https://www.npr.org/2019/06/12/732183283/trump-if-offered-dirt-by-foreign-government-on-2020-rival-i-think-i-d-take-it


To be clear Evita hired through a 3rd party law firm to get oppo research on Trump from a British agent who gathered the intel from alleged Russian sources close to the Kremlin.

as opposed to a Russian lawyer who was working as a foreign agent to repeal the Magnisky act used false pretenses to get a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump JR and Jared Kushner . When they found out that she arranged the meeting under false premises they ended the meeting .

You see the problem is that he would accept the info for free.
Had he said he would pay for dirt from foreign government sources on his opponent there would be no issues ........right ?

Wrong! The clear difference is it's not illegal to HIRE a foreign entity for goods or services, but it is patently illegal to conspire with a foreign entity to subvert the interests of the US. The dufus was also warned as a candidate of outreach by foreign governnments but he ignored the warning and failed to report the contact, and worse LIED about it.

This isn't a subtle difference, its a huge one, and even saying the FBI is wrong to point out the importance of reporting such contacts is nothing short of willful disobedience of law and total disregard for the very reasons for the law itself and opens the door for MORE such contacts. Is that his signal to Vlad he needs more assistance to get re elected? Some could argue it does, despite his sycophants trying to parse his comments and make them acceptable, because it's NOT.

Saying everybody does it is an even more egregious lie in of itself.

So if you are going to acquire dirt on your opponent from a foreign source, the primary thing is to make sure you pay for it?

So if you are going to acquire dirt on your opponent from a foreign source, the primary thing is to make sure you pay for it?

The difference between the Trump and Evita's campaigns’ willingness to take dirt on its opponent is that Evita went through with it and paid for it.

This wasn't conspiracy anyway ;at least not by the Trumpsters . Even Mueller said that .

Trump Jr was APPROACHED by Veselnitskaya , who said she had dirt on Evita .There was nothing that indicated she was working for the Kremlin. She was here by permission of the emperor's regime to lobby against the Magnitsky act (she
got a special temp visa approved by Loretta Lynch to even be in the USA )
AND she had worked for and in cooperation with Fusion GPS ,and was a client of Glenn Simpson .

This was a meeting set up by Glenn Simpson She publicly admitted that she used talking points at the meeting that were developed by Simpson.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-dossier-firm-also-supplied-info-used-meeting-russians-trump-n819526


Simpson later testified that he had no knowledge of the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others until it was reported a year later. That was a complete lie .He testified that he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the night before the meeting and the night after.

The charge that Trump was working closely with Putin is comical . If that were so then why did Simpson arrange to have a 3rd party ,British music publicist Rob Goldstone help arrange the meeting in Trump Tower ?
Why would the Kremlin needed a British music publicist to make an overture.?.and why would they send a Russian lawyer who didn’t speak English to Trump Tower? That tends to confirm that the meeting was intended as a setup.

You need to bear in mind that ever since the Kavanaugh hearing, the need for evidence has become minimal.

I have no doubt it was a set up, but that's more the reason to report it to the FBI like the director said in May hearings, and every repub is saying now when asked. Even Lindsay Graham. You wonder why I call him a dufus? So did Mueller which was why he didn't charge dufus Jr., even though I thought ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Even Vlad is backtracking from the liar in chief, and you better watch faux news before you keep posting right wing talking points, and catch up to the latest dufus WH scandals with Choi and Conway.

Trump went public today with his law-breaking approval of foreign nations interfering in US elections. His republican toadies disagreed when interviewed by TV reporters but notably blocked Democratic proposal to amend the law to require mandatory reporting to the FBI if and when it occurs. Trump's signal to Russia that 2020 election interference will be welcomed - a sign of growing desperation by a person who took a solemn oath to uphold the law of the land.

Trump, a self-proclaimed genius, twittered today about his meeting with the Prince of Whales (sic) Hard to believe, but true. Sarah Sanders, the non-press-secretary press secretary who hasn't held a press briefing in three months, announced her resignation.

Even Vlad is backtracking from the liar in chief,


He should because Trump has road blocked Putie at every step ;as I predicted he would.



and catch up to the latest dufus WH scandals with Choi and Conway.

yawn The press asked her her opinion about Dems running in 2020 and she gave her opinion. I'm not clear about all the details of the Hatch act but it would seem very strange to me that a political appointee is not allowed to have an opinion of any kind once in the White House.

