Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day. When you say, "...his whole story is about changing te politics of his day," then you reveal you know nothing about what his "whole story" was about. And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence. It is one thing to say that politics led to his arrest. It is quite another to suggest that Jesus came to change politics. That is flatly wrong.


just your demand that only the bible can prove the bible. just your demand that only the bible can prove the bible.I've made no "demand", but if someone wants to suggest that the Bible teaches something, then it would be the most sensible thing in the world to show where it does that.

When you say, "...his whole story is about changing te politics of his day," then you reveal you know nothing about what his "whole story" was about. And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence. It is one thing to say that politics led to his arrest. It is quite another to suggest that Jesus came to change politics. That is flatly wrong.
Yes, Jesus came to change politics. Here's one Bible passage: John 13:34, "Love one another."
A 180-degree turn to change politics.

Yes, Jesus came to change politics. Here's one Bible passage: John 13:34, "Love one another."
A 180-degree turn to change politics.So you agree that his "whole story" was about changing politics? Amazing.

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems on this site. You stick together through thick and thin. No statement is too outrageous to cause any one of you to disagree with another. So Jesus' "whole story" was to change politics? Well, it must be true since, after all, a liberal dem said it. And then you quote a scripture where Jesus doesn't even whisper about politics.

So you agree that his "whole story" was about changing politics? Amazing.

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems on this site. You stick together through thick and thin. No statement is too outrageous to cause any one of you to disagree with another. So Jesus' "whole story" was to change politics? Well, it must be true since, after all, a liberal dem said it. And then you quote a scripture where Jesus doesn't even whisper about politics.
YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said "his whole story." I never said that. I do agree with tal's ENTIRE statement.

Love doesn't change politics? -- the politics of a cruel monarchy overruled by dictatorial conquerers to a country without beatings, false judicial rulings, crucifixions?

[/B]When you say, "...his whole story is about changing te politics of his day," then you reveal you know nothing about what his "whole story" was about. And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence. It is one thing to say that politics led to his arrest. It is quite another to suggest that Jesus came to change politics. That is flatly wrong.

I know nothing of scripture but that's your bailiwick, I was talking about the politics of the times that basically led to the arrest of Jesus which goes back a few years before, and I'm not sure if the bible articulates it other than overturning the money tables. If it does, feel free and if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. So for the sake of discussion why was Jesus arrested?


I've made no "demand", but if someone wants to suggest that the Bible teaches something, then it would be the most sensible thing in the world to show where it does that.


"And as usual, when someone on your side of the argument is asked to back up his view with scripture, the reply is silence."

Me silent....!


So you agree that his "whole story" was about changing politics? Amazing.

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems on this site. You stick together through thick and thin. No statement is too outrageous to cause any one of you to disagree with another. So Jesus' "whole story" was to change politics? Well, it must be true since, after all, a liberal dem said it. And then you quote a scripture where Jesus doesn't even whisper about politics.

So you got no real rebuttal? I think the actions of Jesus spoke much louder than his words myself. You don't think those Jewish leaders were happy about his words and actions? Threatened by HIM?

YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said "his whole story." I never said that.You really have a problem with this quoting business don't you? I stated his words exactly and, I should note, his meaning was unmistakable. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day." Can you come up with any other rational meaning other than the "whole story" of the ministry of Christ was to change politics? Now if your meaning was that politics have changed because of Jesus, then I would agree with that, but I did not misquote or mischaracterize Tal's words.
So for the sake of discussion why was Jesus arrested?The official charge was blasphemy, but you are completely correct in saying that politics drove much of it as did greed and jealousy. There is a difference between saying that politics have changed because of Jesus versus saying Jesus came to change politics. Jesus came to change the hearts of men and women and to pay the penalty for our sins. "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost." Or as John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world."

You really have a problem with this quoting business don't you? I stated his words exactly and, I should note, his meaning was unmistakable. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day." Can you come up with any other rational meaning other than the "whole story" of the ministry of Christ was to change politics? Good grief. The official charge was blasphemy, but you are completely correct in saying that politics drove much of it as did greed and jealousy. There is a difference between saying that politics have changed because of Jesus versus saying Jesus came to change politics. Jesus came to change the hearts of men and women and to pay the penalty for our sins. "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost." Or as John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world."
You grabbed my response as I was still editing it. My final post was:
"YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said 'his whole story'. I never said that. I do agree with tal's ENTIRE statement."

I then added, "Love doesn't change politics? -- the politics of a cruel monarchy overruled by dictatorial conquerers to a country without beatings, false judicial rulings, crucifixions?"

You really have a problem with this quoting business don't you? I stated his words exactly and, I should note, his meaning was unmistakable. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day." Can you come up with any other rational meaning other than the "whole story" of the ministry of Christ was to change politics? Now if your meaning was that politics have changed because of Jesus, then I would agree with that, but I did not misquote or mischaracterize Tal's words. The official charge was blasphemy, but you are completely correct in saying that politics drove much of it as did greed and jealousy. There is a difference between saying that politics have changed because of Jesus versus saying Jesus came to change politics. Jesus came to change the hearts of men and women and to pay the penalty for our sins. "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost." Or as John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world."

Ahh, I see your confusion. Quite simply we know Jesus knew he was not making friends of the powers that be, but he acted as he did any way. You sort of did mischaracterize me, but not wholly your fault. I suspect bucking the system was an unintended consequence of doing what he was here to do. Maybe I could have been more nuanced. You don't really believe I'm always 100% right all the time do you? 8D

"YOU, misquoting tal by taking his words out of context, are the one who said 'his whole story'. I never said that. I do agree with tal's ENTIRE statement."So you don't agree with it being "his whole story", but you do agree with the ENTIRE statement. Yes. That makes perfect sense...on Mars.


I then added, "Love doesn't change politics? -- the politics of a cruel monarchy overruled by dictatorial conquerers to a country without beatings, false judicial rulings, crucifixions?"Of course it does. Love changes a lot of things, but to say that the "whole story" of Jesus was to change politics is plainly untrue.


Ahh, I see your confusion. Quite simply we know Jesus knew he was not making friends of the powers that be, but he acted as he did any way. You sort of did mischaracterize me, but not wholly your fault. I suspect bucking the system was an unintended consequence of doing what he was here to do. Maybe I could have been more nuanced. You don't really believe I'm always 100% right all the time do you? 8DMy confusion. Well of course that was the problem. When you said that, "his whole story was about changing the politics of his day," I thought you meant that, "his whole story was about changing the politics of his day," which would have meant that his entire purpose, his "whole story", was to change the politics of his day, but of course you meant that...well, I guess you meant something other than the clear, specific, and obvious meaning of what you said.

One thing I have learned here. You 3 Amigos never admit to making a mistake. It is always someone else's problem. You are legends in your own minds. 8D

One thing I have learned here. You 3 Amigos never admit to making a mistake. It is always someone else's problem. You are legends in your own minds. 8D
As long as you're leading the parade of insults, I'll add a marching band that plays the old tune, "JL doesn't read for meaning, No wonder that's why he's leaning."


So you don't agree with it being "his whole story", but you do agree with the ENTIRE statement. Yes. That makes perfect sense...on Mars.
Hope you're over that hissy fit. Now, I dare you to go back and read his ENTIRE statement.

I asked this once and you did not reply, so I'll ask it again in hope that you will. When you read this, what possible alternative meaning can you get from it other than the whole story of the life of Jesus was about changing the politics of his day. Please reply this time, or stop with the silly remarks. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story (primary purpose J.L.) is about changing the politics of his day." What other possible meaning can you get from "whole story"?

I asked this once and you did not reply, so I'll ask it again in hope that you will. When you read this, what possible alternative meaning can you get from it other than the whole story of the life of Jesus was about changing the politics of his day. Please reply this time, or stop with the silly remarks. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story is about changing the politics of his day."
You tawkin' to me, Willis? Tal said that, then softened it, for YOUR better understanding, with "I suspect bucking the system was an unintended consequence of doing what he was here to do."

