein hurt HC.

I think you are probably right.

How many times do you have to be told that that was not the topic before it finally begins to sink in??? Good grief. The topic was Hillary's accusations against JS and TG.

Which was assets and grooming!


Congratulations!! You have now joined with HC in the "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories Club", characterized by making outrageous accusations for which is not a shred of evidence. Hey. For all we know, you might be being groomed as a Russkie asset right now!

I present the dufus grooming with some evidence, since I have never seen, nor could imagine a POTUS taking the words of a dictator over that of his own intel community. Vlads action call into suspect all information floating on the web and internet platforms, and it's not like he would never do it when the opportunity came up, and it has unless you haven't been watching. There is still the open question as any financial ties between Vlad and the dufus which due diligence and caution dictates be taken with at least a cursory examination.

I mean this is the guy who is giving the ME to Vlad and the other minions, so not so far fetched at all. I would err on the side of eliminating the possibility rather than just dismissing the notion. You don't need evidence to verify do you?

Talaniman: The words and actions of the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, in particularly those of the CIA, and to an extent even the collaborative extension of those of the FBI SHOULD ALWAYS BE QUESTIONED AND DOUBLE CHECKED, IF POSSIBLE, in my opinion. If everyone will remember, despite TODAY'S mantra that the words of the Intelligence Community are UNQUESTIONABLE AND PURE AS THE WIND DRIVEN SNOW, the same people on the left that have ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, QUESTIONED the Intelligence Community about everything are now lining up behind that same Intelligence Community and complaining that those on the Right are idiots for not just taking everything that they say as the pure, unadulterated gospel.

I clearly remember, it was that long ago, that the left was raising pure hell with George Bush because he took the Intelligence Communities word that there were "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and he invaded the country based upon those words (there were no weapons of mass destruction, Bush's IC was wrong!). I also remember that Frank Church and the Church Committee eviscerated the CIA back in the '70s...they pulled the fangs out of the CIA: And, there is absolutely no way that could be construed as an endorsement of the Intelligence Community by the left! So, what I am saying here is that it is very disingenuous of the left to act like the Intelligence Community it their NEW BEST FRIEND now, just because Trump is at odds with them, when the left actually has about a 60 year history of impugning the Intelligence Community at every conceivable opportunity!

Vac, it's just politics. "If you agree with me, then you must be right. If you disagree with me, then you're crazy as a loon."

jlisenbe: YOU NAILED IT! And these damned "POLITICIANS" we have are going to drive me to drinking!

Loon, looon, bay at the moon

Trust but verify, so I agree with not swallowing anyones account of anything whole cloth, but the variable usually lies with the one with the power to act on data and intell doesn't it? Bush had his ideas, as did Obama, as does the dufus. Any POTUS has the responsibility to manage his administration so HE can at least rely on their councel, and assessments.

Maybe the dufus should manage his team better rather than bad mouth them and make them a scapegoat for his own failures, or AGENDA.

Talaniman: Hard to argue against your contention.....but knowing HOW MUCH there is to manage is the weight of SO MANY VARIABLES that a mortal human being will engage "INSTRUMENT OVERLOAD" very quickly.....I honestly don't see how any POTUS can take all of this information in and digest it in the manner and depth it needs to be computed.....This is the classic example of a lake that is million square miles of surface area but only six inches deep! Navigation is almost impossible without being able to TRUST the people that work for you.....As you will recall from your days in production: The BEST Managers were the one's whole DELEGATED the workload in a sensible way, NOT THE MICROMANAGERS......If you get too much into the weeds on too many things, you end up needing 36 hour days! They don't make them...YET!....although, if they could, I am positive I would be called to work them by my superiors.

I fault the dufus for being a micromanager instead of surrounding himself with qualified managers. That is his job as "CEO" of America, along with the advise and consent of the congress.

Good help is hard to find sometimes, but the dufus so far has little to reccommend he is doing such a great job though he will never admit he ain't, nor will his supporters and dependents. Nature of the beast I suppose.

Talaniman: Well, you are right: One of the key metrics for judging a CEO is how and how effective his staff is at supporting him....it all falls back on the guy at the Top.....old saying about POTUS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE!

This POTUS is all about finding faults with others because he has none! Just ask him. Everything he does is darn near perfect, whether it works or not, and the Ukraine and Syria are prime examples. Now he wants the Kurds to help him defend the oil fields in Iraq, so he can take the oil...WHAAAT!

One American Soldier's life is worth more than all their damn oil! I do not support the idea of the U.S. protecting Iraq's oil so the high-browed Europeans can have access to oil: I have a NOVEL IDEA: Let the Europeans come down to Iraq and protect their oil, since they are probably the ones who will burn most of it. WHY IS IT WE HAVE TO DO ALL THE HEAVY LIFTING?!

Ask the dufus why he cut a deal that dictators of the region love so much, and the dufus gets the oil which he has coveted a long time now.

Loon, looon, bay at the moon

Sounds like the start of a good country music tune!

Loon, loon,
bay at the moon.
Will it be soon
when you rest on a dune
and whistle a tune?

Clair de Lune
A new baboon
See you soon
Come next June

Loon, loon,
bay at the moon.
Will it be soon
when you rest on a dune
and whistle a tune?

Clair de Lune
A new baboon
See you soon
Come next June

We'll be there soon
And we'll sing a new tune
In the light of the
silvery moon

(OK. I stole the last two lines.)

Add a steel guitar and banjo and we'll be in business.

Interesting take on Hillary by Bill Maher.

Maher then referred to a Twitter message posted by Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich., who called Hillary Clinton a "Donald Trump asset" in reaction to her claim that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, was a "Russian asset" who was being "groomed" to run as a third-party candidate in 2020.

"She is!" Maher agreed. "And Bill is damaged goods. And I just think they've got to go away. We can't be associating them with the Democratic Party."

funny Comey said that she was “extremely careless”the handling of classified information. But that no "reasonable" prosecutors would not indict her for the crimes she committed . The State Dept found 91 security violations . I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that there were no crimes when she destroyed evidence ;both deleting emails and by taking the hammer to 2 phones that were requested by investigators .Her use of the server itself violated Federal Law.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

It really doesn't interest me in what the swamp critters at State conclude.

And I just think they've got to go away. We can't be associating them with the Democratic Party."
Um, *cough cough* aren't both of them, like um, old news? And they looked like dinosaurs at Cummings' funeral.

Surprised you even watch Bill Maher, since that liberal refers to the dufus as a whiny little beetch, but I suppose conservative rather talk about HC than Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, Russia, or Impeachment as a court ruling says the redacted portions of the Mueller Report be turned over to congress which of course will be appealed and add to the obstruction in a legal and constitutional congressional investigation.

Wonder what Barr is up to with HIS criminal investigation of the Mueller Report?

a court ruling says the redacted portions of the Mueller Report be turned over to congress good ;I wanted the whole thing released from the start . Guess they can add any charges they want when they conclude their secret kangaroo court .
Guessing now that the precedent is now set by an Imperial black robe that a Grand Jury proceeding is no longer confidential .Either that or the idiot judge determined that the kangaroo court the House is conducting is a legitimate judicial proceeding . But that can't be can it ? In a legitimate proceeding the witnesses would be subject to cross examination ;the accused would be permitted the right to confront the accuser .(oh that pesky 6th amendment ) .That is why in the past Congress voted on an impeachment inquiry so they could at least make it appear to be legit .

They had better hurry …. If the House doesn't impeach real soon then they risk having half their candidates for President sitting in a Senate trial instead of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire .

In a legitimate proceeding the witnesses would be subject to cross examination ;the accused would be permitted the right to confront the accuser .(oh that pesky 6th amendment )

I don't know why you righties can't get the facts through your thick heads. This is the INVESTIGATIVE phase. The cops don't have witnesses be cross-examined during their investigation. Don't you watch any cop shows on TV? The TRIAL phase is when witnesses are cross-examined, defendants can confront their accusers, and present their version of events.

As for the whistleblower, he is no longer needed for the trial since Trump himself, Mulvaney and Rudy have all confessed. No more evidence is needed. The Trump lawyers know all this and conveyed it to Trump, but Trump wants blood.

He wants the whistleblower identified so one of his crazies out there can do some damage to the person. Rocket Science 101. I'm sure you know all this Tom, you may be on the wrong side, but you're no dummy.


They had better hurry …. If the House doesn't impeach real soon then they risk having half their candidates for President sitting in a Senate trial instead of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire .

That's not a problem. Still plenty of time for campaigning.

Um, *cough cough* aren't both of them, like um, old news? And they looked like dinosaurs at Cummings' funeral.

Hillary Clinton is old news? You need to start watching the news.

Talaniman: Word is that Barr and company is seeking the "ring" that made up the Dossier in terms of the information suppliers and IF these people were paid and by whom...He is also looking at FBI entrapment practices involved.....But the biggest link he is wanting to find is the FISA warrants or, most probably why they were unwarranted based upon unverified reports with the big thrust being that he thinks the FBI lied in order to get a judge or judges to grant the warrants.

Barr is following his bosses marching orders and making a big show of it publicly. The dufus has been hollering witch hunt and hoax forever with the loony right amplifying the message and demanding JUSTICE. I can get with a review of everything the government does, but you would be unwise to trust the motives of Barr, given his predilliction for lying to protect his boss, or his lying cheating boss.

He's got his talking points though against the Impeachment charges and I suspect he may well still be trying to clear Vlad of what EVERYBODY says was cyber attacks of our elections. What? You think the dufus isn't a wholly owned subsiduary of everything Vlad wants?

E Warren says her Medicare for All plan will cost about 5 trillion per year, which of course means it will cost more than 5 trillion per year. That is more than the current TOTAL fed budget which itself is not being paid for without massive borrowing. She then tries to tell us that it will not mean tax increases for the middle class. And you wonder why people vote for Trump? If liberal dems want people to vote for their candidate, then they better find someone better than the insanity represented by Warren or Sanders. Sanders has his own Med for all plan that will cost merely 3 trillion per year.

jlisenbe: Ain't no way any thinking person would vote for these blithering dingbats.....they can't even lie good, which is the first discipline of a politician.....Maybe I'm jaded, but this whole HEALTH CARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD viewpoint is insane: You are going to die! Everyone wants to live forever: that ain't happening! This life we live is preordained: You had better live life to the fullest and enjoy it while you can, while your health is good: Stop worrying about what is out of your control. Warren and Sanders are psychos, especially WARREN: Just saw a video of here at a CONSERVATIVE symposium from 1992 where she said that anyone not paying their credit card debt should be thrown in jail! She changed from being a women on the Right to being a woman on the left.....but, then again, she changed from being an INDIAN to a whiter than white woman overnight, too......Bernie didn't change: He's always been a Bolshevik! Took one of his three honeymoons in SOVIET RUSSIA but now he hates Russia....back when they were solid commies, he loved Russia! Go figure!

Maybe I'm jaded, but this whole HEALTH CARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD viewpoint is insane:.../Vac

I wonder if you would have the same view if you or your family were actually in the situation of catastrophic illness or injury, or even high maintenance disease or ailments? While 85% of Americans enjoy the benefit of employer based health insurance, put yourself in the shoes of those that do NOT have that benefit, and have medical needs. I can only speak for myself, but labor negotiations for many years with my employer was less about more money in wages than it was about more medical coverage and benefits.

Health insurance is a pain to have when you don't NEED it, but catastrophic if you NEED it but don't have it. Even if you do, as I have always had, costs are through the roof for some things and I can only imagine what very sick poor people go through without it. No ordinary human can afford it, so I guess you and yours are really healthy and don't see a need for it being a priority, and I hope your good health continues, but it's hardly insane for people with life threatening conditions to deal with, or even high maintenance conditions suffered by many.

I'm not convinced Bernie and Liz have the right ideas or how to pay for it, but for many it's a priority, because there is a great NEED for medical care. I got mine, but for many others they got none. I suspect you got yours TOO! Maybe visit some hospitals and tell people sorry you're going to die any way. Let me know how that works for you. Explain to them how rising costs of health care means you can't afford your insulin.

Go ahead I dare you! Now that's insane! Or at least ask repubs what they are going to do after they repeal Obama Care! Their plan is pretty much YOUR ideas so I can see you go for it. Die MOFO, you can't afford that kidney transplant! That's some plan dude! It's INSANE!

you can't afford that kidney transplant!

What's your idea for paying for the kidney transplant which typically cost a quarter of a million dollars in the United States?

If the dems will nominate a candidate who will not support abortion, will promise a balanced budget, and will appoint sensible federal judges, I will vote for that person.

What's your idea for paying for the kidney transplant which typically cost a quarter of a million dollars in the United States?
And why does it cost that much? My younger son was DOA by the time the ambulance got him to the ER, yet he was billed over $10k for ER services.

Talaniman: I hear your argument...and you make valid points, that can not be denied....I don't want to sound like a horse's arse all the time, which I do quite often...I'm probably different than most because I'm a fatalist: Whatever is God's plan can not be changed...and that's all that I will say about faith before someone calls me a religious nutcase: this is not religion, exactly, but a set or rules and a lot of faith. Healthcare is a NECESSARY EVIL for the very reason you mention: You don't use it but you pay for it. However, I have yet to hear a single PLAN, whether it be Demo or Repub, that is truly viable: They cost too much and they weigh SO, SO HEAVY on the Middle Class that they are suffocating. So, what is the answer: I surely don't know and I don't think anyone else does, either.

However, I have yet to hear a single PLAN, whether it be Demo or Repub, that is truly viable: They cost too much and they weigh SO, SO HEAVY on the Middle Class that they are suffocating. So, what is the answer: I surely don't know and I don't think anyone else does, either.
The plans are supposed to cover huge costs by hospitals and doctors plus meds sold by Big Pharma. Hmm, are all those costs fair and affordable?

What's your idea for paying for the kidney transplant which typically cost a quarter of a million dollars in the United States?


The notion of profits over people, is deplorable, so changing profit to non profit is the START of my solution as well as regulating compensation for research and development. Maximizing positive outcomes, while reigning in RISING costs to consumers is a win/win for both. 15% profit as the law is currently written over costs that includes advertising is legalized stealing on close scrutiny, as well as the timeline for ROI, which invites abuses. Does that mean a more effective streamlining of regulations? You bet it does, but we have to also recognize the GOVERNMENT investment side of the R/D equation.


If the dems will nominate a candidate who will not support abortion, will promise a balanced budget, and will appoint sensible federal judges, I will vote for that person.