It also reeks of hypocrisy by the office of special council .You telling me that none of the Obots ever voiced their opinions ? Valerie Jarrett? Ben Rhodes ? Or maybe it's just that they can have opinions but not express them ? Conway giving her opinion was NOT politicking .

Julian Castro had the same charge against him in 2016 . Did the emperor fire him ? He held a far more important position in the administration(HUD) than Conway does.

It is much better for us to know what these people think and who they support or not . As an example ; Anita Dunn was an advisor to the emperor . Her admiration for Mao Zedong was something the public really needs to know. The way the Hatch act is being applied here is just another tool of the left to control this White House . Should leftist activists be allowed to control who Trump can have as advisors, using the Hatch Act to pick them off one by one, every time one of them says what they actually think ? If Kellyanne goes, they'll go after anyone who's effective.


Sarah Sanders, the non-press-secretary press secretary who hasn't held a press briefing in three months, announced her resignation. Most press secretaries end up resigning after a very short stint. It must be a very tough ,demanding ,taxing job.

A note about Henry Kerner ; Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel. He was a Staff Director for John McCain . You know how much McCain and Trump hated each other . While he was on the McCain staff he urged IRS' Steve Miller and Louis Lerner to target conservative groups . So you know where he's coming from.

hmmm when Peter Strozk, Lisa Page were texting back and forth about their hatred of Trump ,were they violating the Hatch Act ?

a sign of growing desperation

Is this just wishful thinking or what? I don't see it.

So Kellyanne can voice her opinion on camera, but Strozk and Paige can't express themselves in private to each other? Got ya! What a double standard that is. Who appointed the guy who sent the letter to fire Conway in the first place? YUP your dufus. Of course he won't fire her. This is just more chaos that has become the trademark of modern politics, enhanced by the silly season that never seems to end. At least the dufus walked back his latest crazy utterance but doesn't change what he did to cover up the illegality of what his son did, or failure to disclose it, or change the lies about the NUMEROUS contacts with Russia or the lies to cover those up before he was the president.

Drag 'em all before the public this summer. I got plenty of popcorn.

the question about Strozk and Paige is ,was their conversation a conspiracy to stage a coup against the elected President ? A lot of their conversation was 'Trump sucks ' ;and that was ok . But when they were talking about having 'insurance policies in case Trump was elected, that could be easily be interpreted as colluding to remove the President . They were in a position to take action ;and they did . So that was not a matter of them being able to express themselves .
But according to the standards being applied to Conway ;yes they should've been charged with Hatch Act violations . Their texts not only attacked Trump but also others including Bernie Sanders, Eric Holder, and Paul Ryan. If you are not allowed to express political thoughts in word ,text ,or twitter as a condition of being an executive dept employee then there are thousands of others who should frog march.

Some of you bring up hatred as a factor in ones response. Nobody has shown hatred for the Dems (on this site). The hate is all you.

Aside from all the lies and Corruption, that is the WH. We Don't support Trump Cuz we like him. We are so use to Politicians lying that we actually expect it, Trump came along and refused to play the game, so we rewarded him even though we don't like him. Politicians have gotten so PC that we would rather praise someone who embraces the lack of it. We may not agree with Trump, but at least we know he believes what he is saying...unlike politicians, that only say what you want to hear.

Don't hate the Playa hate the Game.

Keep the madness alive. Who is winning?

Who did S&P collude with? As I remember, the people you mentioned came into compliance for their violations but of course no such thing as compliance in this WH without an act of congress. We know that won't happen with THIS senate.


Some of you bring up hatred as a factor in ones response. Nobody has shown hatred for the Dems (on this site). The hate is all you.

Aside from all the lies and Corruption, that is the WH. We Don't support Trump Cuz we like him. We are so use to Politicians lying that we actually expect it, Trump came along and refused to play the game, so we rewarded him even though we don't like him. Politicians have gotten so PC that we would rather praise someone who embraces the lack of it. We may not agree with Trump, but at least we know he believes what he is saying...unlike politicians, that only say what you want to hear.

Don't hate the Playa hate the Game.