That was not the statement I was referring to and you know that, nor was it the statement you were referring to when you said I "misquoted" him. So I guess that somehow makes my characterization of his statement wrong? Got it. Refer to the three amigos comment above.

That was not the statement I was referring to and you know that, nor was it the statement you were referring to when you said I "misquoted" him. So I guess that somehow makes my characterization of his statement wrong? Got it. Refer to the three amigos comment above.
I have no idea what you're talking about, what you want to hear.

You take every thing so literally, as some do, and never give an inch to nuance do you. That's okay, nitpick where you please I can always make it your fault. 8D Then I guess you never have to admit you're wrong. I'll do it for you with help from my friends.

Seriously though ancient Jews were playing politics before Jesus was born, as a matter of survival and cooperation in many cases, being occupied by foreign armies what choice did they have not to mention among themselves. Obviously when Jesus came along he had no intention of playing politics with them, their way, and therein lies the conflict. I do believe the ancient Jewish hierarchy was more afraid of the Romans than one man, but it takes courage to buck the system, political or otherwise.

I do believe the ancient Jewish hierarchy was more afraid of the Romans than one man, but it takes courage to buck the system, political or otherwise.

From https://www.differentspirit.org/posts/why-did-so-many-jews-reject-jesus.php --

"At the time of Jesus, the Jews were under the heel of the Roman Empire. Their nation was occupied and they were waiting for a leader to arise to rescue them. They were focused on the hope of a Conquering King – so much so that many overlooked the prophecies of a Suffering Servant."

Plus, the Jews feared Jesus was trying to abolish their beloved rituals and OT law.

I have no idea what you're talking about, what you want to hear.As expected.


You take every thing so literally, as some do, and never give an inch to nuance do you. That's okay, nitpick where you please I can always make it your fault. 8D Then I guess you never have to admit you're wrong. I'll do it for you with help from my friends.It's always the other guy's fault. This time you're mad because I actually took your statement at face value. I guess from now on I'll just imagine it to mean whatever I want.


Seriously though ancient Jews were playing politics before Jesus was born, as a matter of survival and cooperation in many cases, being occupied by foreign armies what choice did they have not to mention among themselves. Obviously when Jesus came along he had no intention of playing politics with them, their way, and therein lies the conflict. I do believe the ancient Jewish hierarchy was more afraid of the Romans than one man, but it takes courage to buck the system, political or otherwise.Fair enough.

2. I always figured you took things the way you wanted anyway, but I ain't mad about it...you just missed the big grins embedded in the post. That makes you wrong AGAIN but who's counting?

8D 8D 8D!!!

you just missed the big grinsYou mean the ONE big grin?

Funny how you say I "took things the way" I wanted to, but then you get aggravated at me for being literal. Well, you can't have it both ways. Do you want a literal reading, or do you want me to just take things the way I want to?

It's always the other guy's fault.

This has become your mantra whenever you run out of cogent things to say which is your usual state of affairs.

As expected.

It's always the other guy's fault.
.

well it couldn't be your fault, could it, afterall you are perfect

This has become your mantra whenever you run out of cogent things to say which is your usual state of affairs.Thank you for that confirmation. Always someone else at fault. Never you.

Bad news, Tal, and more likely coming.

"EXCLUSIVE: Transcripts (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/intel-chief-tells-schiff-transcripts-of-russia-probe-interviews-cleared-for-release) of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday.This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-says-there-is-direct-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-campaign-and-russia) of collusion."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-transcripts-collusion-schiff-panic-mode-sources

Don't know why this would be bad news unless you want to gloat over Schiff not having direct evidence of collussion. We knew that already and we also know why that is, so what's your point?

Wait and see. Might amount to nothing, but the potential for exposing a number of violations of law appears to be significant.

I seriously doubt that since whatever violations and wrong doing have been effectively swept under the rug by the repub senate during the dufus impeachment. The dufus has since fired his "enemies" and anybody who isn't a loyal sycophant and made a complete debacle of the virus reponce both from a health perspective and an economical one.

That's why I ask what your point was.

My point? You can start here. " the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-says-there-is-direct-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-campaign-and-russia) of collusion." Where is that "direct evidence" Schiff said they had when, in fact, it seems they had none? You can't claim that was swept under the rug by the repubs when Schiff was claiming he had it even before the hearings started. So where is it???

I've said all I have to say on the subject and until we get something new and concrete you can speculate all you want about it. Anything to not talk about the current dufus debacle happening everyday. In our other thread on this forum you are bring back the morality of abortion in comparison to the corona deaths so you sound pretty desperate to change the subject to blast the dems/liberals/left while you guys fumble and bumble over what to do about this health crisis.

I'd rather see the lists of how trillions were spent by banks and Mnuchin that was future taxpayer money if you don't mind.

you are bring back the morality of abortion in comparison to the corona deaths so you sound pretty desperate to change the subject to blast the dems/liberals/left while you guys fumble and bumble over what to do about this health crisis.I have to bring it up since the moral left on this board absolutely refuses to do so. They just don't care.


I'd rather see the lists of how trillions were spent by banks and Mnuchin that was future taxpayer money if you don't mind.Aren't you the one always telling me that we can't value lives over money???

1. I get it's your pet peeve, and speaking just for me, not mine. It's not like I don't care, certainly not as loudly as you do, but my approach is just much different. Obviously not to your liking. I would prefer all females and males verify pregnancy early, and consult with a doctor for options. After that individuals can make their own decisions.

2. How is asking the question valuing money over people? Fiscal responsibility, and accountability goes to helping more people faster don't you thing? What we can't talk about people and money at the same time or what?

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement. "I'd rather see the lists of how trillions were spent by banks and Mnuchin that was future taxpayer money if you don't mind." You'd rather see lists about trillions of dollars than think about millions of unborn children being killed.

Well, I keep forgetting. It's that literal thing again. I'll just view your statement as you saying you will send me a hundred bucks ASAP.


Fiscal responsibility, and accountability goes to helping more people faster don't you thing? What we can't talk about people and money at the same time or what?I agree with that. The problem is that when I make that same point concerning the economy, you go ballistic and accuse me of valuing money over lives. It seems to be another one of those things that's OK when you do it, but not OK for conservatives to do.

1. We differ on the children thing, and I have asked you if your abortion objection extends to the females who have resources and make regular visits to the obygn office to make sure they don't carry possible pregnancies to term. However that aside as a guy that seems to be beyond my control and yours too, save for the poorest or less resourced females without insurance or even a doctor that go to public clinics like PP where to stop abortions you also stop the millions of others they serve with health care. You should also consider I might have more pressing stuff in my life that doesn't leave much time to even consider your life crusade against abortions which we've been dealing with for eons now.

2. Yes we have discussed it, but I've never gone ballistic even when you get snarky about it over a disagreement in terms and tactics. I can be the same way, but I can assure you going ballistic is a mischaracterization by you of my responses. In our discussions we should be open to data and details by which we can formulate a plan of action. I don't think I have personally ever jumped on you and accused you of many things, more you taking it that way in my opinion, but I could be wrong given my ability to be aggressive at times.

if your abortion objection extends to the females who have resources and make regular visits to the obygn office to make sure they don't carry possible pregnancies to term.Otherwise known as AN ABORTION! So yes, I would oppose that as I've told you repeatedly.

That's what I though, so you don't have to assume you are on your own in that regard. You are.

I would ten thousand times rather be "alone" on that issue than to simply be willing to throw human lives away.

Seems we have different things we worry about. Right now I hope my peeps and everybody else don't get sick and die. Probably why I have been calling them so much and they keep calling me.

Seems we have different things we worry about.Exactly.

Good luck with what's worry you.

https://imgur.com/gallery/S4IjCQB?fbclid

That was pretty good Ben, considering the WH has just experienced it's second case of infection (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/2nd-coronavirus-case-confirmed-u-s-cdc-reports-n1121911), and the top doc is in quarantine.
(https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dr-fauci-plans-to-attend-senate-hearing-tuesday-amid-modified-coronavirus-quarantine/ar-BB13R0Pr?ocid=spartanntp)
I guess the new strategy is business as usual despite rising infections and deaths.

Is it possible to agree that one can want to protect the vulnerable and also open the economy? Why does that seem so difficult for people?