If holding your nose and voting for the dufus was good enough for you, then holding my nose and voting for the dem nominee will work for me.

You fool no one JL with your sensible judges comments though, and I read it as conservative judges that will overturn the legality of Roe v Wade, as the law of the land. Such a litmus tests is just to narrow for me and smacks of the same argument you make for all those liberal ACTIST judges you say do not follow the law.


Talaniman: I hear your argument...and you make valid points, that can not be denied....I don't want to sound like a horse's arse all the time, which I do quite often...I'm probably different than most because I'm a fatalist: Whatever is God's plan can not be changed...and that's all that I will say about faith before someone calls me a religious nutcase: this is not religion, exactly, but a set or rules and a lot of faith. Healthcare is a NECESSARY EVIL for the very reason you mention: You don't use it but you pay for it. However, I have yet to hear a single PLAN, whether it be Demo or Repub, that is truly viable: They cost too much and they weigh SO, SO HEAVY on the Middle Class that they are suffocating. So, what is the answer: I surely don't know and I don't think anyone else does, either.

I believe God gave humans free will and the ability to rise to the challenge of problem solving. Or we drown in our own shat! I laid out my opinion above for your perusal. I'm not a fatalists nor a religious nut. I think we should choose to RISE to the challenge no matter the OBSTACLES.

The notion of profits over people, is deplorable, so changing profit to non profit is the START of my solution as well as regulating compensation for research and development. Maximizing positive outcomes, while reigning in RISING costs to consumers is a win/win for both. 15% profit as the law is currently written over costs that includes advertising is legalized stealing on close scrutiny, as well as the timeline for ROI, which invites abuses. Does that mean a more effective streamlining of regulations? You bet it does, but we have to also recognize the GOVERNMENT investment side of the R/D equation.

Let's suppose we do as you propose, even there should be no great confidence that non-profits will be the answer, but if we take off the 15% profit from the quarter million kidney transplant, how do you propose we pay for the remaining 210 grand?


You fool no one JL with your sensible judges comments though, and I read it as conservative judges that will overturn the legality of Roe v Wade, as the law of the land. Such a litmus tests is just to narrow for me and smacks of the same argument you make for all those liberal ACTIST judges you say do not follow the law.

What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?

What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?
"Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."
https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade

Let's suppose we do as you propose, even there should be no great confidence that non-profits will be the answer, but if we take off the 15% profit from the quarter million kidney transplant, how do you propose we pay for the remaining 210 grand?

EXCELLENT question and the right one. To be clear the 15% profits is arrived at not by individual costs, but overall costs after expenses. So looking at expenses you calculate profit AFTER those expenses. Take out the PROFIT and apply the 15% allowable by law to cost gives us a reduction of those costs. To further reduce those costs, you add revenue by using a bigger revenue pool, much the same as employers enjoy by pooling their employees. It's a contracted fixed cost that workers and employers have borne in lieu of raises for decades. The model is that healthy workers in the pool, mitigate the costs of workers that are not as healthy, and its made huge profit for insurance companies even as they have raised profits at the same time. Sure costs have gone up, but that's an artificial cost based on projected profit targets. It has become automatic and the fact insurance companies raise what state regulators must approve every few years without exception is the legacy of more profits which is the current incentive to pick and chose what procedures they allow YOUR doctor to take. Not saying it's a completely bad thing, but limiting procedures and jacking up profits IS a bad thing we should be eliminating.

The goal is better care outcomes and options for everybody, not just those that can afford it, and bend the cost curve downward over time compared to the 10/12% increase every couple of years. 2% over 5/10 years is a more ideal model for consumers.


What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?

You sure make me do a lot of homework don't you? (https://www.thoughtco.com/roe-v-wade-overview-3528244)That's okay, but in simple terms people are seeking the freedom to make their own choices concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who use to be in the closet folks are coming into the light. That includes of course all the social and ethnic minorities, who want control over their own lives.

The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

I have posted the 14th Amendment below. See if you can find the part guaranteeing a right to privacy. Also see if you can figure out how an amendment prohibiting any state depriving a person of life could somehow be construed to guarantee a right for a doctor to kill an unborn child.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The goal is better care outcomes and options for everybody, not just those that can afford it, and bend the cost curve downward over time compared to the 10/12% increase every couple of years. 2% over 5/10 years is a more ideal model for consumers.

I agree, but how do we get there? That's the big question. If medical care continues to rise at the current rate, then there are no answers. I have a bill from my grandmother in 1949 when she spent six days in the hospital for less than a hundred bucks. How have we gotten from that point to where we are today? If the same thing had happened with food, then we would be paying five hundred dollars for a loaf of bread.


That's okay, but in simple terms people are seeking the freedom to make their own choices concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,

I agree. Why doesn't an unborn child get the right to live rather than being brutally killed? Giving me a link the the Roe decision doesn't answer the question.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Ruling:
A woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while decision gave women autonomy during the first trimester of pregnancy, different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters were allowed.

We obviously disagree on that right to privacy, but the law is very clear as to woman having that right, rather than guys like you believing she does NOT. You are a minority on this as a nationwide issue by the way.

https://www.thoughtco.com/abortion-issues-in-the-united-states-3367873

The debate continues but the LAW is clear as is the intent to change it.

Just a couple of questions: How is it that the SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE FOR ABORTION? Why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged for TWO MURDERS AND NOT ONE? It seems that the government's dichotomy in this argument shows that and UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON, OTHERWIDE THERE WOULD BE NO MURDER CHARGE.

I have never heard these questions addressed.

For one, it's not clear if the same people who support abortions ARE the same ones who are against capital punishment, nor vice versa. Now if you know something I don't then let me in on those facts. To me, you are talking very separate and different issues. I mean should I include in that a choice to terminate medical care with the choice of a hospital not to provide it to someone that cannot pay?

As such your question cannot be addressed until you are a lot more specific. We can agree the sky is blue, but disagree what shade that blue is can't we.

but the law is very clear as to woman having that right, rather than guys like you believing she does NOT. You are a minority on this as a nationwide issue by the way.

There is no law to that effect. It is a Supreme Court decision and not a law passed by the representatives of the people. As you could see from the previous posts, there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The liberal justices on SCOTUS just basically made it up from nothing. No thinking person reading the 14th Amendment would come away believing it somehow guaranteed a doctor's right to kill an unborn child. Certainly the 14th Amendment was not passed with the idea in mind of allowing abortions.

As to Vac's comments, find a leading democrat who does not have the twin positions of opposing cap punishment and allowing abortion. I'd like to know who they are. Vac hit the nail on the head in that respect.

there is no Constitutional right to an abortion.
Who does the unborn baby (i.e., the fetus) belong to?

Let me jump in here and pose a question to JL.

You want the fetus to never be aborted, but, one day after that fetus becomes a live child, you believe that it spends eternity in hell being continously tortured if the child dies as an unbeliever.

Do I have that right?

There is no law to that effect. It is a Supreme Court decision and not a law passed by the representatives of the people. As you could see from the previous posts, there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The liberal justices on SCOTUS just basically made it up from nothing. No thinking person reading the 14th Amendment would come away believing it somehow guaranteed a doctor's right to kill an unborn child. Certainly the 14th Amendment was not passed with idea in mind of allowing abortions.

Yes there is, as it says abortions in the first trimester are a part of a woman's privacy. Now you can blame it on liberal judges all you want, and I can fully understand your solution is conservative judges, but the LAW stands until that happens, if it happens, and just as conservatives won't stand idly by waiting, you can expect liberals won't either. I am aware that the 14th amendment was passed for the rights of FREED slaves, and became law after the Prez vetoed it and congress over rode it, and southern states were forced to ratify it as a condition of returning to the union, because despite losing the war, and freeing the slaves, restrictions were put on those former slaves (The Black Codes (https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h411.html)) that no white man had to endure.

It is what it is until it ain't I guess.


As to Vac's comments, find a leading democrat who does not have the twin positions of opposing cap punishment and allowing abortion. I'd like to know who they are.

That's a question you both must answer for yourselves and frankly you can vote for whoever you wish for whatever your reasons.

You want the fetus to never be aborted, but, one day after that fetus becomes a live child, you believe that it spends eternity in hell being continously tortured if the child dies as an unbeliever.

I've said exactly the opposite multiple times in the past, so your representation of my position is ridiculous. However, I've already told you that I won't discuss this topic further until you get the courage to take a position on the Matthew 25 passage. You've been dodging that for weeks. Your last comment was to proclaim that you were running your ideas by some scholar to see if he agreed with you or not. Why not just put on your big boy britches and say what you think?


Who does the unborn baby (i.e., the fetus) belong to?

His/her parents, in the sense that he/she is their child. Why do you ask?


Just for the point of education, here's a late first trimester fetus. If you are comfortable with killing that, then I don't know what to say to you. I'd paste it but I can't get copy/paste to work on this site for some reason.

https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_and_medical_reference/womens_health/Pregnancy_Your_Babys_Growth_and_Development_Months _1_to_3_-_12_Weeks.jpg

More on Roe v Wade (https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade)

I'm not comfortable with 12 weeks, 6 weeks or even 4 weeks,

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.wDuP1W5rAaSwsyboaLfmugD6D6&w=140&h=140&rs=1&qlt=80&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1 (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=imgurl%3ahttps%3a%2f%2fassets.babycenter. com%2fims%2f2015%2f01%2fpregnancy-week-4-yolk-sac_square.jpg%3fwidth%3d600&s=10&view=detailv2&iss=sbi&rtpu=%2fsearch%3fq%3dfetus+at+4+weeks&FORM=IEQNAI)

So the 24 hour pill should be free and easy and a women should have the right doctors to consult, given all the social and economics involved in such a decision. The law says first trimester, and that's when most abortions occur, but humans better get it in their brains that any law is flawed because man cannot make a perfect law. JL, abstinence only works for a set of humans and many that are flawed will make mistakes even those that don't believe in it. Maybe you could be better served by applying abstinence laws to MEN as well as females. Or make doctor visits mandatory, take your pick.

If your not about shared responsibility then your credibility to an eons long practice (Breeding) falls on deaf ears. The good news is if that's the focus on giving your vote to someone then have at it.

PS.

I do not understand your inability to right click on an image and copy it, then paste it somewhere else. Is your computer up to date or are you too cheap to get a newer one, or too ashamed to ask your grandkids to enable that feature?

I've said exactly the opposite multiple times in the past, so your representation of my position is ridiculous.

I don't think you've said "exactly the opposite multiple times in the past". In fact, I don't think you've ever said "exactly the opposite". If you have, please refresh our memories.


However, I've already told you that I won't discuss this topic further until you get the courage to take a position on the Matthew 25 passage.

Now, that IS something you've said. I'll try not to delay much longer.


Why not just put on your big boy britches and say what you think?

I'm always amused by how you criticize others for name-calling, and yet no one, and I mean NO ONE, does it as frequently as YOU!

I'm not comfortable with 12 weeks, 6 weeks or even 4 weeks,

Why aren't you comfortable with that?


I do not understand your inability to right click on an image and copy it, then paste it somewhere else. Is your computer up to date or are you too cheap to get a newer one, or too ashamed to ask your grandkids to enable that feature?

You thinking I am cheap is an example of prejudice. (joke)

Now, that IS something you've said. I'll try not to delay much longer.

Good grief. Good thing I didn't ask anything complicated.


I'm always amused by how you criticize others for name-calling, and yet no one, and I mean NO ONE, does it as frequently as YOU!

I did not engage in name calling, but it is time for you to gain some courage and say what you think. While you're at it, you can stop misrepresenting my views.

Why not just put on your big boy britches and say what you think?
Why not just say, "Please say what you think"?

I've already told you that I won't discuss this topic further until you get the courage to take a position on the Matthew 25 passage.
I have a position.

Nothing (mental illness, autism, undeveloped brain, etc.) can prevent God‘s bestowal of grace. The only thing preventing it is the person’s cognitive refusal to accept it.

Why not just say, "Please say what you think"?

That's a fair question. First of all, I said pretty much that weeks ago. Bear in mind that this is the same person who loves to try and call people out such as the ridiculous post he made above. If not for that, I never would have brought it up. Well, if you want call people out, then man up and say what you think.



I have a position.

Nothing (mental illness, autism, undeveloped brain, etc.) can prevent God‘s bestowal of grace. The only thing preventing it is the person’s cognitive refusal to accept it.

What scripture do you draw that from?

What scripture do you draw that from?
The Holy Scriptures I've been reading for 70+ years.

The Holy Scriptures I've been reading for 70+ years.

Any specifics? I'm particularly interested in the "cognitive refusal to accept" clause. John 3:16 would not seem to agree with that, but I'd like to know your view on it.

Any specifics? I'm particularly interested in the "cognitive refusal to accept" clause. John 3:16 would not seem to agree with that, but I'd like to know your view on it.
I don't cherry-pick gotcha verses.

I don't cherry-pick gotcha verses.

Gotcha. But you didn't pick (cherry or otherwise) any verses of any kind.

Gotcha. But you didn't pick (cherry or otherwise) any verses of any kind.
Nope. Read the entire Bible. Don't look for proof-passages.

Women shouldn't use Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL, I don't think.....and men should be ready to become FATHERS if they choose to have recreational sex....I have no tolerance for ANY MALE WHO HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION BECAUSE HE "JUST COULDN'T CONTROL HIMSELF!" That is not a man, that is a bastard, no other way to describe him. A man has NO RIGHT to pressure a woman he has had sex with to have an ABORTION, and I mean NONE!

That all sounds good on paper, and I don't knock the sentiment, but humans are hard to control, and even harder to understand some of them. Especially the crazier ones.

Women shouldn't use Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL, I don't think.....and men should be ready to become FATHERS if they choose to have recreational sex....I have no tolerance for ANY MALE WHO HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION BECAUSE HE "JUST COULDN'T CONTROL HIMSELF!" That is not a man, that is a bastard, no other way to describe him. A man has NO RIGHT to pressure a woman he has had sex with to have an ABORTION, and I mean NONE!

Can we also say a woman has no right to add another irresponsible act to her first

Can we also say a woman has no right to add another irresponsible act to her first

It takes two to tango.

Women shouldn't use Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL
Albert Ellis, a famous psychologist and father of CBT, said, "Don't should on yourself." Should keeps us stuck, is how we judge ourselves.


Can we also say a woman has no right to add another irresponsible act to her first
Why is the first one irresponsible?