Keep the madness alive. Who is winning?

Conservatives are desperate to slow evolution down and return to the good old days so seem to be winning for now, but your dufus may be overplaying it while he robs us blind and heads to war.

Most press secretaries end up resigning after a very short stint. It must be a very tough ,demanding ,taxing job.


She was a total incompetent and the only talent she had was lying for her master to confirm his lying. She even lied to the FBI and after admitting that soon went back to the same lie again.

It couldn't have been too tough, demanding or taxing since she didn't show up for three months. Nice job if you can get it.

I partially disagree with you Athos, Sarah Saunders was an excellent mouthpiece for the lying cheating dufus in chief, but had no more credibility than him or anyone else in his criminal cabal he calls an administration. Let's see besides Mattes and Tillerson, everybody else has seemed to leave under a cloud of suspicion and wrong doing and his campaign and transition team are either in jail or on their way. Boggles the mind that any one can reasonably believe the head of this snake has clean hands.

It’s a very high pressure position for anyone, let alone someone with a young family. If it were me I'd hire a real pitbull who takes no flak from the press. Someone like Dan Bongino .Actually Trump does most of his own messaging and Sanders took the abuse from the likes of Jim Acosta .


But I'll be nice . I nominate Candace Owens to replace her .


https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4791269/candace-owens-opening-remarks

She fits right into this administration.

Yeah, unlike the high character and honest former administration. (sarcasm font turned on)

Trump's signal to Russia that 2020 election interference will be welcomed -


no actually he said he would take information from Norway. Maybe he should've said Ukraine



Both the Democratic National Committee as well as Fusion GPS—the company hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to research the Trump campaign—were using Ukrainian sources in their efforts to discredit Trump.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ties-to-ukrainian-national-a-unifying-theme-in-early-attacks-on-trump_2872609.html

If anyone here thinks that the typical politician, repub or dem, would refrain from acquiring opposition dirt from a foreign country, then you need to stop reading "Polly Anna" so much. I think most of them would do it in a second. It's unfortunate that so many of our national elections seem to degenerate into, "Don't vote for my opponent. He's an idiot."

You poor confused conservatives. Can't tell the difference between a company,of lawyers and ex spies for hire by politicos, from a foreign government with an agenda. That's a shame and no wonder you fall under the dufus of Dufus's lies, and deceptions. Messing with the foreign governments is illegal and should be reported, as was the case with the Steele Dossier, and he was interviewed by the FBI.

"On 9-10 May of this year," the May 14 memorandum explained, "Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow." (Tunney was Kennedy's law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) "The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov."Kennedy's message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side." Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html#1d3f910a359a

Your not implying the dufus and Vlad have it right, or saying that Kennedy's actions excuse the dufus now are you Tom?

no I was illustrating the difference between the sting /coup operation that Evita and the FBI pulled on Trump and a REAL case of colluding with Russia.

You poor confused conservatives. Can't tell the difference between a company,of lawyers and ex spies for hire by politicos, from a foreign government with an agenda. That's a shame and no wonder you fall under the dufus of Dufus's lies, and deceptions. Messing with the foreign governments is illegal and should be reported, as was the case with the Steele Dossier, and he was interviewed by the FBI.

I didn't say anything about any of that. I just made a general statement.

Heard a video today where Obama said, "Anyone (not true) can buy any gun (not true) at any time (not true). Only eight words but three flatly false statements. So you poor liberals. You think your anointed leaders are always telling the truth. And that would be a fourth flatly false statement.

# 4 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. '

I didn't say anything about any of that. I just made a general statement.

Heard a video today where Obama said, "Anyone (not true) can buy any gun (not true) at any time (not true). Only eight words but three flatly false statements. So you poor liberals. You think your anointed leaders are always telling the truth. And that would be a fourth flatly false statement.

The loonies and homicidal maniacs and psychopaths doesn't seem to have a problem getting a gun and shooting up churches, malls, concerts, movie theaters and schools.


# 4 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. '

That was true but your doctors can boot you if they want too.

The loonies and homicidal maniacs and psychopaths doesn't seem to have a problem getting a gun and shooting up churches, malls, concerts, movie theaters and schools.

So maybe we should pass a law prohibiting the loonies, homicidal maniacs, and psychopaths from getting guns. Actually, I think they already have. As for the rest of us, leave us alone.