I can agree, but is a SAFE reopening possible? Like BBQing in the back yard during a tornado is a great idea? I get being scared of having no money and losing everything you worked for, disruptions can really be terrifying, but a healthy country can rebuild faster and better than an unhealthy one.

Is it possible to agree that one can want to protect the vulnerable and also open the economy? Why does that seem so difficult for people?Because the same people who think it's OK to be 25 tril in debt are the ones trying to understand how to reopen the economy.

There is no such thing as a safe reopening, just like there is no such thing as a safe drive to work, a safe marriage, a safe childbirth, or a safe day at work. We can lessen risk, but we can't eliminate it. We cannot just go on week after week and allow this economy to fall apart. The suffering that would bring on would be enormous, so we have to do as Tom suggested and reopen in a manner that is as safe as we can come up with.

you are completely disregarding the health impact that a poor economy will bring and the non-covi19 health concerns that are being ignored or put off because of this single focus on preventing infection (which I'm not so sure is possible . All we are really doing is delaying the inevidible on the hope that a vaccine or treatment can be achieved ) .

Thousands of procedures have been delayed . I know someone who has had to go to the emergency room twice because a procedure he was scheduled to have done in April was cancelled . He now has a 'tentative ' date some time in June ... and that only happened because his doctor had to make a special appeal on his behalf. How many diagnostic procedures have been cancelled ? We are not talking about liposuction . We are talking about serious issues.

Hospitals are shutting down ;private practices going out of business. I know someone who depends on routine visits to his doctor who is now scrambling to find another doctor who specializes in the areas he needs .

And this is just one small part of the economy. Many small business will not recover . What happens to the former employees who no longer have health coverage ? The states can't even manage to get the unemployment checks out ,let alone cover the medical needs of the unemployed .

SAFE ? Well lets see . There are fewer auto accidents because the economy is shut down. So why not just dictate that people can't drive ? That would insure safety on the roads . Humans were not meant to live in a bubble . Humans have lived with the threat of pandemic since we became a species .

H2N2 killed 2 million worldwide in 1958 , The world economy was not shut down. The 1968 flu killed 1 million . The world economy did not shut down. HIV has killed over 36 million .
Currently there are between 31 and 35 million people living with HIV, the vast majority of those are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 5% of the population is infected. Before there were treatments to contain it ,and before it was discovered how it is transmitted ,the world did not shut down it's economy .
The logic of the shutdown was to prevent the overwhelming of the hospital system. The goal was to 'flatten the curve'. That has been achieved . Timeget people back to work . You would think that the libs would want that too. How else is all those freebies supposed to be paid for ?

Very good post, Tom. Risk can be mitigated, but generally cannot be eliminated.

Because the same people who think it's OK to be 25 tril in debt are the ones trying to understand how to reopen the economy.

There is no such thing as a safe reopening, just like there is no such thing as a safe drive to work, a safe marriage, a safe childbirth, or a safe day at work. We can lessen risk, but we can't eliminate it. We cannot just go on week after week and allow this economy to fall apart. The suffering that would bring on would be enormous, so we have to do as Tom suggested and reopen in a manner that is as safe as we can come up with.

Ignoring the virus is no solution, and consider that workers go home after a shift.

Yes. It would be much better for those worker to have no home to go to since they could not pay their bills. No car. No food. No hope. Now that's a really good, panicky plan.

Good news for free speech. Police officer reprimanded for supporting Trump elected president of Chicago police union.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/police-officer-reprimanded-for-supporting-trump-elected-president-of-chicago-police-union/vi-BB13RHzZ

you are completely disregarding the health impact that a poor economy will bring and the non-covi19 health concerns that are being ignored or put off because of this single focus on preventing infection (which I'm not so sure is possible . All we are really doing is delaying the inevidible on the hope that a vaccine or treatment can be achieved ) .

Thousands of procedures have been delayed . I know someone who has had to go to the emergency room twice because a procedure he was scheduled to have done in April was cancelled . He now has a 'tentative ' date some time in June ... and that only happened because his doctor had to make a special appeal on his behalf. How many diagnostic procedures have been cancelled ? We are not talking about liposuction . We are talking about serious issues.

Hospitals are shutting down ;private practices going out of business. I know someone who depends on routine visits to his doctor who is now scrambling to find another doctor who specializes in the areas he needs .

And this is just one small part of the economy. Many small business will not recover . What happens to the former employees who no longer have health coverage ? The states can't even manage to get the unemployment checks out ,let alone cover the medical needs of the unemployed .

SAFE ? Well lets see . There are fewer auto accidents because the economy is shut down. So why not just dictate that people can't drive ? That would insure safety on the roads . Humans were not meant to live in a bubble . Humans have lived with the threat of pandemic since we became a species .

H2N2 killed 2 million worldwide in 1958 , The world economy was not shut down. The 1968 flu killed 1 million . The world economy did not shut down. HIV has killed over 36 million .
Currently there are between 31 and 35 million people living with HIV, the vast majority of those are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 5% of the population is infected.
Before there were treatments to contain it ,and before it was discovered how it is transmitted ,the world did not shut down it's economy .
The logic of the shutdown was to prevent the overwhelming of the hospital system. The goal was to 'flatten the curve'. That has been achieved . Timeget people back to work . You would think that the libs would want that too. How else is all those freebies supposed to be paid for ?



Forget those freebies, irrelevant spin. Let's go with NEED to weather the storm. At this time I won't get into personal stories, but as a collective we have been exposed for many structural shortcomings that should have been addressed long ago.

In all of this discussion, it does not escape me that, due to being 67, I am in the high risk group. I am otherwise in good health. Still, I understand that we cannot just let weeds start growing in the highways. We have to get the economy back up to full speed.

Hey Tal. Guess who else is in the high risk group? 8D

Poor people of color, especially those who get the "essentials" label, and secret service agents? Oh you mean me, and the wife?

Hey Tal. Guess who else is in the high risk group? 8D,not

I went on a supplement regimin when I got the virus that included vit c 2,000 mg Vitamin D 5,000 IU (going to cut back on the d now that I can soak in the sun ) zinc 50 mg and L Glutathione 500 mg although I hear intervenious pushes are more effective . I also got extract of cinchona which has naturally occuring quinine . I mixed that with fresh squeezed lemons and added it to fresh brewed herbal tea that includes licorice root ,fennel ,peppermint ,and ginger . Drank it both as a hot and cold tea . (this is not official medical advice) .



especially those who get the "essentials" label I consider most work essential and even knowing the risk ,was happy to report to work ,and am happy to be back . I feel bad for those who were sold a bill of goods with the promise of an enhanced unemployment check and in many cases have not received it yet.

I feel bad for those who were sold a bill of goods with the promise of an enhanced unemployment check and in many cases have not received it yet.And even at that, it was all based on borrowed money. That is going to come back and seriously bite us at some point in the future.

Everything in America is based on borrowed money. No matter what we do somebody is going to have to borrow money. That's how things are financed in America. Folks will eventually get those enhanced checks once states get them processed with their antiquated systems. Imagine not updating your software since you bought your device. Ever wonder how Wall Street can process many millions of transactions almost instantly and accurately? Or your credit card company? Or banks?

Everything in America is based on borrowed money. No matter what we do somebody is going to have to borrow money.First of all, that is not true. Secondly, in the private sector, if money is borrowed it is with the understanding that it will be repaid, so it is borrowed with care. With the feds, we have become such a stupid country that our pols borrow money with no intention of ever paying it back, so indebtedness just grows ever larger.

Can't express it much better than this. https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/95522450_10216429386957290_2892577941764440064_n.j pg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=GaRMNjXjEMcAX-MmVwd&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=acdb6ce1e6b5eeb40093f1c7dd00af2e&oe=5EDDBF0C

First of all, that is not true. Secondly, in the private sector, if money is borrowed it is with the understanding that it will be repaid, so it is borrowed with care. With the feds, we have become such a stupid country that our pols borrow money with no intention of ever paying it back, so indebtedness just grows ever larger.