Whatever your moral and ethical beliefs, sex is not illegal, nor are abortions within the first trimester, so neither is considered irresponsible. What if the BC methods fail? I know women who have used TWO or THREE forms and gotten pregnant. Now what?

Whatever your moral and ethical beliefs, sex is not illegal, nor are abortions within the first trimester, so neither is considered irresponsible.

There are many things that are not illegal and yet are irresponsible. Overeating and getting fat, for instance, or over-borrowing, or cheating on your wife, or dropping out of school, or drinking too much, or laziness, or not taking your blood pressure meds. The list can go on and on, and certainly should include sex that puts a single woman at risk of becoming pregnant.

There are many things that are not illegal and yet are irresponsible. Overeating and getting fat, for instance, or over-borrowing, or cheating on your wife, or dropping out of school, or drinking too much, or laziness, or not taking your blood pressure meds. The list can go on and on, and certainly should include sex that puts a single woman at risk of becoming pregnant.
So no sex unless there's an iron-clad guarantee she won't get pregnant? Vasectomy, anyone?

So no sex unless there's an iron-clad guarantee she won't get pregnant?

Pretty good idea for single women and single men alike. Out of wedlock births are typically an unnecessary hardship on everyone involved. Certainly on the mother, and in particular on the child.

Nonetheless, the point is that a great many legal acts can certainly be irresponsible. The two are frequently not connected.

Pretty good idea for single women and single men alike.
I didn't. Hope you didn't. :)

I didn't. Hope you didn't. :)

That would be correct.

I did, but yes humans can be very irresponsible, and even when they aren't stuff can happen. It's not always a bad thing just depends on how that irresponsibility is dealt with.

Something about the whole Abortion thing still has me puzzled: How is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with TWO murders and not one IF, in fact, the unborn baby is not considered a person at that point? It seems that this is a an unreconcilable question and it is one that throws water on the very fundamental foundation of the Abortion argument. Has anyone ever heard how this question has been resolved?

Something about the whole Abortion thing still has me puzzled: How is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with TWO murders and not one IF, in fact, the unborn baby is not considered a person at that point? It seems that this is a an unreconcilable question and it is one that throws water on the very fundamental foundation of the Abortion argument. Has anyone ever heard how this question has been resolved?
On Quora:
There are 30 states that have fetal homicide laws where the killing of a pregnant woman is considered double homicide regardless of the age of the fetus. Why isn't an abortion considered a homicide?

William Moore (https://www.quora.com/profile/William-Moore-47), former Instructor at Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (2015-2017)
Updated May 28 (https://www.quora.com/There-are-30-states-that-have-fetal-homicide-laws-where-the-killing-of-a-pregnant-woman-is-considered-double-homicide-regardless-of-the-age-of-the-fetus-Why-isnt-an-abortion-considered-a-homicide/answer/William-Moore-47)

Because the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Roe v. Wade that Abortion is legal up to a decided time period (before 3rd Trimester).
Any other law that disagrees with this ruling is unconstitutional (by the definition of the word, not the “I don’t like it so it’s unconstitutional” definition that a good number of my fellow Republicans have).

**********
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx













(https://www.quora.com/There-are-30-states-that-have-fetal-homicide-laws-where-the-killing-of-a-pregnant-woman-is-considered-double-homicide-regardless-of-the-age-of-the-fetus-Why-isnt-an-abortion-considered-a-homicide#)

On Quora:
There are 30 states that have fetal homicide laws where the killing of a pregnant woman is considered double homicide regardless of the age of the fetus. Why isn't an abortion considered a homicide?

(https://www.quora.com/profile/William-Moore-47)

(https://www.quora.com/There-are-30-states-that-have-fetal-homicide-laws-where-the-killing-of-a-pregnant-woman-is-considered-double-homicide-regardless-of-the-age-of-the-fetus-Why-isnt-an-abortion-considered-a-homicide#)

You make a good point but women's rights are apparently sacrosanct

W.G.: That still doesn't really reconcile the basic question: If Abortions are legal up to the 3rd Trimester, then why is it that a person can be charged with murder of an unborn child if that child is killed before the 3rd Trimester IN THOSE 29 STATES WHERE KILLING AN FETUS AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IS MURDER? You see, when you really get into the weeds with this and try to look at it succinctly, no amount of parsing or words can differentiate the NON-MURDER from the MURDER: There could be made and argument that the charging of a person for murder of an unborn child is, in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Something is very perverse about the whole ambiguity.

W.G.: That still doesn't really reconcile the basic question: If Abortions are legal up to the 3rd Trimester, then why is it that a person can be charged with murder of an unborn child if that child is killed before the 3rd Trimester IN THOSE 29 STATES WHERE KILLING AN FETUS AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IS MURDER? You see, when you really get into the weeds with this and try to look at it succinctly, no amount of parsing or words can differentiate the NON-MURDER from the MURDER: There could be made and argument that the charging of a person for murder of an unborn child is, in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Something is very perverse about the whole ambiguity.

That's because the Roe decision has no real Constitutional foundation. The appeal was to a supposed "right to privacy" found in the 14th Amendment, which is never spelled out as such in the amendment but rather comes, as I understand it, from the "liberty" reference. The seven justice majority apparently saw no conflict with the right to life which is clearly spelled out in that amendment. As you point out, there is no consistency at all in the law.

There is a process to overturn or clarify Roe, and until that process is gone through, then the law stands as ruled. Not the first time that has happened, nor I doubt the last, in fact such a case is being brought through the court system as we speak, as it should be under our court system.

Seems like a fair observation to me.

I think the rule of law, that applies to all, or should, seeks a balance to what we as people want, and what we actually can get. Is it fair to say the law must take into account that people can and have changed? I think it's very difficult to change back to what once was though, if not nearly impossible. Anything can happen with humans though, we seem to screw things up even as we resolve some issues, albeit temporary as we find new challenges to what we want.

Wonder if God laughs at those attempts sometimes. Or just shakes his heads at our futility.

I can only suggest that people do some research on how abortions are performed. Be prepared to be shocked if you do, and be prepared to consider how we can refer to these unborn children as somehow less than persons.

My experience is that the average person couldn't care less. They just don't want to be bothered, or perhaps they don't want to have to feel some responsibility upon discovering the truth.

I can only suggest that people do some research on how abortions are performed. Be prepared to be shocked if you do, and be prepared to consider how we can refer to these unborn children as somehow less than persons.

Many have JL know for a long time the gruesome details of later term abortions and have for many decades but what if having that knowledge doesn't change minds as you believe? Will you relent your efforts? I doubt it, nor should you but as I have said many times women with resources are empowered to do as they please and you only can bully those without resources to follow your lead. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so I choose the education route rather than making premarital sex a punishment for women and not men. I just believe in education is a better way to behave rather than just pounding abstinence, which has never worked in history. Keep in mind that abortions are done in secret and we can only fret over the known ones, which for fact are not the only ones, and I suspect just a minority part of the whole.


My experience is that the average person couldn't care less. They just don't want to be bothered, or perhaps they don't want to have to feel some responsibility upon discovering the truth.

Consider there are greater truths in people lives than just the abortion issue, especially for women with little resources and support.

you only can bully those without resources to follow your lead. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so I choose the education route rather than making premarital sex a punishment for women and not men. I just believe in education is a better way to behave rather than just pounding abstinence, which has never worked in history. Keep in mind that abortions are done in secret and we can only fret over the known ones, which for fact are not the only ones, and I suspect just a minority part of the whole.

Not sure how I'm bullying anyone. At any rate, learning what actually goes on during an abortion is certainly an education. As to sex ed, this is the most sexually educated generation in history, and both abortions and out of wedlock births are rampant, so that doesn't seem to work well.


Consider there are greater truths in people lives than just the abortion issue, especially for women with little resources and support.

What greater truth is there than the worth and value of a human life?

What greater truth is there than the worth and value of a human life?

Jl you are fortunate you live in a place where that thought is even contemplated

Jl you are fortunate you live in a place where that thought is even contemplated

Good thought. Life is cheap in most of the world.

Not sure how I'm bullying anyone. At any rate, learning what actually goes on during an abortion is certainly an education. As to sex ed, this is the most sexually educated generation in history, and both abortions and out of wedlock births are rampant, so that doesn't seem to work well.

Not you personally is the bully, and sex ed is just the beginning of an education which makes more mistakes than it helps with the one size fits all approach that just skims the top and doesn't address real deep emotional or mental challenges that kids face NOW. Simply to many fall through the cracks for a variety of reasons. Too many are SHOVED through those cracks and who cares about them.


What greater truth is there than the worth and value of a human life?

Kids aren't stupid, and they see the value of a human life is not worth that much. We teach them that everyday in many areas of life. By we I mean the structure of our society that makes some undesirable, unwanted, and by no means supported, so it's every dog for themselves and the big dogs eat the little dogs.

Some people are worth more than others is the lesson we pass on to the next generation, because that's the lesson this generation learned from the last. Look around guy and you can see the symptoms of a society that's been SICK an awful long time but who cares as long as I worked so hard to get mine.

That's the real history of America and you want to make it great AGAIN? FOR WHO! For too many it never has been that great for them, and they don't see that changing.

Not you personally is the bully, and sex ed is just the beginning of an education which makes more mistakes than it helps with the one size fits all approach that just skims the top and doesn't address real deep emotional or mental challenges that kids face NOW. Simply to many fall through the cracks for a variety of reasons. Too many are SHOVED through those cracks and who cares about them.

Don't you find it strange that we are engaging in all of these educational efforts, and yet out of wedlock births are fantastically greater than they were in 1960 as are abortions? All of these educational programs sure don't seem to be working. You think maybe we should ask ourselves what we did in 1960 that worked so well?



Some people are worth more than others is the lesson we pass on to the next generation, because that's the lesson this generation learned from the last. Look around guy and you can see the symptoms of a society that's been SICK an awful long time but who cares as long as I worked so hard to get mine.

Then you're saying you are starting to come around on this issue of abortion? What greater display of the cheapness of human life could you have than the wanton killing of unborn children?

maybe we should ask ourselves what we did in 1960 that worked so well?
There were fewer of us, social media didn't exist, movies and tv shows promoted family life, churches were full on Sunday mornings....

Then you're saying you are starting to come around on this issue of abortion? What greater display of the cheapness of human life could you have than the wanton killing of unborn children?
What about the wanton killing of born children at our southern border?

Don't you find it strange that we are engaging in all of these educational efforts, and yet out of wedlock births are fantastically greater than they were in 1960 as are abortions? All of these educational programs sure don't seem to be working. You think maybe we should ask ourselves what we did in 1960 that worked so well?

Attitudes about marriage have changed greatly and in the 1960's there was no information about abortions, because it was underground in secret and never discussed only whispered about. The 60's was also the time of social upheaval, wars and civil rights. The start of the age of Aquarius sex drugs and rock and roll, because people were tired of the same old repackaged hypocrisy, and in the closet was no way to live. Returning vets of color still had to use the back door of establishments and especially after 'Nam, nothing changed at home and it was the same crap they left to defend a country that still treated them like second class crap.

Maybe things worked for you in the 60's, but it was just more lip service and BS and how long have you ignored that and still do? Don't you find it strange that our views are so vastly different?


Then you're saying you are starting to come around on this issue of abortion? What greater display of the cheapness of human life could you have than the wanton killing of unborn children?

Naw the unborn is the least of my problems as adults and children treated like crap is a bit distracting.

That's the real history of America and you want to make it great AGAIN? FOR WHO! For too many it never has been that great for them, and they don't see that changing.

Now Tal don't be bitter, Trump has lifted many out of poverty, giving them employment in his hotels and resorts, he wants everyone to have a minimum wage job

There were fewer of us, social media didn't exist, movies and tv shows promoted family life, churches were full on Sunday mornings....

The "fewer of us" has nothing to do with the rates of out of wedlock births. Social media??? Now as to entertainment and church, you are on the right path.


What about the wanton killing of born children at our southern border?

I don't think that is happening (wanton killing), but if it is it should be stopped immediately.

How about abortion???


Attitudes about marriage have changed greatly and in the 1960's there was no information about abortions, because it was underground in secret and never discussed only whispered about. The 60's was also the time of social upheaval, wars and civil rights. The start of the age of Aquarius sex drugs and rock and roll, because people were tired of the same old repackaged hypocrisy, and in the closet was no way to live. Returning vets of color still had to use the back door of establishments and especially after 'Nam, nothing changed at home and it was the same crap they left to defend a country that still treated them like second class crap.

Maybe things worked for you in the 60's, but it was just more lip service and BS and how long have you ignored that and still do? Don't you find it strange that our views are so vastly different?

Yes. Many things have changed, and much of it is not for the good. But again, what were we doing in 60 when out of wedlock births were a fraction of what they are now? Abortion numbers? Yeah, they know what they were, and it was much less than now.



Naw the unborn is the least of my problems as adults and children treated like crap is a bit distracting.

So you're in the "I couldn't care less" camp? Sad.


Now Tal don't be bitter, Trump has lifted many out of poverty, giving them employment in his hotels and resorts, he wants everyone to have a minimum wage job

Clete, unemployment in Aussie is 5.2%. In the U.S. it is 3.5%. Maybe you guys need to elect Trump after us.

That's sort of my point JL, I'm talking about one thing, and you're talking about another. You have your social issues and I have mine. Of course you think yours are more important, and I'm fighting for my life and kids and grandkids like my parents before me and before them. It's not like I don't care, but you must understand I'm a bit busy with those that weren't aborted, and need all the help I can give them.

Speaking of the dufus since you brought him up, it's being reported that the offenses he is being impeached for was the tip of the iceberg. He pulled the same stunt with the previous president by with holding military aid (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-dnc-hack) until they agreed not to get stuff on Manafort, and not to cooperate with Mueller, and Manafort was the one who convinced the dufus that Ukraine was helping dems against him. Of course we all remember this from 2016 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html).

Yeah Clete take the dufus off our hands, give him a golf course to putz around in.

That's sort of my point JL, I'm talking about one thing, and you're talking about another. You have your social issues and I have mine. Of course you think yours are more important, and I'm fighting for my life and kids and grandkids like my parents before me and before them. It's not like I don't care, but you must understand I'm a bit busy with those that weren't aborted, and need all the help I can give them.

I'm not suggesting you make it your number one mission in life. I am suggesting you take a solid stand for life and oppose it.