So maybe we should pass a law prohibiting the loonies, homicidal maniacs, and psychopaths from getting guns. Actually, I think they already have. As for the rest of us, leave us alone.
Adam Lanza used guns from his mother's gun collection (Glock 9-mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9-mm handgun and a Bushmaster rifle) at Sandy Hook. And anyone, including any legal gun owner, can flip into homicidal rage or calculated killing -- for example, the recent mass murderer in Virginia Beach.

maybe we should tighten up that law a bit or enhance it to make it more effective by closing the gaps that the homicidal crazies keep slipping through. We can leave normal ordinary folks alone as long as we verify that if you don't mind. Unless you think we have done enough and screw the victims which seems to grow in number. I know you want to protect those innocent kids don't you JL?

Adam Lanza used guns from his mother's gun collection (Glock 9-mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9-mm handgun and a Bushmaster rifle) at Sandy Hook. And anyone, including any legal gun owner, can flip into homicidal rage or calculated killing -- for example, the recent mass murderer in Virginia Beach.

What do you propose we do about that?

We have also seen a spike in people driving cars into crowds of people and killing and maiming many. I have not noticed anyone suggesting we ban cars and vans.

What do you propose we do about that?

We have also seen a spike in people driving cars into crowds of people and killing and maiming many. I have not noticed anyone suggesting we ban cars and vans.

The penny will drop one day, disturbed people cannot have guns or cars and cops would do better filling in their time observing rather than collaring low level drug takers

We can leave normal ordinary folks alone as long as we verify that if you don't mind.

And how do you propose the feds verify that a person is "normal" and "ordinary"? Will a person have to take a "normal and ordinary" test in order to buy a gun? Do you propose the feds gain access to a person's confidential medical records?

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable, but I have no idea of how to do it.

why not just be honest and say you want a ban on all gun ownership ? and of course this is completely off topic .

why not just be honest and say you want a ban on all gun ownership ?

I don't want to ban anything that is currently legal. I would like for people who love to point out problems to tell us what they are proposing we do.

I shouldve been clear . My comment was not directed at you .We have gun laws that routinely get broken and then they propose more gun laws that end up being directed and punish honest folks who don't break the law.I'm just pointing out their true goal . You notice they rarely bring up the Democrat cities that are shooting galleries .The guns used there are not semi-autos .They are legal guns obtained illegally .

You notice they rarely bring up the Democrat cities that are shooting galleries .

Read this today. "Mr. Weisburd said that in his studies of larger cities, about 1 percent of the streets produce 25 percent of the crime and about 5 percent of the streets produce 50 percent of the crime."

We know that about 2 or 3% of the population commit half the murders. Never gets talked about.

What do you propose we do about that?
Get rid of all guns.

back to the topic. All of the talk about Trump's comments to George Clintonopolis is manufactured . George asked Trump what SHOULD be done . That is because there is no legal duty for candidates to report to the FBI that they have been approached from a foreign source with dirt from an opponent . George knew this so he conjured up an ethical strawman .

A simple Google search blows that assumption out of the water completely, and there is still the example of John McCain exercising good behavior when he encountered the Steel Dossier. So you can parse and spin anyway you want, but candidates should report any and all outreach by foreign governments. That said and just my personal opinion, the dufus has no credibility for good judgement even though he is the prez. matter of fact, just the opposite is true, as well as a questionable basic honesty.

I would bet even the wingers take what he says with a grain of salt. So should you.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/pagination/previous-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=845748&page=2)A simple Google search {will show you that}, the dufus has no credibility for good judgement even though he is the prez. matter of fact, just the opposite is true, as well as a questionable basic honesty.

I would bet even the wingers take what he says with a grain of salt.


Supporting what Trump said in this or that instance is a "chasing of the wind" and "full of sound and fury signifying nothing".

The bozo has more than 10,000 DOCUMENTED examples of lying, misstatements, and half-truths. This week alone, he could not help himself when he repeatedly made unlawful comments and urged others to do the same. The man elected to uphold the law is a major lawbreaker himself. No wonder his lawyers told him never to testify. His ignorance of the law, integrity and decency is huge.