Government and the private sector have different tools and financing options and the problem with you wingers is you don't know that. The private sector NEVER finances projects with it's own money. They always borrow from investors or banks or markets by being able to show a profit.

This stupid country of yours never needs to show a profit, just the ability to pay. If the best economy in the history of mankind can't manage it's finances during this health crisis then we are all in trouble. Was this just lip service or what?

Pretty obvious your caged bird has no clue what he is talking about.

What different tools and options are you referring to?

The private sector frequently finances projects from that company's own reserves, so your statement is absolutely incorrect. They sometimes borrow money, and at other times they sell shares in the company to raise funds, but it's always with the idea in mind of paying any borrowed money back. Local governments sometimes do the same thing by selling bonds. What the feds do is different and greatly more dangerous. They have figured out that they can just spend and spend and spend, and simply borrow the money. So we get our goodies without the burden of having to pay for them, and people like you eat it up without so much as a thought about it. They borrow money with no intention whatsoever of ever paying it back, so the indebtedness just grows and grows. We are surviving now because interest rates are low, but the day is coming when that will not be the case, and then your theory is going to be shown to be a liberal mirage.

Do one thing for me. Look at the chart here. Look at the column "Debt to GDP Ratio". Look at what happened during WW2 (a legit national emergency if there ever was one) and then for the ten or fifteen years afterward, and then begin in 2008 and look up to the present. Tell me if it doesn't cause a sizable lump to come up in your throat.

This is not a conservative/liberal debate, or a repub/dem issue. It's a question of whether or not the laws of common sense have been rescinded for the federal government.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

What different tools and options are you referring to?

The private sector frequently finances projects from that company's own reserves, so your statement is absolutely incorrect. They sometimes borrow money, and at other times they sell shares in the company to raise funds, but it's always with the idea in mind of paying any borrowed money back. Local governments sometimes do the same thing by selling bonds. What the feds do is different and greatly more dangerous. They have figured out that they can just spend and spend and spend, and simply borrow the money. So we get our goodies without the burden of having to pay for them, and people like you eat it up without so much as a thought about it. They borrow money with no intention whatsoever of ever paying it back, so the indebtedness just grows and grows. We are surviving now because interest rates are low, but the day is coming when that will not be the case, and then your theory is going to be shown to be a liberal mirage.

Google is your friend.


Do one thing for me. Look at the chart here. Look at the column "Debt to GDP Ratio". Look at what happened during WW2 (a legit national emergency if there ever was one) and then for the ten or fifteen years afterward, and then begin in 2008 and look up to the present. Tell me if it doesn't cause a sizable lump to come up in your throat.

This is not a conservative/liberal debate, or a repub/dem issue. It's a question of whether or not the laws of common sense have been rescinded for the federal government.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

Great site with enough embedded links that answer all your questions.

That would be good since you plainly have no answers at all. Thus your "Google is your friend" silliness. I have never understood why you make statements for which you have no knowledge and no support whatsoever.

How would you know that unless you did your own homework fact finding? You really should try it my way before you question my knowledge and support for my stated positions.

Dismissing them out of hand is NOT your friend. You do better explaining why having a sick population benefits the economy, in both the short term and long term.

Facts over feelings only please.

Try it your way? OK. Here we go. "Hey everyone. I'm going to make wild claims, but don't ask me to support them. You look up this stuff for yourself." There you go.

I haven't dismissed any of your contentions. I've just asked you to clarify.


You do better explaining why having a sick population benefits the economy, in both the short term and long term.If I had ever made such a dumb comment, I would explain it. Since I never have, I won't.

"Facts over feelings?" How about facts over old cliches.

Try it your way? OK. Here we go. "Hey everyone. I'm going to make wild claims, but don't ask me to support them. You look up this stuff for yourself." There you go.

I haven't dismissed any of your contentions. I've just asked you to clarify.

If I had ever made such a dumb comment, I would explain it. Since I never have, I won't.

"Facts over feelings?" How about facts over old cliches.

It's okay if you rather play smart mouth instead of serious discussion, but I challenged you to explore your own provided link, one that I keep in favorites by the way, and then dispute my wild claims.


"You do better explaining why having a sick population benefits the economy, in both the short term and long term.".

Also how in the world can you reopen an economy and sustain it to growth with rising sickness and death? Even Korea and Germany are facing this situation after bending their infection curve DOWN. Even China is may be coming on a second wave of infections as corona19 related illness in kids is being found.

May I remind you my response was to your own posts? Your facts and data? I made no wild allegations. Just simple suggestions.

It's okay if you rather play smart mouth instead of serious discussion, but I challenged you to explore your own provided link, one that I keep in favorites by the way, and then dispute my wild claims.This was your claim. "Government and the private sector have different tools and financing options and the problem with you wingers is you don't know that." I asked a simple question for the smart liberal to explain what those options were. Plainly you have no idea what you're talking about since you could not offer a single syllable of explanation.

That is so funny. You challenged me to explore my own link? The one you could not comment on?


"You do better explaining why having a sick population benefits the economy, in both the short term and long term.".Who said that?


Also how in the world can you reopen an economy and sustain it to growth with rising sickness and death? Even Korea and Germany are facing this situation after bending their infection curve DOWN. Even China is may be coming on a second wave of infections as corona19 related illness in kids is being found.Ask Sweden how it's done.


May I remind you my response was to your own posts? Your facts and data? I made no wild allegations. Just simple suggestions.Right.

1. When I went to the link YOU provided there was so much embedded data, some I had read before that made copy/paste unnecessary, since all you had to do was click through it like I did. Maybe you draw a different conclusion but we both had the same information. IT WAS YOUR LINK!

Okay I just didn't feel like copy and pasting for you today! Happy now?

2. It was another challenge for your right wing conservative mind.

3. I did examine Sweden and their curve is edging upward. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/)

Okay I just didn't feel like copy and pasting for you today! Happy now?Well, you could have simply explained it in your own words, especially since you claim to know what conservatives don't know. For that matter, you still can.

I did and ask you to google and explore your own links. That throws you into a snit. To your debt question,

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4344554-what-20-year-bond-means-for-interest-rate-markets


The U.S. Department of the Treasury will issue significantly more debt than the market had expected in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, including some $54 billion over the next three months in the form of 20-year bonds, according to an official announcement (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1001) on May 6.


The Treasury believes that there will be strong demand from investors for the 20-year bonds, which will allow the Treasury to finance its longer-term obligations at today's very low interest rates.


And

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

I guess you providing links will have to suffice for an explanation in your own words. But since you have this down, why don't you explain this paragraph?

“We continue to emphasize that this Fed will act aggressively and in particular that central banks are focused on safeguarding market functioning at this point, and will continue to provide liquidity in scale,” Ebrahim Rahbari, director of global economics at Citi Research. “However, despite the sharp initial risk rally, we think these measures will still not be sufficiently to durably stabilize market sentiment yet in light of credit concerns and escalating health concerns.”

I guess you providing links will have to suffice for an explanation in your own words. But since you have this down, why don't you explain this paragraph?

“We continue to emphasize that this Fed will act aggressively and in particular that central banks are focused on safeguarding market functioning at this point, and will continue to provide liquidity in scale,” Ebrahim Rahbari, director of global economics at Citi Research. “However, despite the sharp initial risk rally, we think these measures will still not be sufficiently to durably stabilize market sentiment yet in light of credit concerns and escalating health concerns.”

The fed will do what it can, but we have a long way to go before things get better.

That's your explanation? Hmmm.

By law I believe the fed does have limits, and quite possibly they may not be able to render as much aid as possible to resolve this challenge without the aid of other sources, namely the congress. At best it's a temporary stopgap fix depending on the monetary policies needed on a more longterm basis.

What do you think it means?

I don't know. That's why I wouldn't bother to make reference to it. I don't link to issues to I don't feel like I understand.

Now the thoughtful person in charge of the Congress is suggesting we borrow and spend another 3 trillion. It is insanity on steroids. No talk of spending cuts. No talk of making a wiser and more efficient use of the money we do have. Just borrow, borrow, borrow. I hope Trump will have the backbone to oppose this.

You have a more thoughtful resolution/ What would you cut? If this reopining of the ecomomy results in more sickness and death how should we resolve that?