Speaking of the dufus since you brought him up, it's being reported that the offenses he is being impeached for was the tip of the iceberg. He pulled the same stunt with the previous president by with holding military aid (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-dnc-hack) until they agreed not to get stuff on Manafort, and not to cooperate with Mueller, and Manafort was the one who convinced the dufus that Ukraine was helping dems against him. Of course we all remember this from 2016 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html).

The transcripts released today show Trump as the disgusting thug he truly is. Below, Nicole Wallace covers the bases in just 3 minutes. The recently fired ambassador is on record as fearing for her safety from that evil criminal in the White House.

In addition to your links above, there's this from Nicole ------

https://twitter.com/i/status/1191463143664427008

(https://twitter.com/i/status/1191463143664427008)

The comparison of 1960 Vs. Today in terms of social behaviors is astute and it is fairly easy to decipher: 1960 and before was a time when it was easy to tell right from wrong, black from white, good from bad.....1960 forward, particularly 1965 forward, SOCIAL ENGINEERS got bust trying to destroy the U.S. from the inside out: A lot of the was induced by the same bunch who put together "THE GREAT SOCIETY" where "Hoods"/Government Housing Projects started sprouting up all around the U.S.'s major metropolitan centers....also, right on the heels of the "Great Society" introduction, the rise of illegitimate children born to Black women skyrocketed to what it is today: the highest of any race....BEFORE "The Great Society", the occurrence of illegitimate children in Blacks was the lowest of any race.

One goal of the Social Engineers was to blur the lines between right and wrong, black and white, good and evil....and WE LET THEM.

Not to throw gasoline on the fire but the 1960s was also the decade where the MAJORITY RULE WENT STUPID AND STARTED BENDING TO THE DEMANDS AND WHIMS OF THE MINORITY: How else do you explain how the Madeline O'Hare was able to damn near single-handily take any reference to God out of the classroom......and our social behaviors declined sharply.

... take any reference to God out of the classroom......and our social behaviors declined sharply.
God doesn't belong in a public school classroom. I lived through that during the '50s. God belongs in the home and church.

God doesn't belong in a public school classroom. I lived through that during the '50s. God belongs in the home and church.

You need to be sure to tell God where He belongs and where He does not belong. I imagine He will be surprised to find that out.

God wasn't removed from the school, students are free to pray whenever they like to whatever God they like. What was removed was the mandatory nature of compelling students to listen to whatever school officials deemed they should, and removing the local LAWS and ordinances that made it mandatory in public schools as unconstitutional. That applies to ALL religions not just Christianity.

There is no such restriction in private schools as far as I know.

God wasn't removed from the school, students are free to pray whenever they like to whatever God they like. What was removed was the mandatory nature of compelling students to listen to whatever school officials deemed they should, and removing the local LAWS and ordinances that made it mandatory in public schools as unconstitutional. That applies to ALL religions not just Christianity.

How does that seem to be working out?

A very simple solution would be going to educational vouchers and allowing parents to make the choices of whether or not their children should be taught religious principles (such as prayer) in school. It always amuses me that the same people who argue that women should have the "choice" to have their unborn child killed in abortion will then deny school choice to parents once the surviving children are ready for school.

You making a direct link between mandatory school prayer and the state of our union? Why not money in politics, or the cult of hate or explotation of cheap labor, or all the above being contributing factors? Why not crime and corruption? Why not years and decades of no wage growth? Why not economic slavery and isolation? Why not closing plants and moving oversees? Why not your own attitude about who gets to tell people what to do?

You making a direct link between mandatory school prayer and the state of our union? Why not money in politics, or the cult of hate or explotation of cheap labor, or all the above being contributing factors? Why not crime and corruption? Why not years and decades of no wage growth? Why not economic slavery and isolation? Why not closing plants and moving oversees? Why not your own attitude about who gets to tell people what to do?

It was a simple question. Since we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school, which direction has the country, and young people in particular, taken? The other things you listed have been going on as long as we've had our country. Some of what you listed, such as no wage growth, are flatly untrue.

My attitude about who gets to tell people what to do? That's absurd considering that it's what everyone on this board, including you, is doing. We all argue for various positions. Try to avoid the "holier than thou" approach.

Your premise that God was removed from public schools is just WRONG and I expressed that. The mandatory nature of school prayer was removed for ALL religions in the public schools by due process of law by other Christians.

I suppose if you don't want to acknowledge things like wage disparity or income inequality that has eroded over the years I can't make you, but you cannot just dismiss their impact on your fellow citizens either. Closing factories destroy entire communities and school prayers can save them from that but not surprising you would blame THAT on the decline of American life. I blame it on the deprivation of economic opportunities that's making it hard to buy a loaf of bread and ever rising costs that accounts for regional and local disparities even while a great economy pervades in many places for the most part.

It's like the MAGA crap I cited before, great for some at the time, but not others, but you seem to be of the mind that it's the others fault for not having or losing an adequate livelyhood. Seldom can one control his own circumstances and judos to those that can navigate difficult situation but why bash those that struggle? Why blame others because you ignore or dismiss that struggle?

You are good at dismissing and ignoring others yet you take my approach as holier than thou?
Nobody on this board is holier than thou and I say that with affection my friend it's just you and that's okay with me. Don't expect me to not express my opinions and positions though, which I'm sure you already know I will.

Your premise that God was removed from public schools is just WRONG and I expressed that. The mandatory nature of school prayer was removed for ALL religions in the public schools by due process of law by other Christians.

Read more carefully. That was not my premise; it was Wondergirl's premise.


I suppose if you don't want to acknowledge things like wage disparity or income inequality that has eroded over the years I can't make you, but you cannot just dismiss their impact on your fellow citizens either.

Your original statement was that wages were stagnant. That was not a true statement. Now you are pretending you were speaking of income inequality. They are not the same thing.


Closing factories destroy entire communities and school prayers can save them from that but not surprising you would blame THAT on the decline of American life. I blame it on the deprivation of economic opportunities that's making it hard to buy a loaf of bread and ever rising costs that accounts for regional and local disparities even while a great economy pervades in many places for the most part.

I think the decline in factories is a cause for concern, but I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that, in 2018, there were more manufacturing jobs added than in any year since 1988. Hard to buy a loaf of bread? For practically everyone it's not. In our family we have eaten hundreds of loaves of day old bread. People who want bread can get it. Medical and dental care are different matters.


It's like the MAGA crap I cited before, great for some at the time, but not others, but you seem to be of the mind that it's the others fault for not having or losing an adequate livelyhood. Seldom can one control his own circumstances and judos to those that can navigate difficult situation but why bash those that struggle? Why blame others because you ignore or dismiss that struggle?

And once again your imagination has taken over. I have not bashed those who struggle. "Seldom can one control his own circumstances"??? What? In our country we actually get to control a great deal of our circumstances.


You are good at dismissing and ignoring others yet you take my approach as holier than thou?
Nobody on this board is holier than thou and I say that with affection my friend it's just you and that's okay with me. Don't expect me to not express my opinions and positions though, which I'm sure you already know I will.

You know exactly what I was talking about. You made a comment about me trying to force my opinion on others and that it was such a terrible thing. It is the exact same thing that you and everyone else on this board does. We all advocate for certain beliefs and policies. When you criticize me for doing what you do yourself, then you are taking a "holier than thou" position and trying to pretend you don't do it yourself. Or, as you said above, "Don't expect me not to express my opinions and positions.." Well, aren't you criticizing me for doing the same as you?

Read more carefully. That was not my premise; it was Wondergirl's premise.

I am often mistaken, MAYBE this is one or maybe I was confused by the next quote from you. I'm not adverse to be corrected when wrong.



It was a simple question. Since we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school, which direction has the country, and young people in particular, taken?


I thought that was your premise to which I have commented about. The two are not related in my mind, a notion you can ignore, or dismiss. I'm just not convinced.



A very simple solution would be going to educational vouchers and allowing parents to make the choices of whether or not their children should be taught religious principles (such as prayer) in school. It always amuses me that the same people who argue that women should have the "choice" to have their unborn child killed in abortion will then deny school choice to parents once the surviving children are ready for school.


You want your child to go to a private religious school, then pay for it. You expect taxpayers to use their tax dollars to educate your kids in religious principles of your choice? Does that extend to vouchers for kids of ANY and ALL religions? I think vouchers and school choice are a sneaky way to starve the public schools of needed funds and does not even address the real issue of making a quality public school system. A quality public school system would be preferable to vouchers for private school choice. That's where public money taxpayer money should go.

I don't support abortions or school choice with taxpayer money though I recognize many homes are sold on the basis of good schools in the neighborhood. All neighborhoods should have a great school for the community regardless of class income or status.

Some of those private schools have long waiting lists and some are very selective and discerning about who they admit. What of those kids that cannot get in?

You need to be sure to tell God where He belongs and where He does not belong. I imagine He will be surprised to find that out.
"God in public schools" back in the '50s was, in my experience, memorizing Bible verses for cheap religious trinkets. Whose God was in public schools? Again, in my experience, it was the Southern Baptists' God, not the Lutherans' God.

Since we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school, which direction has the country, and young people in particular, taken?
It's certainly not because we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school!

You want your child to go to a private religious school, then pay for it. You expect taxpayers to use their tax dollars to educate your kids in religious principles of your choice? Does that extend to vouchers for kids of ANY and ALL religions? I think vouchers and school choice are a sneaky way to starve the public schools of needed funds and does not even address the real issue of making a quality public school system. A quality public school system would be preferable to vouchers for private school choice. That's where public money taxpayer money should go.

So it's OK for the taxpayer to pay for kids to go to schools which promote all sorts of moral values such as homosexuality is fine, boys can actually be girls and vica versa, premarital sex in fine and here's how to put on a condom, God is a made-up concept, and so forth? And if parents don't want their children taught such things, then they can just suck it up and suffer? Or if poor parents don't want their children trapped in disastrous public schools, then that's just too bad? "The parents of rich kids can send their children to good schools, but you're just out of luck." Is that what you would tell them?


I don't support abortions or school choice with taxpayer money though I recognize many homes are sold on the basis of good schools in the neighborhood. All neighborhoods should have a great school for the community regardless of class income or status.

Where I live, the county schools routinely far out-perform the city schools and have for years. The city schools have much more money and their teachers are paid more. The last county school I was in was in terrible physical condition, but ended up the 32nd ranked school in the state. How do you explain that if funding is all there is to it? I'm telling you, Tal, you don't know what you are talking about. Washington D.C. is one of the most heavily funded school systems in America, and it's a train wreck. Your solution is basically to tell all those parents, "Forget you. The solution does not fit Tal's political perspective."


Some of those private schools have long waiting lists and some are very selective and discerning about who they admit. What of those kids that cannot get in?

Then they go to a school of their parent's choice that they can get in. It won't be a perfect system, but it would be a million miles better than the system we have now. Worst case scenario would be to put their children back in the gosh-awful public school that you wanted them trapped in to begin with. They would certainly be no worse off.

"God in public schools" back in the '50s was, in my experience, memorizing Bible verses for cheap religious trinkets. Whose God was in public schools? Again, in my experience, it was the Southern Baptists' God, not the Lutherans' God.

We don't serve the same God?

You think you had a bad experience? I tell you what you need to do. Go back to your six year old self and enroll in practically any public school in D.C. Philly, Detroit, CHICAGO, or any one of many other areas of the country where low academic performance and violence are common. I'll bet your experience would look a lot better after about one week. You'd get down on your knees and thank God for the school you attended.

You guys seem to forget something. I spent my career in these schools. Some were good and some not so good, but I've seen what the kids have to go through in the not so good schools. I know you don't really care, but I do. Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. I am Mississippi and yet I never felt underfunded until my last two years when some budget cuts hit in the middle of the school year, but even that was not a lack of money but a lack of discretion in how to spend it.



It's certainly not because we took prayer and the Ten Commandments out of school!

How would you know that?

So it's OK for the taxpayer to pay for kids to go to schools which promote all sorts of moral values such as homosexuality is fine, boys can actually be girls and vica versa, premarital sex in fine and here's how to put on a condom, God is a made-up concept, and so forth?
The word "homosexuality" in the Bible isn't how you think of it. Read this:
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

Ever read/hear about how DES messed up generations of babies and their babies? Google DES and intersex.

What would you have said to your young son who wanted to wear girl clothes or paint his nails or play with dolls? Or to your young daughter who wanted to be a cowboy and grow up to be a pastor?

You've never understood the advantages of premarital sex?

The word "homosexuality" in the Bible isn't how you think of it. Read this:
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/201...-romans-124-27

So your case is based upon German translations? Really? Are you familiar with the word Paul used for homosexual, and how it is a combination of Greek words for "man" and "bed"? Your guy begins with the idea that translating the word "homosexual" is relatively recent, but are you aware that the KJV, which is centuries old, translates it as "nor abusers of themselves with mankind", or that Wycliffe translated is as "they that do lechery (lustfulness) with men", of that Young's Literal Translation renders it as "sodomites"? Are you also aware that the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?

But even if I was to accept that argument, and I don't, then show me in the Bible where gay marriage or two men having sex is affirmed? You are in the terrible situation of having to try and explain away the considerable passages which show homosexual behavior as a sin, and yet having nothing at all to affirm it. Your liberal ideology is affecting your theology.


What would you have said to your young son who wanted to wear girl clothes or paint his nails or play with dolls? Or to your young daughter who wanted to be a cowboy and grow up to be a pastor?

I would have told my son that he could not wear girls clothing or paint his nails. I would have steered him away from playing with dolls. As to my daughter wanting to be a cowboy or be on a pastoral staff in a church, I don't see a problem with those career choices.


You've never understood the advantages of premarital sex?

Your problem is that you have determined your beliefs outside of the Bible. You can't get such a statement from Scripture.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of hammering homosexuals or anyone else with the Bible. The grace of God is a wonderful thing. They are certainly no worse than I was. I would tell them, or anyone else, that the opportunity to know God is far greater than any sexual obsession or activity of any kind. Commit your life to Christ in faith and true repentance, and Jesus will bring about change in your life. Does He solve everyone's sexual problems? Not always in the way we might think, but there is always a solution. 100 years from now, these problems we face here will be put in their proper perspective.

One more thing. I am not a Southern Baptist.