I would not spend money we don't have. I would not send money to people who don't need it. Think of this. We could send EVERY unemployed adult American a check for five grand right now and spend about 100 billion. They are talking about 3 trillion. For three tril we could send every American alive a check for 10 thousand dollars. If it's all just that easy, then why not do that every single year???

It is craziness.

I like your idea. Save money and send everybody cash. So what of the virus and it's effects on the economy? We are learning that some young people and children can be very adversely affected also, and a disproportionate number of infections (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-08/coronavirus-racial-disparity) and deaths are found in minority communities. (https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/minority-communities-covid-19.html)

Maybe we should double your cash payments and still save until we get a vaccine or some better treatments.

If it's just a matter of borrowing and spending, then we are good to go. However, that is a big, big IF.

I added links to my last post, but as long as it just money then keep throwing it at the virus...and at ME!

Yes Tal, seems to be the current thinking, however, politicians are fickle

but as long as it just money then keep throwing it at the virus...and at ME!Wow. What a crazy statement. Amazingly, I think you actually believe it.

can't you tell when someone is pulling your leg

Maybe JL swallowed the lysol instead of just gargling and spitting it out. Unless he sees the 8D then he takes things seriously and literally with enough fire and brimstones to scare the heathens.

Maybe JL swallowed the lysol instead of just gargling and spitting it out. Unless he sees the 8D then he takes things seriously and literally with enough fire and brimstones to scare the heathens.Considering that you're the guy who said he didn't mind piling debt onto the shoulders of his grandchildren because, after all, every generation has its burden to bear, then I don't consider any statement of yours to be so outrageous as to be obviously spoken in jest.

The crap pile of debt has been piling up a long time and will continue to grow until some future generation cleans it up or does something about it. So until we humans rise above the challenge then we wallow in our own crap like we always have. The thing is we as a collective are so entrenched in our own narrow views we have a huge problem listening and reaching a good consensus, and formulating a plan that we can focus on executing, based on facts and not just feelings, or false choices of either or.

The crap pile of debt has been piling up a long time and will continue to grow until some future generation cleans it up or does something about it. So until we humans rise above the challenge then we wallow in our own crap like we always have. What would prevent us from doing something about it now other than an utter lack of intelligence and honor?

You mean respect don't you instead of honor, for the opposite position? I think that's where consensus and compromise starts.

I mean honor. Honor in the sense that I would rather do without than pass on this kind of debt to my grandchildren. Respect for the "carelessly borrow and spend for anything and everything" crowd? Not on your life.

Is borrowing and spending in this health crisis worth it to you? What are you willing to do without?

To help my grandchildren??? Are you seriously asking that question?

Can't you just seriously answer the questions? I'm just curious about YOUR America, as opposed to mine. My America struggles for the meaning of the words in the constitution given to yours and not mine, which leaves very little to give up since we trying to get and have something for our grand kids. Mine were slaves a lot longer than we were free and still have to abide by the rich guy master crap that you seem only to willing to help perpetrate.

So your answers please. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but we still working hard to overcome, and you seem to keep your stubborn arse in the way!

I await your response.

What are you willing to do without?


So your answers please. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but we still working hard to overcome, and you seem to keep your stubborn arse in the way!

Right off the top of my head, I would begin by cutting every federal department by 2% a year until the budget was balanced with the exception of the military. I would cut them by something more than 2% the first year and continue until the military was a good bit smaller than now, and that would be accompanied by learning how to mind our own business better. I would give every federal employee a 5% pay cut. I would cut welfare payments by the same amount. I would establish a standard that no person healthy in mind and body would be eligible for welfare. I would give every federal forest a hard look to see if we really need to have a gazillion acres of forest land owned by the feds. I would do away with the ethanol subsidies. I would give our tax program a long, hard look and likely go with a flat tax. I would pass a law that, barring a legit national emergency, would establish harsh penalties for any congressman/woman idiotic and reckless enough to suggest new spending with no adequate means to pay for it.

How about you? I'm hopeful to get an answer from you. The other two of the Three Amigos are reluctant beyond words to answer tough questions. I do hope that you don't base your plan on the idea that we can just tax the rich and balance the budget. That is impossible from a math point of view.



I await your response.

I don't think this virus will let us bring about a budgetary path to a more balanced budget, nor see one until we get this virus under control which makes an outlay of even more funding to that end almost mandatory. I don't see the economy anywhere near full recovery in order to pay the bills we are racking up which won't stop until we have a vaccine, or an aggressive treatment regime that allows people safely back to work full time.

We haven't gotten the bill for this yet, and until we do we can't know what we will have to do to restore any fiscal sanity to the country. Nearly half the country was poor before the bug, and I see that growing as long as it's making people sick and killing folks.

Sorry that's all I got as a response to what you posted, but I doubt the normal arguments even apply right now other than measures to ease the social disruptions that the shutdown has caused and fear any reopening will result in even more sickness and deaths and MO"MONEY on the credit card.

Just keeping it real!

We haven't gotten the bill for this yet, and until we do we can't know what we will have to do to restore any fiscal sanity to the country. Nearly half the country was poor before the bug, and I see that growing as long as it's making people sick and killing folks.

a liberal talking about fiscal sanity, Tal, not something expected from that side of the fence. The government cannot cure poor, never has, never will

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/96794242_3251487981530765_6921890536865398784_n.jp g?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=zANVyEu51e0AX8HqDlv&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=bc5b53aa38284479dda4c92b7366c93e&oe=5EE04A7F

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/96794242_3251487981530765_6921890536865398784_n.jp g?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=zANVyEu51e0AX8HqDlv&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=bc5b53aa38284479dda4c92b7366c93e&oe=5EE04A7F
I'm a Republican, but will answer, or rather, will ask a counter question. Are you willing to die from COVID-19?

So you don't answer the question, but want to ask one? Doesn't work that way.

So you don't answer the question, but want to ask one? Doesn't work that way.
Why can't women say "my body, my choice" when they want an abortion?

So, no, you can't say that.

Plus, it would be one of the most selfish, unloving actions that a person who claims to be a Christian could take.

Why can't women say "my body, my choice" when they want an abortion?Because it is not just about their bodies at that point. There are two lives at stake.



Plus, it would be one of the most selfish, unloving actions that a person who claims to be a Christian could take.If you are referring to abortion, then I agree completely.

It's disturbing to see cops use force to enforce social distancing guidelines just as it's disturbing to see the dufus trying to undermine Dr. Fauci,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/13/republicans-are-increasingly-turning-against-fauci/

You can take whatever moral stance you want regarding any issue, but it's YOUR moral stance and others have a right to theirs so comparing legal abortions to responses to a global health crisis is a totally false equivalency. Just as ignoring the sickness and death for economic reasons without safeguards is asking for more bad stuff to happen.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, but if you want to be healthy, you endure it until you're cured.

a little smoke and mirrors going on here

You took the words right out of my mouth, and I've said so since Reagan and his low wage job creation claims. The practice has endured ever since, and been exported to other countries big time as well, making poverty a growth business for many who need cheap labor to turn a buck.

The foundation of the trickle down economic policy, and business model. Profits over people.

Except, of course, that the number of people making minimum wage is only about 2% of the population and that wages have grown over time.


You can take whatever moral stance you want regarding any issue,
Bear in mind that your view is a moral position itself. Your approach is exactly the same that many people took in the 1850's regarding slavery. It was reprehensible then, and it is reprehensible now to regard a concern for human beings as being nothing more than merely a "moral stance". The next time you want to raise your largely false narrative about the kids in detention on the southern border, should I refer to that as nothing more than a "moral stance"?

And btw, I am not advocating against wearing masks. I wear mine in public. The point was a great deal deeper than whether or not to wear a mask.

1. Even if true, the cost of living has also increased at a greater rate than some wages. You cannot ignore that part of the equation.

2. You can take my position any way you please. Mans cruelty to man is just a matter of history, as are his excuses for it. We make laws and people break them all the time. We change laws over time and people still break them. There is always the few against the many. Even doing the best we can, humans fall short of perfection.

So I take your point, but just don't agree with it. I see your narratives as false as you see mine, so what's the deal here? I doubt that changes anytime soon as long as we engage and interact on things beyond the flavor of donuts. Full disclosure, I have my favorite donuts, but love them ALL! I guess where I draw lines on my positions and the accompanying morality is the effects on others. On this and many issues we seem to have different approaches and abortions are just one of many. I get you want the laws changed and good luck with that, but until that happens actions within the law are accepted, as actions about slavery were accepted, since the first slave arrived here, and the laws were changed over time.

Slavery is illegal, but putting a value on human worth is still done by humans who are deemed to be authorized and accepted as authority. You may be a better paid slave, but a slave to the system nonetheless, under the thin veneer of voluntary participation. Like there are other choices. When the boss says show up, he doesn't ask what else you rather be doing, or what your morality is, you better show up.

You have the same choices that slaves had back then when it was legal except the physical chains and beatings were replaced with economic ones, less physical but just as binding. More so even.

Even if true, the cost of living has also increased at a greater rate than some wages. My statement is true, and this statement is not true.


I guess where I draw lines on my positions and the accompanying morality is the effects on others.I don't think you do. If you really did, you would support the right of unborn to live. Since their brutal deaths are done in secret, most people just yawn and make moral platitudes.


You have the same choices that slaves had back then when it was legal except the physical chains and beatings were replaced with economic ones, less physical but just as binding. More so even.I think if you had been a slave for even two weeks, you would never make such an absurd statement. Have you ever read of the slaves who fled north at the risk of their lives deciding to just go back and live in slavery again? Of course they didn't, and it just goes to show how crazy your statement is.

Because it is not just about their bodies at that point. There are two lives at stake.
That's your belief. Others believe that it's not a real person until it's been born and is breathing.

WG: Plus, it would be one of the most selfish, unloving actions that a person who claims to be a Christian could take.

If you are referring to abortion, then I agree completely.
No, as you well know, I was referring to not wearing a mask.

1. How convenient you ignore the rising pricings as you mention wages rising.

2. I don't have to pass your moral litmus test nor agree with your opinion on any subject. What you think seldom moves me.

3. The end of chains on black people was but the start of expanding the chains on all people. The moral thing to do? Progress? Evolution maybe? While you're reading you accounts of the past, take time to ask a black man NOW if his struggle is over yet. Let me know what they tell you.

The absurdity lies with you my friend if you think that the end of slavery ended subjugation, oppression, discrimination, suppression, racism, or any other excuse for man's cruelty to man.

That's your belief. Others believe that it's not a real person until it's been born and is breathing.It is not simply my belief that there are two bodies. That is as plainly evident as can be. As to the issue of "born and breathing", no one with any real knowledge of unborn children believes such a ridiculous idea. Brainwaves, heartbeat, and completely functioning body systems are all present months before delivery. The argument is ludicrous.


3. The end of chains on black people was but the start of expanding the chains on all people. The moral thing to do? Progress? Evolution maybe? While you're reading you accounts of the past, take time to ask a black man NOW if his struggle is over yet. Let me know what they tell you.

The absurdity lies with you my friend if you think that the end of slavery ended subjugation, oppression, discrimination, suppression, racism, or any other excuse for man's cruelty to man.It is my fervent hope that you will someday have to endure slavery for a few months in the hope that on some dark, hopeless night it will dawn upon you what a priceless possession you had with your freedom that you so easily dismiss as "chains". You live where you want. You work where you want. You decide when to leave and when to return home. You enjoy a standard of living most of the world yearns for, and yet you make such statements.


How convenient you ignore the rising pricings as you mention wages rising.I didn't ignore rising prices. Go back and read my statement with a little more care. Wages have outpaced consumer prices in the years since Reagan.

It is my fervent hope that you will someday have to endure slavery for a few months in the hope that on some dark, hopeless night it will dawn upon you what a priceless possession you had with your freedom that you so easily dismiss as "chains". You live where you want. You work where you want. You decide when to leave and when to return home. You enjoy a standard of living most of the world yearns for, and yet you make such statements.

It is my fervent hope you can walk in the shoes of a minority, and tell me how perfect the world is. Maybe it's better here than elsewhere in the world, no doubt, but don't try to feed me the crap sandwich about what I or any minority yearns for.



I didn't ignore rising prices. Go back and read my statement with a little more care. Wages have outpaced consumer prices in the years since Reagan.

Pure loony BS!

It is not simply my belief that there are two bodies. That is as plainly evident as can be. As to the issue of "born and breathing", no one with any real knowledge of unborn children believes such a ridiculous idea. Brainwaves, heartbeat, and completely functioning body systems are all present months before delivery. The argument is ludicrous.
But it isn't breathing.

If you were female and had been impregnated by a selfish, demanding husband/boyfriend (especially one who had no interest in birth control), a rapist, a family member (incest), birth control failure, etc., you'll have little or no interest in nine months of nausea and vomiting, headaches, weight gain, backaches, frequent need to pee, constipation, swollen ankles, constant fatigue, being uncomfortable no matter the position, et al. (yeah, there's more).

Thus, abortion is the solution.

Response to tal:
You live where you want. You work where you want. You decide when to leave and when to return home. You enjoy a standard of living most of the world yearns for, and yet you make such statements.
Yet Ahmaud Arbery was chased by white two guys in a truck and shot dead while out jogging. "Why?" they were asked later. "He was a black man running down our road," was the answer.

It is my fervent hope you can walk in the shoes of a minority, and tell me how perfect the world is. Maybe it's better here than elsewhere in the world, no doubt, but don't try to feed me the crap sandwich about what I or any minority yearns for.I haven't suggested anything is perfect. I did not say that minorities were yearning for anything. How long have you had these reading difficulties? At any rate, your casual disregard of the beauty of personal freedom is pathetic.


Yet Ahmaud Arbery was chased by white two guys in a truck and shot dead while out jogging. "Why?" they were asked later. "He was a black man running down our road," was the answer.Yes, and a black cop IN CHICAGO gunned down an unarmed white man. Anecdotal stories get us nowhere. The truth is, black people are FAR more likely to be gunned down by another black person than by a white racist. The latter is relatively rare. The former happens many times a day, but people don't care about them since they don't advance your liberal political narrative.


But it isn't breathing.

If you were female and had been impregnated by a selfish, demanding husband/boyfriend (especially one who had no interest in birth control), a rapist, a family member (incest), birth control failure, etc., you'll have little or no interest in nine months of nausea and vomiting, headaches, weight gain, backaches, frequent need to pee, constipation, swollen ankles, constant fatigue, being uncomfortable no matter the position, et al. (yeah, there's more).

Thus, abortion is the solution.I'm sure you're right. Better to kill the irritating, aggravating little "thing" than to have to put up with so much discomfort. After all, it's not even breathing. Pull off arms and remove. Pull off legs and remove. Pull off head and remove. Remove remaining torso. Carefully reassemble the parts on the table to make sure you got all of it (frequently done just like that) because after all, being nauseated or having constipation is simply asking too much in exchange for bringing a life into the world.

For that matter, you will next be advocating to kill the ones born physically disabled or mentally challenged. You'll find some arbitrary measure about as meaningless as "not breathing" to justify it.

But at least you have now been honest enough to admit that you are in favor of abortion.

It is my fervent hope you can walk in the shoes of a minority, and tell me how perfect the world is. Maybe it's better here than elsewhere in the world, no doubt, but don't try to feed me the crap sandwich about what I or any minority yearns for.

Perfect reply.


If you were female and had been impregnated by a selfish, demanding husband/boyfriend (especially one who had no interest in birth control), a rapist, a family member (incest), birth control failure, etc., you'll have little or no interest in nine months of nausea and vomiting, headaches, weight gain, backaches, frequent need to pee, constipation, swollen ankles, constant fatigue, being uncomfortable no matter the position, et al. (yeah, there's more).

Another perfect reply.

On the subject of replies, maybe you can finally get around to replying to this.

"Do you mean like I have done several times already and you have yet to do? But I'll tell you what. I will be happy to restate my view based upon your guarantee that it will be followed by you doing likewise. Agreed?"