So your case is based upon German translations? Really? Are you familiar with the word Paul used for homosexual, and how it is a combination of Greek words for "man" and "bed"? Your guy begins with the idea that translating the word "homosexual" is relatively recent, but are you aware that the KJV, which is centuries old, translates it as "nor abusers of themselves with mankind", or that Wycliffe translated is as "they that do lechery (lustfulness) with men", of that Young's Literal Translation renders it as "sodomites"? Are you also aware that the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?
St. Paul's made-up word (arsenokoitai) meant "boy molesters." Homosexual in the OT had to do with pagan temple practices whereby both men and women dressed as a pagan goddess and prostituted themselves to encourage worshipers to make temple donations (pay for sexual services rendered).



I would have told my son that he could not wear girls clothing or paint his nails. I would have steered him away from playing with dolls. As to my daughter wanting to be a cowboy or be on a pastoral staff in a church, I don't see a problem with those career choices.
So your son can't be girly but your daughter can take on a male role?

What if your baby was born with a mix of male and female internal and external sex organs?


Your problem is that you have determined your beliefs outside of the Bible. You can't get such a ludicrous statement from Scripture.
Please do more in-depth research.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of hammering homosexuals or anyone else with the Bible. The grace of God is a wonderful thing. They are certainly no worse than I was. I would tell them, or anyone else, that the opportunity to know God is far greater than any sexual obsession or activity of any kind. Commit your life to Christ in faith and true repentance, and Jesus will bring about change in your life. Does He solve everyone's sexual problems? Not always in the way we might think, but there is always a solution. 100 years from now, these problems we face here will be put in their proper perspective.
Sexual obsession??? Good grief! Homosexuals then must become celebate when they become Christian?


One more thing. I am not a Southern Baptist.
Who said you are?

St. Paul's made-up word (arsenokoitai) meant "boy molesters." Homosexual in the OT had to do with pagan temple practices whereby both men and women dressed as a pagan goddess and prostituted themselves to encourage worshipers to make temple donations (pay for sexual services rendered).

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. The Leviticus passage absolutely does not read that way. It is nonsensical to suggest that it was a reference to "men and women dressed as a pagan goddess". And you can't get "boy molesters" out of arsenokoitai no matter how hard you try. Find that meaning in any concordance and we can talk about it.

It is one thing for a boy to dress like a girl. It is entirely different for a girl to take on a job that is typically performed by men, such as a woman being a policeman.


Please do more in-depth research.

That's kind of funny coming from you. The last time (a few days ago) I asked you to support your position with scripture, you told me to read the entire Bible. In other words, you had no particular scripture you could cite to support your position. So I'll challenge you with this. Show me the scriptural support for sex outside of marriage or for two men to have sex together, and we can talk about it.


Sexual obsession??? Good grief! Homosexuals then must become celebate when they become Christian?

Being celibate is not the same as dying. Young Christian people remain celibate all time while waiting on a spouse. Why even Martin Luther was celibate for much of his adult life. And there are many, many testimonies to be found of homosexuals who became Christians and ended up married to a woman and happy. You act like sex is the most important thing on the earth. It is not. Besides, the opportunity to know and enjoy God Himself is greater than any cost it might involve. I honestly get the impression that you do not genuinely know Him in the sense of having a personal, close relationship. Do you?

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. The Leviticus passage absolutely does not read that way. It is nonsensical to suggest that it was a reference to "men and women dressed as a pagan goddess". And you can't get "boy molesters" out of arsenokoitai no matter how hard you try. Find that meaning in any concordance and we can talk about it.
Someone needs to do some research and it ain't me.

It is one thing for a boy to dress like a girl. It is entirely different for a girl to take on a job that is typically performed by men, such as a woman being a policeman.
Nope. The boy says he is a girl inside. The girl says she's a boy inside.

That's kind of funny coming from you. The last time (a few days ago) I asked you to support your position with scripture, you told me to read the entire Bible. In other words, you had no particular scripture you could cite to support your position. So I'll challenge you with this. Show me the scriptural support for sex outside of marriage or for two men to have sex together, and we can talk about it.There's no support nor is there condemnation. These weren't issues.

Being celibate is not the same as dying. Young Christian people remain celibate all time while waiting on a spouse. Why even Martin Luther was celibate for much of his adult life. And there are many, many testimonies to be found of homosexuals who became Christians and ended up married to a woman and happy. You act like sex is the most important thing on the earth. It is not. Besides, the opportunity to know and enjoy God Himself is greater than any cost it might involve. I honestly get the impression that you do not genuinely know Him in the sense of having a personal, close relationship. Do you?
So if a person is interested in the same sex....

Why do you care about my relationship with God?

the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?

Therefore, we should dismiss your arguments because you are against homosexuality and would certainly have good reason to have Scripture support your view?

the article was written by a man who is a homosexual and would certainly have good reason look for alternative meanings to Scripture?
Therefore, we should dismiss your arguments because you are against homosexuality and would certainly have good reason to have Scripture support your view?

I think everyone here can understand the difference between using scripture to support a position versus looking for alternate renderings which are not warranted.


Nope. The boy says he is a girl inside. The girl says she's a boy inside.

I actually know some cowgirls. They would be astonished to find out that, according to you, they are a boy on the inside. So would female policemen.


There's no support nor is there condemnation. These weren't issues.

In about ten minutes you can go to any one of several sites and find apps that allow you to switch quickly between translations. I did that. Every translation I looked at rendered the Corinthians passage as either "homosexual" or a meaning which clearly implied that. I don't think I have ever met a person as reluctant/unable to support his/her doctrinal positions with scripture as you are. So again, if you can support sex outside of marriage or sex between two men, then bring it forward. We can talk about it.


So if a person is interested in the same sex

So if a person is interested in his neighbor's wife, or his neighbor's 12 year old daughter, or his neighbor's bank account, or in three women at one time, or in any one of thousands of other interests, does that make it alright? Just having an interest in something doesn't make it a legitimate one.


Why do you care about my relationship with God?


Why are you reluctant to answer?

I think everyone here can understand the difference between using scripture to support a position versus looking for alternate renderings which are not warranted.
In other words, cherry-pick.

In other words, cherry-pick.

No. It's called the use of scripture to support a position. Martin Luther certainly did it with great effectiveness. "The just shall live by faith." Remember?

No. It's called the use of scripture to support a position. Martin Luther certainly did it with great effectiveness. "The just shall live by faith." Remember?
That was different. Today it's cherry-picking and gotcha verses.

So it's OK for the taxpayer to pay for kids to go to schools which promote all sorts of moral values such as homosexuality is fine, boys can actually be girls and vica versa, premarital sex in fine and here's how to put on a condom, God is a made-up concept, and so forth? And if parents don't want their children taught such things, then they can just suck it up and suffer? Or if poor parents don't want their children trapped in disastrous public schools, then that's just too bad? "The parents of rich kids can send their children to good schools, but you're just out of luck." Is that what you would tell them?

For starters, public schools don't teach any of those things and you are exaggerating and misrepresenting what they teach. I attended PTA meetings for years and worked with to many teachers to let you bad mouth public schools with such crap. Takes a community to start making a school a GOOD school.


Where I live, the county schools routinely far out-perform the city schools and have for years. The city schools have much more money and their teachers are paid more. The last county school I was in was in terrible physical condition, but ended up the 32nd ranked school in the state. How do you explain that if funding is all there is to it? I'm telling you, Tal, you don't know what you are talking about. Washington D.C. is one of the most heavily funded school systems in America, and it's a train wreck. Your solution is basically to tell all those parents, "Forget you. The solution does not fit Tal's political perspective."


The state administers the schools. You got a beef then take it up with your state legislatures. Don't blame your woes on Tal's ideology.


Then they go to a school of their parent's choice that they can get in. It won't be a perfect system, but it would be a million miles better than the system we have now. Worst case scenario would be to put their children back in the gosh-awful public school that you wanted them trapped in to begin with. They would certainly be no worse off.

So why hasn't your state given you what you want? Geez and I'm the one who doesn't know what he is talking about!

That was different. Today it's cherry-picking and gotcha verses.

Only the people who cannot support their positions say that. With the absence of Scripture, you are basically asking us to believe something simply because you say so.

Why are you reluctant to answer?

Why do you answer a question with a question?

This strategy of yours is not unfamiliar. You have no real interest in WG's belief. You simply want to find something to criticize and insult. Defensive fundamentalists are commonly guilty of this. Why not just answer the WG question she asked - Why do you want to know her relationship with God? Are you God's lawyer - self-appointed as checking up on others?

I actually know some cowgirls. They would be astonished to find out that, according to you, they are a boy on the inside. So would female policemen.
Read up on DES.

In about ten minutes you can go to any one of several sites and find apps that allow you to switch quickly between translations. I did that. Every translation I looked at rendered the Corinthians passage as either "homosexual" or a meaning which clearly implied that. I don't think I have ever met a person as reluctant/unable to support his/her doctrinal positions with scripture as you are. So again, if you can support sex outside of marriage or sex between two men, then bring it forward. We can talk about it.
This thread is about Hillary. Start a new thread under the appropriate topic, and I'll wander over and post.

For starters, public schools don't teach any of those things and you are exaggerating and misrepresenting what they teach. I attended PTA meetings for years and worked with to many teachers to let you bad mouth public schools with such crap. Takes a community to start making a school a GOOD school.

They most assuredly do. Those situations stay in the news. The one linked below is just a sample and it's from 07.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/maryland-schools-to-teach-that-sexual-deviance-is-normal-this-fall

You worked with the PTA??? I worked IN THE SCHOOLS. And, as I said, some are good, and some are not good.


The state administers the schools. You got a beef then take it up with your state legislatures. Don't blame your woes on Tal's ideology.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. School districts do the actual day to day administration of schools. States provide PART of the funding and establish standards. And yes, your ideology that parents of kids trapped in terrible schools can basically kiss-off is awful.










Why do you answer a question with a question?


You mean like you just did?


You simply want to find something to criticize and insult.


You mean like you're doing?


This strategy of yours is not unfamiliar. You have no real interest in WG's belief. You simply want to find something to criticize and insult. Defensive fundamentalists are commonly guilty of this. Why not just answer the WG question she asked - Why do you want to know her relationship with God? Are you God's lawyer - self-appointed as checking up on others?

Why do you want to know why I want to know? Are you God's lawyer - self-appointed as checking up on others?

Like I told you a few days ago. Before you start passing out advice, try it out yourself first.






This thread is about Hillary. Start a new thread under the appropriate topic, and I'll wander over and post.

If you don't want to post then don't post. The discussion was actually between Tal and me. You wanted to join. That's fine, but why are you complaining about it now?

Oh we are not off topic again are we?

Oh we are not off topic again are we?

Sadly, that is true. My deepest apologies! )>:

Why do you want to know why I want to know? Are you God's lawyer - self-appointed as checking up on others?

You are the master of non-answers. That's to be expected. But when you appoint yourself as God's checker-upper, you're treading on dangerous ground.

But when you appoint yourself as God's checker-upper, you're treading on dangerous ground.

I responded to you the way I did simply to illustrate what you frequently do, which is to be critical of someone else doing what you do yourself. As to the question, the topic under discussion concerned God and the Bible, so to ask someone their personal view of God seemed relevant to me. As to being "God's checker-upper", once again you are doing what you criticize me for doing. If we shouldn't do that, then why are you "checking up" on my behavior? Are you treading on dangerous ground?

In any case I was curious so I asked. It was not intended to be a judgement against her. It wouldn't bother me at all for someone to ask me if I have a personal relationship with Jesus. It would be an honor to answer the question! WG confesses the Christian faith, so I can't imagine why the question would have been a problem, but if it was then just ignore it. It's all good. We can just drop it if it bothers someone.

In any case I was curious so I asked. It was not intended to be a judgement against her. It wouldn't bother me at all for someone to ask me if I have a personal relationship with Jesus. It would be an honor to answer the question! WG confesses the Christian faith, so I can't imagine why the question would have been a problem, but if it was then just ignore it. It's all good. We can just drop it if it bothers someone.
You said, "WG confesses the Christian faith." Then why are you asking me about my relationship with God? If I don't answer, then what does that tell you?

I responded to you the way I did simply to illustrate what you frequently do, which is to be critical of someone else doing what you do yourself.

I don't do it in the name of God.

You said, "WG confesses the Christian faith." Then why are you asking me about my relationship with God?

I know a number of confessing Christians who do not have a real living relationship with God. For them, it's as though He lives on the moon. It does make a difference.


If I don't answer, then what does that tell you?

It told me absolutely nothing. Personally, I'd be happy to answer the question and love to talk about such things, but if it bothers you so much, then don't worry about it.


I don't do it in the name of God.

Neither did I. At any rate, you were replying to this statement. "I responded to you the way I did simply to illustrate what you frequently do, which is to be critical of someone else doing what you do yourself." I'm not sure what difference it makes whose name you do it in.

I know a number of confessing Christians who do not have a real living relationship with God.

There you go again, telling about others who don't have "a real living relationship with God". How would you know? Does God tell you about these "confessing Christians"?


I'm not sure what difference it makes whose name you do it in.

It does if you claim doing it in the name of God.

They most assuredly do. Those situations stay in the news. The one linked below is just a sample and it's from 07.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/maryland-schools-to-teach-that-sexual-deviance-is-normal-this-fall

You worked with the PTA??? I worked IN THE SCHOOLS. And, as I said, some are good, and some are not good.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. School districts do the actual day to day administration of schools. States provide PART of the funding and establish standards. And yes, your ideology that parents of kids trapped in terrible schools can basically kiss-off is awful.

Like I said your rhetorical exaggeration is often over the top, and educating young folks about how to treat a fellow human that's different promotes nothing but respect for a fellow human. That SHOULD be taught at home, but it has to be taught everywhere. And I would love to tell you of the many battles I and the wife have fought in the schools my kids attended, and if you would have even considered sending my kid or any kid to a JAIL without notifying me I would have a piece of your arse and who ever else okayed it. That's the power that PARENTS have in the operation of THEIR school!

That applies to why those schools are so awful in the first place! Maybe the PARENT need to fire some of those teachers and administrators, or give them the help and support they need to succeed in educating our kids. It's a shared responsibility. LOL, yeah we had conflicts with teachers and administrators, but overall I feel that personal relationships with teachers and principals go a long way in making for a better experience for the kids, and addressing their issues.

Contrary to popular beliefs teachers and principals are humans too, and have daunting jobs for sure!

You sure are up either awfully early or really late. What's up?