On the subject of replies, maybe you can finally get around to replying to this.

"Do you mean like I have done several times already and you have yet to do? But I'll tell you what. I will be happy to restate my view based upon your guarantee that it will be followed by you doing likewise. Agreed?"

At last count, I have stated my position clearly and in simple terms at least 5 times, probably many more.

You have yet to state your position clearly and in simple terms even ONE time.

I may give you another chance. I'll consider it.

Don't bother. You won't do it. I had to repost the question since you plainly ignored it the first time. It would require you to actually state your views, and you seem to run from that, but I'm ready whenever you're ready. I have no confidence in your willingness to actually do what you say, but hopefully I'm wrong. Just let me know if you ever get ready


At last count, I have stated my position clearly and in simple terms at least 5 times,I laughed when I read that. Talk about inflation!!

.I'm sure you're right. Better to kill the irritating, aggravating little "thing" than to have to put up with so much discomfort.
And of course, you would be happy to carry your rapist's child for nine months. Once it's born, then what? (And I can't wait to watch and listen to you being pregnant for nine months!)

So you make an appeal to the 1/10th of 1% of abortions? If you could get an exception for rape/incest, would you outlaw the others? If not, then why such a narrow appeal?

"Once it's born, then what?" By your rationale, if it proves to be too much trouble or discomfort, then get rid of it.

So you make an appeal to the 1/10th of 1% of abortions? If you could get an exception for rape/incest, would you outlaw the others? If not, then why such a narrow appeal?
If there are so many abortions, as you claim, I'm betting they are done during the first four months (women usually don't even realize they're pregnant during the first couple of months) of a pregnancy that was caused by a selfish, demanding husband/boyfriend (especially one who has no interest in birth control), a rapist, a family member (incest), birth control failure, etc. Very few women will put up with what happens during those nine months and then say, "Shucks! I guess I don't want this kid after all."

I haven't suggested anything is perfect. I did not say that minorities were yearning for anything. How long have you had these reading difficulties? At any rate, your casual disregard of the beauty of personal freedom is pathetic.


Yeah there is no housing, or job discrimination in America, and institutional racism is a made up fiction as well as the accounts of Jim Crow and James Crow ESQ. are. People fought and died to get that crap straight and the Klan no longer bothers with hoods.

The next boss I have I will give him my schedule I want to work. Your facts of the case is what's pathetic, and crackers assassinating a jogger is pathetic, and if not for a video who would know? The law swept it under a rug for months.

I would say you are our expert at pathetic and certainly devoid of facts. Maybe actually asking a minority what they experience would help you but don't give them that same crap about being grateful for personal freedom stuff.

On the subject of replies, maybe you can finally get around to replying to this.

"Do you mean like I have done several times already and you have yet to do? But I'll tell you what. I will be happy to restate my view based upon your guarantee that it will be followed by you doing likewise. Agreed?"

I'm ahead of you.

Here's my belief in my own words:

I do NOT believe Jesus condemns people (including unbelievers and sinners) to eternal punishment in hell where they are tortured for all eternity.

You may now post your belief in your own words.

You're not being asked to PROVE your belief. You're being asked to STATE it. We already know the source of your belief is the Bible.

I'm ahead of you.

Here's my belief in my own words:

I do NOT believe Jesus condemns people (including unbelievers and sinners) to eternal punishment in hell where they are tortured for all eternity.

You may now post your belief in your own words.

You're not being asked to PROVE your belief. You're being asked to STATE it. We already know the source of your belief is the Bible.I have to refute your arguments

where do you think the outer darkness is and who is sent there? Don't you think exclusion for eternity is punishment? A form of hell? maybe Dante was correct there are various levels of hell and punishment, the worst being reserved for satan and his henchmen, but those who reject Jesus will be excluded, will be punished whether you believe that is the lake of Fire described in revelation or not, all will be judged and Jesus is the judge

Well, you did a fine job of stating what you don't believe. You're similar to the little boy who was asked by his teacher what 8 x 20 is. "Well," he replied, "I know it's not 0, teacher." I guess we'll have to accept knowing what you DON'T believe, but we still don't know what you DO believe.

For me, I'll start by saying it makes no difference what you or I believe. I have no interest in listening to any of that. What matters is what is true. Since Jesus said he IS the truth, then I listen to him. In Matthew 25, Jesus clearly describes a day of coming judgement. This is the same message Paul preached (Acts 24:15 & 25). It is repeated in a number of places such as in Hebrews 9:27. It will be a terrible day. The holiness of God will be on display. Isaiah 6 makes it clear that, in the light of His holiness, we are all in desperate trouble. Rev. 20 tells us that when that day comes, it will be such an awesome sight that the earth and the heavens will flee away.

What will he judge? Jesus makes it clear that sin will be judged. In John 8, Jesus warns that people will die in their sins and be judged. In Romans 3 Paul makes it clear that we have all sinned. If we are honest, we have sinned a lot and we have a lot to answer for. And Jesus was equally clear that the only solution to our impending judgment was to "believe that I (Jesus) am He."

John 3:16 gives a very clear description. Man is perishing. That is his present condition. But because of the great love God has for man, a love that is not dependent on our goodness but rather on His goodness, He sent His Son to be our Savior. If we place our trust in Him, we shall "not perish".

Jesus describes hell as being a terrible place of torment and an eternal place in Matthew 25.


Now it's your turn. Tell us what you believe, and not what you do NOT believe. What is man's ultimate future?


Yeah there is no housing, or job discrimination in America, and institutional racism is a made up fiction as well as the accounts of Jim Crow and James Crow ESQ. are. People fought and died to get that crap straight and the Klan no longer bothers with hoods.

The next boss I have I will give him my schedule I want to work. Your facts of the case is what's pathetic, and crackers assassinating a jogger is pathetic, and if not for a video who would know? The law swept it under a rug for months.

I would say you are our expert at pathetic and certainly devoid of facts. Maybe actually asking a minority what they experience would help you but don't give them that same crap about being grateful for personal freedom stuff.

Have you always been in the habit of making things up? I said none of the material in your first paragraph. Total foolishness.

I never suggested you could determine your work schedule. Total nonsense.

As to asking a minority (like you?) what he has experienced, I'll be happy to listen, but I will not listen to you lying about what I have said.


If there are so many abortions, as you claim, I'm betting they are done during the first four months (women usually don't even realize they're pregnant during the first couple of months) of a pregnancy that was caused by a selfish, demanding husband/boyfriend (especially one who has no interest in birth control), a rapist, a family member (incest), birth control failure, etc. Very few women will put up with what happens during those nine months and then say, "Shucks! I guess I don't want this kid after all.""As you claim?" Wow. What a crazy statement.

The rest is largely drama queen material. Look. I understand that women end up in tough situations and men can be scumbags. I do not agree that killing an unborn child is the solution. That is where we disagree. You have no problem with killing unborn children, and I do.

And you're "betting" on when abortions take place? You have no idea, do you?

Are you really OK with killing this child? This is at 14 weeks, right in that 3 to 4 month window you described.

https://www.babycenter.com/ims/2018/06/580x580xpregnancy-week-14-face-muscles_square.png.pagespeed.ic.zxKN8hPwzv.png

I have to refute your arguments

I made no argument. I simply stated my belief.

No, you stated your non-belief. I'm waiting to hear what you DO believe.

Well, you did a fine job of stating what you don't believe

Of course, I knew you would do your evasion thing. I remind you what the original question was - DOES JESUS CONDEMN UNBELIEVERS TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT? You asked me what my belief was re this. I said (again) that I DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS SENDS PEOPLE TO HELL FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.


For me, I'll start by saying it makes no difference what you or I believe.

Wow, you sure fooled everybody here for the last many months.


What matters is what is true.

That's NOT what you asked me to post. In fact, you said you would RESTATE YOUR VIEW. You have not done that. You have offered Bible verses which you were specifically asked not to do since that is NOT A RESTATEMENT OF YOUR VIEW.


Since Jesus said he IS the truth, then I listen to him. In Matthew 25 ........................etc., etc., etc.