Like I said your rhetorical exaggeration is often over the top, and educating young folks about how to treat a fellow human that's different promotes nothing but respect for a fellow human. That SHOULD be taught at home, but it has to be taught everywhere. And I would love to tell you of the many battles I and the wife have fought in the schools my kids attended, and if you would have even considered sending my kid or any kid to a JAIL without notifying me I would have a piece of your arse and who ever else okayed it. That's the power that PARENTS have in the operation of THEIR school!

First you said it wasn't happening, and now you say it is happening. Make up your mind. At any rate, your imagination is mightily at work now. Not one person has mentioned sending anyone's kid to jail.


That applies to why those schools are so awful in the first place! Maybe the PARENT need to fire some of those teachers and administrators, or give them the help and support they need to succeed in educating our kids. It's a shared responsibility. LOL, yeah we had conflicts with teachers and administrators, but overall I feel that personal relationships with teachers and principals go a long way in making for a better experience for the kids, and addressing their issues.

It would be far better that those parents have the opportunity to send their child to a different school rather than having to keep them in a lousy school because someone else's political perspective won't allow otherwise.


Contrary to popular beliefs teachers and principals are humans too, and have daunting jobs for sure!

Do you really think you're saying something I didn't already know?

There you go again, telling about others who don't have "a real living relationship with God". How would you know? Does God tell you about these "confessing Christians"?

No. They do.


It does if you claim doing it in the name of God.

So I'll say for the second time (Learn to listen!) that I have not suggested I'm doing such a thing. That idea came from your overactive imagination.

You sure are up either awfully early or really late. What's up?

Eay to fall asleep rather early in the day when its cold wet and rainy.


First you said it wasn't happening, and now you say it is happening. Make up your mind. At any rate, your imagination is mightily at work now. Not one person has mentioned sending anyone's kid to jail.

Not like you said it was, and I specified your promoting angle as the stick in your position. I admit to being out of the loop generally since my kids are long grown and gone, but you must see that I have empathy for oppressed minorities and the way they are marginalized and discriminated against. To a gay person, being gay IS normal, and should be treated as such, and yes I convey that to my kids, and even grand kids. I think we have discussed kids being put in jail by school officials (https://thinkprogress.org/mississippi-schools-sending-kids-to-prison-for-misbehaving-in-the-classroom-bb6a26302aa9/)and how soon you forget.
(https://thinkprogress.org/doj-to-schools-stop-sending-kids-to-jail-for-breaking-discipline-rules-e2820701c31a/)

It would be far better that those parents have the opportunity to send their child to a different school rather than having to keep them in a lousy school because someone else's political perspective won't allow otherwise.

So you have a problem with eliminating failing schools and making them successful at educating kids? Your political perspective is puzzling.


Do you really think you're saying something I didn't already know?

Hard to tell sometimes as you come off as a holier than thou dictator type who doesn't have to listen and therefore lack understanding of others POV.

I wish I could sleep during the day. I just never have really been able to. Did you ever live in one of the old houses with metal roofs during the rain? It was like a melody.


but you must see that I have empathy for oppressed minorities and the way they are marginalized and discriminated against. To a gay person, being gay IS normal, and should be treated as such, and yes I convey that to my kids, and even grand kids.

Then let your empathy take you to the place of allowing those parents to put their kids in the school of their own choice and not the school of the government's choice. As to homosexuals, you can teach your kids what you wish. It's the school teaching them that homosexuality or transgenderism is perfectly normal that many parents object to.



So you have a problem with eliminating failing schools and making them successful at educating kids? Your political perspective is puzzling.

You're going to eliminate them and make them successful? How can an eliminated school be successful?


Hard to tell sometimes as you come off as a holier than thou dictator type who doesn't have to listen and therefore lack understanding of others POV.

That's not my intention but I imagine I do come across that way from time to time. I am working on trying to do better!

As to homosexuals, you can teach your kids what you wish. It's the school teaching them that homosexuality or transgenderism is perfectly normal that many parents object to.
And those parents need some educating themselves!

Perfect answer WG!



Then let your empathy take you to the place of allowing those parents to put their kids in the school of their own choice and not the school of the government's choice.

Let's try this another way. In your experience why are some schools failing?

And those parents need some educating themselves!

Perhaps they have already been educated from the Bible. If so, they will not accept your error.

Did a little reading last night. I could not find a single Greek lexicon that renders arsenokoitiai in the manner you prefer. I cannot find a single major translation that renders it that way, and I don't know of any Greek interlinear that agrees with you, so you are standing alone against a tidal wave of NT scholarship. The Romans 1 passage is also a clear denunciation of homosexual activity. Now if you want to say that such a lifestyle is OK on the basis of your psychiatry books, or that it is part of liberal political thought, then fine, but it plainly is not allowed in Scripture. For you to say that is the case is to intentionally mislead people.


Let's try this another way. In your experience why are some schools failing?

Great question for discussion! To begin with, it has very little to do with money, or at least most of the time that is true. As a general rule, schools that have students who will behave and have some level of the discipline needed for learning will do well so long as the school is well led and the teachers are supported and do their jobs well. Failing schools nearly always have discipline issues. In our city schools here, for instance, thanks to a settlement with the Obama DOJ, students can curse at teachers and very little is done about it. Not surprisingly, the better teachers won't tolerate that so they go elsewhere. The District's test scores are a train wreck, and good families are abandoning the city as much as they can.

I was at a city school about fifteen years ago that started, in our testing program, on the lowest score level (1) and four years later ended up at the top level (5). Very few schools did that. We had good discipline, our students responded well, and our teachers were very good. Now, that is no longer the case and the school repeatedly scores low on testing. It is tragic and completely needless.

No. They do.

"Confessing Christians" (your phrase) tell you they don't have "a real living relationship with God"? Complete nonsense! I'm not surprised you make up things like this. You have delusions of holiness acting like God's messenger.


So I'll say for the second time (Learn to listen!) that I have not suggested I'm doing such a thing. That idea came from your overactive imagination.

No, not an overactive imagination; it came from the words you have written on these very pages. (Learn to tell the truth.) No one but you has sought the religious beliefs of other posters here. It's typical fundamentalism, searching for faults or for different beliefs in others with your only reason for doing so to tell them they "don't have a real living relationship with God".

Your troll-like ilk is common on the internet. Aided by anonymity.

No, not an overactive imagination; it came from the words you have written on these very pages. (Learn to tell the truth.) No one but you has sought the religious beliefs of other posters here. It's typical fundamentalism, searching for faults or for different beliefs in others with your only reason for doing so to tell them they "don't have a real living relationship with God".

Find the place (quote) where I have said I am speaking for God, or admit that you are a liar.


Your troll-like ilk is common on the internet. Aided by anonymity.

More name calling. Again, when you run out of sound arguments, then you run to name calling like a scared little child.

As to Christians who do not have a personal relationship with God, that is a common complaint in the church. It is not helped by the position held by many teachers that God no longer speaks to people by the Holy Spirit, but rather He only speaks through the Bible.

Find the place (quote) where I have said I am speaking for God, or admit that you are a liar.

Find it yourself. Every single person here knows you play God with your prejudices and comments. The only liar here is you.


More name calling. Again, when you run out of sound arguments, then you run to name calling like a scared little child.

This is your only and frequent response to members challenging you. Oddly enough, you are the chief name-caller. The quote above is a good example.


As to Christians who do not have a personal relationship with God, that is a common complaint in the church. It is not helped by the position held by many teachers that God no longer speaks to people by the Holy Spirit, but rather He only speaks through the Bible.

Complete and utter fundamentalist nonsense!

Find it yourself. Every single person here knows you play God with your prejudices and comments. The only liar here is you.

Just like I figured. You lie, and then don't like it when you get called on the carpet over it. So rather than prove your point, you just lash out.


This is your only and frequent response to members challenging you. Oddly enough, you are the chief name-caller. The quote above is a good example.

There is no name calling in my quote. I said you should prove your point or admit you are a liar. It would have been better if I had said "you are lying", but it's still not name calling, but rather an issuing of a challenge. You failed to meet the challenge. No surprise there.


Complete and utter fundamentalist nonsense!

I was responding to your comment that confessing Christians don't have the complaint of not really knowing God. You can call it nonsense if you want to, but your allegation is plainly ridiculous. It is very common.

In the future I'm just going to ignore your silly posts. You have nothing useful to add. Your childishness has become old, and I don't like the angry way I respond to it from time to time. We plainly don't like each other, so I'll just let you go your way. I do hope you do well and give you my best wishes. If you post something useful in the future, maybe we can interact.

In the future I'm just going to ignore your silly posts.

You have a perfect right to ignore my posts, just as I have a right to continue challenging you on yours.

That is simply your way of evading the truth and being unable to confront your sick belief of condemning all humanity to eternal torture in hell if they don't believe as you do. It doesn't get much sicker than that.

That way of thinking spills over to so many other beliefs you hold and have expressed here on this site. When you are challenged about this monstrosity, you constantly play the coward and never answer directly but always point to a book where you claim it is stated and proven. I.e., the Bible.

Reconciling such evil with the loving and gentle nature of Christ is impossible for you, so you simply point again to the book. Being shown again and again that your interpretation is completely wrong, you persist in its horrors. I am repelled by how often you must have promoted this belief among the unsuspecting throughout your life - especially to children.

Many times you have asked me what my religious beliefs are. Now I will tell you. I believe in the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Great Commandment, and the life of Christ - none of which are remotely connected to your hideous belief.

Your evil belief is within you, as is the Kingdom of God. Pick one, you can't have both.

Being shown again and again that your interpretation is completely wrong, you persist in its horrors. I am repelled by how often you must have promoted this belief among the unsuspecting throughout your life - especially to children.
Like this? "Children, you're going to a fiery hell of torture and pain if you don't believe in Jesus."

Like this? "Children, you're going to a fiery hell of torture and pain if you don't believe in Jesus."

WG, Athos routinely lies and distorts what I have said. I have corrected him on a number of occasions, and his consistent lying is why I just don't respond to him anymore. And I have certainly never said your quote from above or many of the ridiculous things he alleges. I will simply point you to the words of Christ in Matthew 25. He said there is a fiery, eternal hell that people are going to. No one else on this board wants to comment on that text.

And then there is this passage in Mt. 13. "40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear."

If all of this is true, and you don't warn people about it, then where does that leave you?

WG, Athos routinely lies and distorts what I have said. I have corrected him on a number of occasions, and his consistent lying is why I just don't respond to him anymore. And I have certainly never said your quote from above or many of the ridiculous things he alleges. I will simply point you to the words of Christ in Matthew 25. He said there is a fiery, eternal hell that people are going to. No one else on this board wants to comment on that text.

And then there is this passage in Mt. 13. "40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear."

If all of this is true, and you don't warn people about it, then where does that leave you?
In the Bible, fire is pictured as the final curse. It is used in the sense of being the symbol of complete purging, so that when something passes through fire, it is then clean. It is interesting to think about the possible ramifications of that.

In the Bible, fire is pictured as the final curse. It is used in the sense of being the symbol of complete purging, so that when something passes through fire, it is then clean. It is interesting to think about the possible ramifications of that.

So you really believe that in the two Matthew passages, the fire is pictured as being a complete purging??? And you really think that it is both a complete purging (good) AND a final curse (not good)???

Honestly, you want to instruct the Bible rather than letting the Bible instruct you. Your method of wanting everything you don't like to be strictly metaphorical renders the Bible meaningless. No one can know what it means without consulting you.

If all of this is true, and you don't warn people about it, then where does that leave you?


If is not a fact and the words of ancient man, whoever translated takes FAITH to believe in. I have no such faith in the words of ancient man, nor what he says others have said. I try not to judge those that do.

So you really believe that in the two Matthew passages, the fire is pictured as being a complete purging??? And you really think that it is both a complete purging (good) AND a final curse (not good)???
You know for sure what God's plan is for those who've never heard about him or who are unable to understand the Gospel message?

You know for sure what God's plan is for those who've never heard about him or who are unable to understand the Gospel message?

I know for sure what John 3:16 says. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have life everlasting."

There is salvation only in Christ. For those unable mentally to understand, I trust them in God's hands. For those who have never heard, I think that's why we should all be actively involved in spreading the gospel.


If is not a fact and the words of ancient man, whoever translated takes FAITH to believe in. I have no such faith in the words of ancient man, nor what he says others have said. I try not to judge those that do.

I have no faith in the words of ancient man either. The word of God, however, is a different story. Better make sure you have it right. It's the most important question you will ever face.

If is not a fact and the words of ancient man, whoever translated takes FAITH to believe in. I have no such faith in the words of ancient man, nor what he says others have said. I try not to judge those that do.

So what then is your faith based on if you do not believe what those who went before have told us? Surely it is not based on an innate belief in yourself?

I have no faith in the words of ancient man either. The word of God, however, is a different story. Better make sure you have it right. It's the most important question you will ever face.
It was ancient man who wrote down God's words and we no longer have those manuscripts.

So what then is your faith based on if you do not believe what those who went before have told us? Surely it is not based on an innate belief in yourself?

Building a relationship with a God that I understand.

It was ancient man who wrote down God's words and we no longer have those manuscripts.

Let's examine that argument. First of all, it's true of ALL ancient documents. Secondly, the manuscript evidence for the NT is absolutely overwhelming. Yes, we don't have the originals, but we have literally thousands of copies of handwritten manuscripts. With such a wealth of text, it is fairly certain that what exists is 98% or 99% faithful to the originals, and possibly better even than that. No other ancient document can even approach that. Rather amazingly, even if all of those documents were lost, very nearly all of the NT could still be reproduced just depending on the quotations of it in the writings of the early church fathers.

Building a relationship with a God that I understand.

I think he told you how to do that through Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets, and if those words hadn't been written down our task would have been more difficult. So what is not to understand?

Building a relationship with a God that I understand.

Not sure what you mean by that.

It is about your personal relationship with God.....its about how you act when no one is watching....its about how you treat others when the "others" can do nothing for your and nothing against you....Its really about a "belief system" in the sense of believing in the concept of "The Mystery Of Faith".....You don't/I don't need to have concrete, irrefutable, tangible, or, otherwise, scientific evidence to confirm God's existence.....My FAITH in God transcends all things "of man" and all earth bound limitations....We are talking about conviction of your very soul...you either have it or you don't have it, your decision to "take"...and no one, not one person, needs to know about, other than YOU...what others think is not important....what is vitally important is that you believe with the very fiber of your being.....this FAITH, it is yours and yours alone, from here to eternity.

Vac, Christianity is a relationship, not simply a religion, this is not understood

Paraclete: That is the very first thing I said: "It is about your personal relationship with God".

Vac, Christianity is a relationship, not simply a religion, this is not understood

I respect your position Clete, but...


Paraclete: That is the very first thing I said: "It is about your personal relationship with God".

The personal relationship with a God that I understand is the priority. Why would I put the words and actions of man between that? Why would I limit it myself to just some people when their are billions of humans in the world? All are from God not just some. Just sayin'.

ALL LIFE is from God.

What is in your heart is what others cannot see....and should not see: The love of God is entirely personal. I have always held out questions for those that put on public displays of their love of God: Are they trying to convince others of their love for God.....or are they trying to convince themselves!

With God and being a child of God, its what others don't see, and only you know, that matters: You take that walk alone.....and at the end of our time here on earth, EACH OF US will take that walk alone.

What is in your heart is what others cannot see

That's true in one way, but not in another. "You shall know them by their fruit," or "out of the abundance of the heart does the mouth speak."

I'm wondering, how is it these op pieces become religious discussions?

We have a semi fundamentalist scripture quoter in the conversation. No knock, at least not a hard one, it is what it is, but his job is to school the heatens, and spread the gospel, and keep you Christians on the straight and narrow. Ain't that right JL?

We have a semi fundamentalist scripture quoter in the conversation. No knock, at least not a hard one, it is what it is, but his job is to school the heatens, and spread the gospel, and keep you Christians on the straight and narrow. Ain't that right JL?

At least you let me off kind of lite as a "semi fundamentalist"! That's progress. It is my job to spread the Gospel. You are right about that.

It is my job to spread the Gospel.
But that's not how to do it.

We have a semi fundamentalist scripture quoter in the conversation. No knock, at least not a hard one, it is what it is, but his job is to school the heatens, and spread the gospel, and keep you Christians on the straight and narrow. Ain't that right JL?

Well I would question how well he is doing, preaching to the converted as he is. Even if he is not preaching to the converted I haven't heard the simple salvation message from him.

But that's not how to do it.

In what way?

In what way?
How then do you spread the Gospel?

Someone else on this board should be upset with you answering a question with a question. At any rate, I like to answer questions. I do it by telling people of the wonderful, expansive, far-reaching and astonishing ability of Jesus to save sinners by faith in His finished work and repentance from a self-led, self-dependent life. "For all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Someone else on this board should be upset with you answering a question with a question. At any rate, I like to answer questions. I do it by telling people of the wonderful, expansive, far-reaching and astonishing ability of Jesus to save sinners by faith in His finished work and repentance from a self-led, self-dependent life. "For all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
How has that method been working for you -- and Him? There is a better way....

How has that method been working for you -- and Him? There is a better way....

It's what's been working for nearly 2,000 years. It worked well for Martin Luther. But what is your "better way"?

It's what's been working for nearly 2,000 years. It worked well for Martin Luther. But what is your "better way"?
Instead of bashing someone on the head with a Bible, made an honest connection with him first.

Instead of bashing someone on the head with a Bible, made an honest connection with him first.

Your prejudice is revealing itself. No one has suggested we bash anyone with anything. No one has suggested we avoid making connections with people. Life does enough bashing, so people don't need anymore of that, but it's the Bible that tells of the saving power of Jesus through the grace and love of God. The very Bible that you seem to know so little of, and that you seem at times to nearly despise, is the book that contains the message that we preach. No Bible...no message.

I can't imagine that you, being a Lutheran, would be so opposed to the core belief of Luther himself. “He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.”

No one has suggested we bash anyone with anything.

WG did and I concur.

WG did and I concur.

So the two of you are suggesting we bash people??? Why?

So the two of you are suggesting we bash people??? Why?
I am suggesting that first make an honest, human connection with someone. The Gospel message will eventually flow from that.

So the two of you are suggesting we bash people??? Why?

NO! I suggest that YOU bash people over the head with YOUR bible.


I am suggesting that first make an honest, human connection with someone. The Gospel message will eventually flow from that.

Your example has always been an excellent one.

I am suggesting that first make an honest, human connection with someone. The Gospel message will eventually flow from that.

That's a legitimate observation, though it's now always possible. For instance, on the day of Pentecost, there was no opportunity to make any initial human connections with the several thousand souls that came into the church that day, but it did happen afterwards, so fair enough.

I am curious, though, to find out what you consider the gospel message to be? Once you make that connection, what do you tell them?

I am curious, though, to find out what you consider the gospel message to be? Once you make that connection, what do you tell them?
Since you are so fond of bashing me, what do YOU think I tell them?

Since you are so fond of bashing me, what do YOU think I tell them?

It is never my intention to bash you or anyone else. These are discussions amongst adults concerning important issues. To question and ask for explanations is not bashing.

Oh well. Another question answered with a question. Let's just drop it.

So the two of you are suggesting we bash people??? Why?

Good example of how jl distorts what others say.

Athos routinely lies and distorts what I have said. I have corrected him on a number of occasions, and his consistent lying is why I just don't respond to him anymore. And I have certainly never said your quote from above or many of the ridiculous things he alleges





Athos routinely lies and distorts what I have said.


Talk about the kettle calling the pot black – this claim is breathtaking. I challenge anyone to compare his lies and distortions with my non-existent ones.



I have corrected him on a number of occasions, and his consistent lying is why I just don't respond to him anymore.


His “correction” is simply repeating his bizarre statements about life after death. His not responding anymore is simply because he cannot admit to his sick belief about most of humanity going to hell for eternity.



And I have certainly never said your quote from above or many of the ridiculous things he alleges.


Do you deny that you believe that unbelievers go to hell where they are punished for eternity? No, I didn't think so.



From Talinman
I have no such faith in the words of ancient man, nor what he says others have said. I try not to judge those that do.


Would that JL thought the same way, at least re unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.



There is salvation only in Christ.... For those who have never heard, I think that's why we should all be actively involved in spreading the gospel.


That's real big of you, JL. Tell me, how does that work for the millions that you and others don't get around to? How does that work for those who decide to stay in their own religion? How does that work for one of those unborn children you so love, when they grow up and become born children who don't believe like you do? How does that work for the millions who lived in past ages before Christ?



I have no faith in the words of ancient man either.


But your Bible is written in those words of ancient man. Or do you deny that also?



The word of God, however, is a different story.


Did God write the Bible? How did that work?



Better make sure you have it right. It's the most important question you will ever face.


You just can't discuss this topic without a threat, can you? “Better make sure...”, OR ELSE.



From Wondergirl
It was ancient man who wrote down God's words and we no longer have those manuscripts.

Not only that, but the earliest manuscripts we have were written many years after the events described - time enough for errors, editing, adding and subtracting from the stories. No one knows how much was embellished.

Your prejudice is revealing itself. No one has suggested we bash anyone with anything. No one has suggested we avoid making connections with people. Life does enough bashing, so people don't need anymore of that, but it's the Bible that tells of the saving power of Jesus through the grace and love of God.
And what do you do with that Bible? -- hold it high above your head as you shout out verses to passersby?

The very Bible that you seem to know so little of, and that you seem at times to nearly despise, is the book that contains the message that we preach. No Bible...no message.
"The very Bible that [I] know so little of"??? "and that [I] seem at times to nearly despise"??? GOOD GRIEF!!!!!

I can't imagine that you, being a Lutheran, would be so opposed to the core belief of Luther himself. “He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.”
I'm speechless upon reading this.

And what do you do with that Bible? -- hold it high above your head as you shout out verses to passersby?

Again, your prejudice displays itself. And you want to accuse me of bashing? Perhaps you need to hear the same lesson I gave to Athos about following your own advice before giving it to others.


I can't imagine that you, being a Lutheran, would be so opposed to the core belief of Luther himself. “He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.”

I'm speechless upon reading this.

I asked you what you thought the gospel was. You wouldn't answer. All I can get from you is that you think we should have a personal connection made with people. I agree with that, but I still don't know what you believe the gospel message is.

Perhaps you need to hear the same lesson I gave to Athos about following your own advice before giving it to others.

You giving lessons to anyone is laughable. Tell us about the lesson children receive based on your Bible who are unbelievers, and that WG described so well.


I still don't know what you [WG] believe the gospel message is.

She sure doesn't believe children who are unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. But you do.

Athos, what is your fixation on hell, Jesus told us to believe on him, therefore the issue of hell is resolved

Athos, what is your fixation on hell, Jesus told us to believe on him, therefore the issue of hell is resolved


I don't have a fixation on it, JL has the fixation.

It's certainly resolved in my mind, but I wouldn't call believing the great majority of humanity is condemned to hell if they are not believers a resolution. I'd call it a sick mind.

I don't have a fixation on it, JL has the fixation.

It's certainly resolved in my mind, but I wouldn't call believing the great majority of humanity is condemned to hell if they are not believers a resolution. I'd call it a sick mind.

Buddy, obviously you have decided the path you want to take, get over it and move on

Since HC has been absolved of wrong doing can we turn to the dufus and his kids email uses (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-20/ivanka-trump-s-private-email-scandal-has-a-familiar-moral), and security clearance issues (https://www.axios.com/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-status-jared-kushner-f0ff4333-3665-4778-9c35-ba10bae55d94.html)? While we're at it did anyone catch the ruling on the dufus charities? (https://alaska-native-news.com/2-million-and-compulsory-training-for-presidents-children-called-poetic-end-to-trump-charity-abuse-case/45660/)

Buddy, obviously you have decided the path you want to take, get over it and move on


Buddy, you failed to respond to my reply to you. What am I to think? Are you the same as jl on this subject?

Jl self-claims a life of educating the young. Don't you think it is important to identify his horror stories that he's poisoning the young minds with?

It's not something one gets over and moves on. Representing Christianity and Christ as some sort of monstrosity who creates people then sends them to hell for eternity is pretty weird, don't you think?

(Sorry, Tal. The issue is important to me.)

He might be as tired of your lying as I am.

Since HC has been absolved of wrong doing can we turn to the dufus and his kids email uses (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-20/ivanka-trump-s-private-email-scandal-has-a-familiar-moral), and security clearance issues (https://www.axios.com/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-status-jared-kushner-f0ff4333-3665-4778-9c35-ba10bae55d94.html)? While we're at it did anyone catch the ruling on the dufus charities? (https://alaska-native-news.com/2-million-and-compulsory-training-for-presidents-children-called-poetic-end-to-trump-charity-abuse-case/45660/)


The idiot once proclaimed, "I WILL NEVER SETTLE ANY LAWSUIT!"

Since saying that, so far he has settled $27 MILLION worth of lawsuits calling him a fraud. Repeat - $27 MILLION.

His charity fraud spent tens of thousands on, get this, a PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF TO HANG IN ONE OF HIS CLUBS. Hard to believe, but true.





He [paraclete] might be as tired of your lying as I am.

Put your big boy pants on and tell where the lie is when I report that you believe unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

We await your answer.

She sure doesn't believe children who are unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. But you do.

There is one. I have explained to you in the past, repeatedly, that I do not believe that children are held responsible. So you when you say I believe that, you are lying. Of course you can easily defend yourself by finding the quote where I said that.

Here is another. Tal responded to a quote of mine. The quote was, "No one has suggested we bash anyone with anything."
He responded by saying, "WG did and I concur." The question concerned suggesting that we bash people. Tal said that WG did and he concurred, so WG suggested it, according to him, and he concurred. Now I know he misstated his reply. My answer was tongue in cheek, also known as humor to the humor impaired.

To you, of course, it was a "Good example of how jl distorts what others say." That was completely false.

And then of course was your comment that D.C. was "filled" with right wingers, which of course was a crazy comment, poorly worded at best. Rather than just learning to laugh at yourself a bit and admitting you were mistaken, you went off on a long diatribe that the problem was not with the writer, but with the reader not being able to ferret out your meaning.

And I'm asking myself, "Why do you bother to reply to this person?" It's senseless.

Still waiting on your reply to Matthew 25. I'll make a deal with you. When you respond to Matthew 25, then I'll reply to your post. Until then, we are too much like matches and gasoline. Not a good mix.

There is one. I have explained to you in the past, repeatedly, that I do not believe that children are held responsible. So you when you say I believe that, you are lying.

ONE? Now you're saying children are not responsible. Ok, how about an old lady working a rice paddy in China who never heard of Jesus? Is she responsible? How about any number of examples who never heard of Jesus? People from thousands of years ago? Need I go on? What about all those millions, maybe billions?


My answer was tongue in cheek

Baloney. If it were, you would have said something. You said nothing until you were caught.


To you, of course, it was a "Good example of how jl distorts what others say.

You got that right.


And then of course was your comment that D.C. was "filled" with right wingers, which of course was a crazy comment,

That was previously discussed and decided upon. You lost. We'll add sore-loser to your title.


And I'm asking myself, "Why do you bother to reply to this person?" It's senseless.

That's not the first time you've said that. You've yet to live up to it. I wonder why? Could it be you're beginning to recognize how absurd your belief in hell for unbelievers is?


Still waiting on your reply to Matthew 25. I'll make a deal with you.

Sorry, I'll never make a deal with someone who supports Trump. You probably read The Art of the Deal.


When you respond to Matthew 25, then I'll reply to your post.

I'll respond when I respond. Rest assured, it won't be too much longer.

Still saying "filled with" means "hardly any"? Strange.


I'll respond when I respond. Rest assured, it won't be too much longer.

I wait patiently.

Just to be clear on all of this, my goal on this board, and in life in general, is to attempt as best I can to point out the truth, especially truth in the moral and spiritual sense as found in the Bible. I accept it all as the Word of God for a variety of good reasons. Now others here don't, and that is their choice. But if someone says, for instance, that Paul was gay, I ask for scriptural support for that. If someone says gay marriage is fine or contends there is no hell, then I ask for scriptural support for those positions as well. If someone wants to respond, "I believe xxx and I don't care what the Bible says," then at least that is an honest reply, but to suggest you have the will of God on a subject and then prove unable to support that position with scripture is mistaken.

I do not desire to live in the place of saying that I believe in the parts of the Bible that agree with my beliefs, but reject the parts that don't. To do so places my opinions above the principles of the Bible, and I think that is incredibly arrogant. That approach has a cousin named "figurative". Now there are certainly scriptures that are to be taken figuratively, and the disciples actually pointed in John 16:29 (Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.") But many people extend that principle to any scripture with which they disagree by casually, and frequently unthinkingly, describing it as simply figurative or metaphorical. In either case, we are back to placing our own opinions above those of the Bible. So for me, saying that I believe in what the Bible says is quite sufficient. It is not just "some old book" to me. If I believed otherwise, I would throw it in the trashcan. If it is not the Word of God, then it is useless.