There you go again. You are simply NOT ABLE to state your view (as you said you would) without citing all the Bible verses you can find. I won't repeat my critique of your Bible verses except to repeat they are bad translations of Greek and Hebrew words such as "gehenna", tartarus, and "sheol", etc. That is easily verified if you try. But it shakes your long-held belief. I understand that.


Jesus describes hell as being a terrible place of torment and an eternal place in Matthew 25.

Jerome mistakenly translated Gehenna ( a burning garbage pit) as Hell. The Greek does not support "eternal". But we've been over this before. They are facts that you refuse to believe which is your right.


Now it's your turn.

My turn? I already took my turn - see above!


Tell us what you believe. What is man's ultimate future?

Your jump to "man's ultimate future" is quite a leap. I take this drastic change to mean you can't (or are unwilling to) state your view in the matter under discussion.

If you want to change the topic then start a new thread. It's obvious you're trying to get out of this discussion.

Have you always been in the habit of making things up? I said none of the material in your first paragraph. Total foolishness.
I never suggested you could determine your work schedule. Total nonsense.
As to asking a minority (like you?) what he has experienced, I'll be happy to listen, but I will not listen to you lying about what I have said.



I dismissed what you said, as loony BS, divorced from reality, and that's no lie. As is often the case with you, I ignore what you say and go with what I know. You are as incompetent about facts as the dufus is and that's no lie either.

That's what happens when you have your head stuck up the dufus' arse shoulder deep for 3 years, you open your mouth and spew BS! It's no wonder you have life and BS all mixed up.

No, you stated your non-belief. I'm waiting to hear what you DO believe.

why don't you apply Occam's razor? In the absence of any other evidence, he doesn't believe what you do

My goodness. You can become such an angry little man when someone has the temerity to refuse to agree with you.
There you go again. You are simply NOT ABLE to state your view (as you said you would) without citing all the Bible verses you can findAnd there is our difference. I agree with the Bible and you don't. It's just that simple. That's why you are unable to formulate what you believe or to back it up with scripture. I cite the Bible because the Bible governs my view. You cannot cite scripture because you only know what you don't believe and not what you do believe. I am completely happy to agree with the Bible. It is one of the great goals of my life.

BTW, that was far from being all the Bible verses I could find. I've posted them and you took no notice. Was I surprised? No.

As to the meaning of aionios, you continue to revert to Jerome, and I continue to revert to hundreds of Bible scholars far more knowledgeable than you, none of whom agree with you. You are stuck on an island.

Sadly, I guess we'll never know what you DO believe. It's kind of funny because I knew you wouldn't do it.


That's what happens when you have your head stuck up the dufus' arse shoulder deep for 3 years, you open your mouth and spew BS! It's no wonder you have life and BS all mixed up.Do you always get this mad when it becomes apparent that you have nothing useful to say? I called you out and you explode. Kind of obvious.

LOL, don't know why you think I would be mad about how far up the dufus arse your head is, especially since you never deny the charge. It's rather obvious that you cannot do so truthfully. I will give you credit for consistency in that you never deviate from your narrow views of anything from religion to politics while attempting to elevate your position higher by blasting others. I've known enough wingers, many I'm related to, to understand them. It's really no big deal, nothing for me to be mad about, since I accept I cannot control your lunacy, but I can expose it for what it is. Your easy in that you don't try to hide it, so I appreciate that honesty. I know despite your lunacy that if I asked for the shirt off your back you would gladly give it.

So you ain't all bad just a crazy talking MO'FO most of the time. Now if I could just get your head out the dufus arse…we could see what you really look like.

Haven't denied the charge? It's a completely stupid and ignorant statement and is just the kind of comment that usually comes from a completely stupid and ignorant individual who runs out of anything useful to say and so resorts to gutter language. To see it come from you is disappointing and surprising. The only thing you're exposing is your own frustration at being unable to come up with anything productive to say. You could have read my comments and said something useful, but that would have required some work, so you resorted to ugliness. The one useful thing about your comment is that it makes me determined not to lower myself to that pathetic level.

That's something I've noticed about you three amigos. When you get cornered you get mad, and rather than think your way out of the corner you just get insulting. I find that to be true of nearly every liberal I speak with. It's one of the major reasons I'm not a liberal. It does, at least, provide some cheap entertainment during this "shelter in place" period. It's good for laughs.

Your crazy posts do provide me laughs and I thank you. 8D Keep coming back.

You can count on it. Someone on this board has to be able to expose the lunacy of the liberal left!

You can count on it. Someone on this board has to be able to expose the lunacy of the liberal left!

Now I'm confused. I though you were exposing your own right wing lunacy, of which I thought you were doing an excellent job, to be fair. I actually googled "shoulder deep up the dufus a$$" and got porn sites. Kind of blows your conservative credibility, but reinforces your right wing lunacy you freaky rascal.

https://i1.wp.com/staticu.bgcdn.com/jonny-hawkins/54.jpg

You said something completely stupid and that blows my credibility? Huh. When you said, "Now I'm confused," you pretty much nailed it. Been true for a while. You ought to do something about that.

I have no problem admitting my confusion over your lunatic logic. Just don't expect me to buy into it. Understanding it is bad enough. Accepting it is not hard though, because that's just how you see things. No biggie, I've seen worse.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c7/12/7a/c7127a153e7286faee3f12e7bb572271.png

https://frontpageassets.pch.com/general/large/136-Ethics-4-Dummies.jpg

No biggie, I've seen worse.You didn't have to look far.

Correct, got a few peeps we can't discuss religion or politics. They make YOU look liberal! Love 'em to death though.

Look closer. Much closer.

Why should I?

Trust me on this one. 8D

I can trust, but must verify. 8)

Interesting data. The mortality rate for children and teens is near zero, and I would imagine that even that small number included kids with pre-existing conditions. This information is, I would hope, helpful in determining how we can get back to work.



Age
0–9
10–19
20–29
30–39
40–49
50–59
60–69
70–79
80-89
90+


Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada) as of 25 April[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-15)
0.0
0.1
0.5
5.2
16.2


China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China) as of 11 February[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-16)
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.3
3.6
8.0
14.8


Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Denmark) as of 26 April[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-SSIReport-17)
0.2
4.4
15.4
24.8
41.0


Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Israel) as of 26 April[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-18)
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
8.6
24.8
34.3
29.3


Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Italy) as of 23 April[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-ISSReport-19)
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.9
2.6
10.0
24.9
30.8
26.1


Netherlands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Netherlands) as of 25 April[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-RIVMReport-20)
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.5
7.6
23.2
30.0
29.3


Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Portugal) as of 24 April[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-21)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.6
2.8
8.5
16.5


S. Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Korea) as of 15 April[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-KCDCReport-22)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
2.5
9.7
22.2


Spain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Spain) as of 25 April[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-MSCBSReport-23)
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.3
4.4
13.2
20.3
20.2


Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden) as of 26 April[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-24)
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.0
2.3
6.9
21.2
30.0
34.0


Switzerland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Switzerland) as of 25 April[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_due_to_COVID-19#cite_note-25)
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
2.7
10.1
24.0

Yes if you are old stay at home, retire even

Returning to work for us or anybody would probably hinge on people feeling safe from getting sick and dying from this virus that shut the world down in the first place. You doubt it can do so again?

Look at the chart. Think.

The world is not shut down. The great majority of people are still working.

What a lousy system when a bug can destroy the economy. It's only temporary though until you get the bug under control.

It's only temporary though until you get the bug under control.It's going to be an interesting process. I don't think it will be risk free.

Or cheap, but seldom is when you are visited with life threatening changes and conditions. This qualifies as scary.

what qualifies as crazy is Pelosi trying to fire up the monopoly money presses again.

Tom, that has become so common that people don't even notice it anymore. We're driving toward the cliff and singing as we go.

No doubt more cash infusion will be needed, so we may as well get the conversation started. Why wait? It's inevitable. All the state budgets are blown away by now. By the time the money already sent trickles down, we may be a few months further down the line.

What if this "reopening" doesn't ramp up fast enough, or we get some huge spike in another hotspot? This virus may have caught us and everybody off guard before, but no excuse for a repeat performance.