I have my own struggles to deal with and don't believe in bashing those who are likewise struggling. On the other hand, if you name the name of Christ, then you should be able to defend your views scripturally. To point out morality as found in the Bible is not bashing. To ask someone to support his/her views is not bashing. To say that the plain and clear teaching of scripture is that Christ is the sole source of salvation for those who have faith in His lovely, wonderful and amazing name is not bashing.

As to politics, I view Trump and the repubs to be the lessor of two evils, so I will support him and them until something better comes along. I do not have great hope for that happening. The last "knights in shining armor" I saw on the political stage were Thatcher and Reagan, and even they had their warts. Most of it is an ugly power game. Genuine leadership is rare.

May I ask what that has to do with pointing out the flaws of others, and balking when they return that favor? Our faiths and the path we take to get there is between an individual and his God, as are his words, actions, and behavior. We each can only do as our spirits move us, so who cares if another thinks we move in the wrong direction or the wrong speed?

Your political choices suck though, but so what? You think mine suck too, and that's just the way it is, so deal with it, and so will I.

May I ask what that has to do with pointing out the flaws of others, and balking when they return that favor? Our faiths and the path we take to get there is between an individual and his God, as are his words, actions, and behavior. We each can only do as our spirits move us, so who cares if another thinks we move in the wrong direction or the wrong speed?

Fair enough. I try to contend for positions and doctrine and not so much attacking people, but I imagine I fall short at times.


Your political choices suck though, but so what? You think mine suck too, and that's just the way it is, so deal with it, and so will I.

I think that's why we get along. I admire your candor. I get irritated with people who won't answer simple questions and that frustration gets out of hand sometimes. It bothers me to try and interact with someone who gets so hypercritical and yet won't answer a simple question. With you, on the other hand, I always know where you stand, even if you are sometimes standing on my foot!!

Excuse me for that! I think you see me coming and put your foot in the way. 8D Or is it my jolly desposition you admire so much? 80

Or is it my jolly desposition you admire so much?

That HAS to be it!

If someone ....... contends there is no hell,

No one here contends there is no hell. This is a perfect example of how you distort things. The contention has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.


We are back to placing our own opinions above those of the Bible.

That, of course, is your opinion.


I have my own struggles to deal with and don't believe in bashing those who are likewise struggling. On the other hand, if you name the name of Christ, then you should be able to defend your views scripturally. To point out morality as found in the Bible is not bashing. To ask someone to support his/her views is not bashing.

Except for the bashing, which you do so well, this is all a red herring.


Christ is the sole source of salvation

This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century.


As to politics, I view Trump and the repubs to be the lessor of two evils

After three years of Trumpism, you STILL don't recognize a nutcase when he's right in front of you and proving his idiocy on a daily basis, well, it's mind-boggling. For someone so Bible-oriented, it's like you've sold your soul to the devil.

This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity beginning with the Catholic Church in the 12th century.

That is not true. Look up Sola Fide and see what you make of that. Might want to check out Acts 4:12 as well. Try reading the third chapter of Romans. Galatians 2:20. Many, many others. Read Peters sermon in Acts 2. Acts 3:14-16. Acts 5:31. The list could go on and on.

Matthew 25.

That is not true.


Of course, it's true.

(quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)



Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)



This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22).




Look up Sola Fide and see what you make of that.


Gladly. It's Luther's famous principle that faith, not works, is all that is necessary for salvation. However, Luther managed to say that The Letter of James which states the opposite that "Faith without works is dead" is NOT part of the New Testamant.

It has little relevance to the present discussion.

I noticed you did not read nor reference the NT passages. I value them far more than any proclamation by the Catholic Church.

You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone.

I value them far more than any proclamation by the Catholic Church.

You specifically said that what I wrote about the Catholic Church was NOT TRUE. I specifically replied to your falsehood by documenting the position of the Catholic Church. What you value re the Church is irrelevant.


You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone.

This is part of your deflection/distraction/distortion. The topic is unbelievers and eternal punishment.

You specifically said that what I wrote about the Catholic Church was NOT TRUE. I specifically replied to your falsehood by documenting the position of the Catholic Church. What you value re the Church is irrelevant.

This was your quote. "This claim has been rejected by mainstream Christianity.." Now maybe you think the Catholic Church is mainstream. I don't.

I said, "You left out part of what Luther and the reformers said. Faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone." Again, that was in response to your quote above. So no, it is not a deflection or a distortion. It went to the very heart of your statement.


This is part of your deflection/distraction/distortion. The topic is unbelievers and eternal punishment.

In addition, you claimed this was the case since the 12th century. Then you reference Vatican II which was 1959. Luther and the reformers were sixteenth century. The New Testament was first century.

Matthew 25

Now maybe you think the Catholic Church is mainstream. I don't.

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination on the planet. It is the largest in the USA. It is the oldest. But you don't think it's mainstream. Good grief! You're in a world of your own. You may not LIKE that it's mainstream, but that doesn't permit you to deny it.


In addition, you claimed this was the case since the 12th century. Then you reference Vatican II which was 1959. Luther and the reformers were sixteenth century. The New Testament was first century.

These are not directly related. They are instances describing my points in rebuttal of yours.

I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

So in the 12th century the official stance of the Catholic Church was that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is part of what Luther responded to. How does that support your position that people could believe in virtually anything so long as they were good people?


Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

Which basically says nothing to support your position. "Things which are necessary to be believed" is the important part. Even now, in the Middle East, there are documented cases of people seeing Jesus in visions and becoming Christians. If your position is correct, then the cross would be unnecessary. Why wouldn't God have simply said, "Believe in whatever and be good?"

Again, the New Testament scriptures I posted rather clearly do not support your position. You really should read them. Romans 3 is the best treatment of the subject for me.

So in the 12th century the official stance of the Catholic Church was that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This is part of what Luther responded to. How does that support your position that people could believe in virtually anything so long as they were good people?


Where did you get this idea - that my position is that people can believe virtually anything as long as they are good people? This is a major distortion of yours.


Which [the Aquinas quote] basically says nothing to support your position.

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.


Even now, in the Middle East, there are documented cases of people seeing Jesus in visions and becoming Christians.

If they're documented, you should be able to give documentation. Of course, no such thing is documented "even now". And you call me a liar?


If your position is correct, then the cross would be unnecessary. Why wouldn't God have simply said, "Believe in whatever and be good?"

Unlike you, I don't speak for God.


Again, the New Testament scriptures I posted rather clearly do not support your position. You really should read them. Romans 3 is the best treatment of the subject for me.

I have read them from the first time this subject came up many months ago and I have refuted each one in terms of unbelievers and hell. They're still in your post history - go back and read them.

You're getting weaker in your replies. That Middle East "documented" vision of Christ and conversion takes the cake. You're really stretching with that one.

OK. First of all, why don't you calm down and try reaching inside and turning down the hatred knob some.


If they're documented, you should be able to give documentation. Of course, no such thing is documented "even now". And you call me a liar?

Here's one personal testimony from Youtube. There are quite a number of others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3o


IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

No, I don't think it did. Go back and read it again. But perhaps we can make all this somewhat easier. You keep referring to a position you hold. Maybe I'm not clear on what that is. You say that, "The contention has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT." I assume, then, that you believe that unbelievers (those with no belief or no faith) can be right with God, but perhaps that is wrong, so tell us what you believe about the process of getting one's sins forgiven and being in right standing with God. Or just tell it however you believe it. In other words, state your position. It would be much easier to go from there. I don't see how your position, at least as I understand it, fits in with the multitude of scriptures I noted, but let's see more clearly after you state your belief.

OK. First of all, why don't you calm down and try reaching inside and turning down the hatred knob some.

Kettle, pot, black. Take your own advice.


No, it didn't. Go back and read it again.

Yes, it did. Here it is again - just for you. Note the underlined section.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration



OK. Here's one personal testimony from Youtube. There are quite a number of others.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3o
YouTube?? You consider a person who made a YouTube video as documentation? In any case, your claim was a VISION from Jesus, not a DREAM. Big difference, doncha' think? Note distortion here.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBrbSV5M3o)


You say that, "The contention [my] has always been opposing your belief that UNBELIEVERS GO TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT."

You are correct.


I assume then that you believe that unbelievers can be right with God.

I believe that unbelievers do NOT go to hell for eternal punishment simply because of their lack of belief.


In other words, state your position.

I have stated it many times. It is that I do not believe what your position is. Very simple. Otherwise, what my position is in regard to hell, eternal punishment, and believers/unbelievers is irrelevant. That's another topic. Start that topic if you wish. Some may be interested in giving an opinion.


I don't see how your position, at least as I understand it

You understand it quite well.


[How does it] fits in with the multitude of scriptures I noted, but let's see more clearly after you state your position.

As far as the "multitude of scriptures" you have offered as proof, I have answered each and every one (save Matthew 25 - I don't remember that one prior, but it too will be answered shortly)

Athos, duck it all you want, the Scripture is clear, Jesus declared he is the only way, you can accept it, or reject it, but you have no excuse because you have been told

Athos, duck it all you want, the Scripture is clear, Jesus declared he is the only way, you can accept it, or reject it, but you have no excuse because you have been told

You people are amazing. When someone doesn't buy your act, you immediately threaten them with hellfire. Why do you hate humanity so much? Don't lay it on Jesus - he loved humanity.

You people are amazing. When someone doesn't buy your act, you immediately threaten them with hellfire. Why do you hate humanity so much? Don't lay it on Jesus - he loved humanity.

I am not threatening you, as I said take the message or do the other thing. Yes Jesus loved all of us enough to lay down his life for us, he paid the price we could not, so I don't hate humanity, just the attitudes of some people

I am not threatening you

Of course you are. Here are your words - "You can accept it [Jesus being the only way], or reject it, but YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD"

No excuse? Why would I need an excuse? What for? What happens if I reject it (Jesus being the only way).

Of course you are. Here are your words - "You can accept it [Jesus being the only way], or reject it, but YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD"

No excuse? Why would I need an excuse? What for? What happens if I reject it (Jesus being the only way).

Athos I abore circular arguments. let me put it this way Jesus loves you, there is nothing as sad as unrequited love

You wingers ever consider it's not a rejection of Jesus that's the issue, but a rejection of your fundamentalist zeal that's the turn off for MANY? Not even all Christians go along with your version of what's considered Good Orderly Direction. I respectfully submit that quietly MOST don't.

I have stated it many times. It is that I do not believe what your position is. Very simple. Otherwise, what my position is in regard to hell, eternal punishment, and believers/unbelievers is irrelevant. That's another topic. Start that topic if you wish. Some may be interested in giving an opinion.

I've never run across anyone as afraid to go on the record with a position as you are. So your position is that you don't like my position? How strange. Perhaps you are running from the call of Christ?

It is still an interesting question that you have not answered. If people can be in right standing with God outside of faith in Jesus, then why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Why not just let everyone have the same route to God (whatever you believe that to be) that lies outside of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross?

I've never run across anyone as afraid to go on the record with a position as you are. So your position is that you don't like my position? How strange.

I will admit JL, most times I do not either, and its more a technical approach that turns me against what you are professing. That and your obvious disdain and dismissal for anything that doesn't fall in lockstep with what you are putting forth. That and your zeal for hitting people over the head with your bible! A thing you seem most comfortable with.

It's not the words of ancient man I argue against, it's the words and actions of modern men I have a problem with.

I will admit JL, most times I do not either, and its more a technical approach that turns me against what you are professing. That and your obvious disdain and dismissal for anything that doesn't fall in lockstep with what you are putting forth. That and your zeal for hitting people over the head with your bible! A thing you seem most comfortable with.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hitting people over the head". I quote scripture and present reasons for believing. How else should it be done?

Less brimestone and hellfire, more empathy and support. Bashing comes in my opinion when you quote scripture and leave no quarter for questions or interpretation or context as to relevancy in modern life. It says what it says and that's it, will never work on those that are not sheeple looking for a shepherd.

will never work on those that are not sheeple looking for a shepherd.

You are right with that. It has no appeal for those who do not want to have a shepherd.

You are right with that. It has no appeal for those who do not want to have a shepherd.

Or are happy with the one they have.

Less brimestone and hellfire, more empathy and support. Bashing comes in my opinion when you quote scripture and leave no quarter for questions or interpretation or context as to relevancy in modern life. It says what it says and that's it, will never work on those that are not sheeple looking for a shepherd.
Perfectly said!

Years age, my dad's congregation had a special program called "Each One Reach One." I wonder how each of you here would instruct the congregation members on the best, most effective way to do this.

Its what I have always felt was the inevitable route to your salvation: Its personal and it is a path you walk alone.....the path you take to your destination isn't nearly as important as your commitment to arrive at your destination. Saul and David had the most serendipitous route EVER to salvation, and they made it......that should give us ALL hope to accomplish the same!

Its what I have always felt was the inevitable route to your salvation: Its personal and it is a path you walk alone.....

Good point, V7. As Jesus said, "There are many mansions in my Father's house".

I've never run across anyone as afraid to go on the record with a position as you are. So your position is that you don't like my position? How strange. Perhaps you are running from the call of Christ?


As usual, when you run out of your silly arguments, you attack the messenger. Sometimes, I really, really wonder why I bother with you.

As usual, when you run out of your silly arguments, you attack the messenger. Sometimes, I really, really wonder why I bother with you.

I would just like to know your position. You quoted Aquinas and claimed it supported your position, a position which you seem unable to describe. So far it is that you don't like my position.


Or are happy with the one they have.

I thought that people looking for a shepherd were "sheeple". So these "sheeple" not looking for a shepherd already have one? Does that include you, Tal? If so, who is it?

I would just like to know your position. You quoted Aquinas and claimed it supported your position, a position which you seem unable to describe. So far it is that you don't like my position.

My position - supported by Aquinas - is that it is false to state that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. It couldn't be any clearer.

You take the "pro" side. I take the "con" side.

I don't know why you insist I am unable to describe my position. Here it is for the umpteenth time, described as clearly as I can possibly make it.

I thought that people looking for a shepherd were "sheeple". So these "sheeple" not looking for a shepherd already have one? Does that include you, Tal? If so, who is it?

Of course it includes me, as I have stated repeatedly I have a relationship with a God that I understand and am GRATEFUL for it. I put nothing and no one between US!