Everyone should watch the ABC interview tonight and how he threatens and lies right to the face of George S. When Trump called him a "little wise guy", George should have shot right back with "You're a damned liar!" Watch tonight at 8 EST.

Power and greed is all that drives him - a genuine worshiper of Mammon.

here is still the example of John McCain exercising good behavior when he encountered the Steel Dossier BS . McCain creamed in his pants at the chance to get Trump.

BS . McCain creamed in his pants at the chance to get Trump.


And boy, did he get him! Even posthumously!

BS . McCain creamed in his pants at the chance to get Trump.

Hmm, seems doing the right thing is a thorn in the dufus orange behind. Need more repubs like that in the senate. Maybe this election will deliver that relief to the American people. I'd be happy just getting rid of Mitch.

yeah I wouldn't mind a new Republican Senate Majority leader either . Maybe Jim Inhofe

Get rid of all guns.Get rid of all guns.

So you and your hubby have no guns in your house?

So you and your hubby have no guns in your house?
If I ran the show, we wouldn't. He's a Trump fan and die-hard conservative. The first time it got pulled out (and I didn't know it was there), our young son was helping me change the sheets and asked me while waving it around, "Why does Daddy have this?" The second time, and only time in all our years together that my husband himself pulled it out from under his mattress (where it's sooooo handy), was when he almost shot our neighbor lady in the head.

If you have no gun and someone breaks into your house, threatening your family, what do you do?

Long ago I was at my friends house and he pulled out is Dads Gun. He pointed it at me and closed his eyes, then he pointed it at the floor and pulled the trigger, it fired a bullet through the floor. He was shocked and said if he hadn't learned (in rifle club) not to point a gun at people, he would have shot me. He never would have thought his Dad would keep a loaded gun in the house. Then we grabbed our pellet guns and went outside and had a pellet gun fight...Three pumps max, I always gave it a few extra pumps to gain range advantage...yah, yah that's it, Range advantage.


someone breaks into your house, threatening your family, what do you do?


Fido will protect us with his life. If Fido doesn't stop em Grandma will.

If you have no gun and someone breaks into your house, threatening your family, what do you do?
I'd offer him/them coffee or tea and brownies or cookies, then chat with him/them.

No one has EVER broken into our house. We live in a very small starter home that now has become our retirement home. There ain't nuttin' in this house that anyone would want to steal. Plus, we have two attack cats.


He pointed it at me and closed his eyes ... said if he hadn't learned (in rifle club) not to point a gun at people, he would have shot me.
Sounds like the lesson he was taught in rifle club didn't take.

Sounds like the lesson he was taught in rifle club didn't take.

Guess it comes and goes. Later that year he shot me in the foot while hunting wrabbits. But that was on purpose, he thought it was his pellet gun. A few months later I got him Back. I told him payback was a B*tch and tried shooting him in the foot, missed and got him in the knee. We're not friends anymore, we still go hunting together just so's we make sure we don't shoot each other by "accident".

This might have been the Story if the lesson didn't take.

I was never more happy that somebody was involved in the Rifle club!

I'd offer him/them coffee or tea and brownies or cookies, then chat with him/them.

No one has EVER broken into our house. We live in a very small starter home that now has become our retirement home. There ain't nuttin' in this house that anyone would want to steal. Plus, we have two attack cats.

Dreams and fantasies. The liberal world. Talked with a guy last week whose house had broken into four times in the past two years.

Dreams and fantasies. The liberal world. Talked with a guy last week whose house had broken into four times in the past two years.
You shudda seen me chat in person and on the phone with weird library patrons. You'd have a lot more respect! Nothing liberal about it. CRT tv, CRT computer monitor, computer is at least 12 years old. Looking around for something valuable -- nada.

The homeowners apparently weren't good hosts. And they must have a lot of fancy stuff in that house. Nuttin' in my house. Move on to a ritzier suburb.

The homeowners apparently weren't good hosts. And they must have a lot of fancy stuff in that house. Nuttin' in my house. Move on to a ritzier suburb.

Not everything is intended to be treated in a careless, mocking fashion. There really are serious issues that need serious answers.

Even in the early days of the old west when a bad guy with a gun gets the drop on you, you're pretty helpless and could lose your gun, and life. I appreciate your honest at not having a solution for a huge complex problem but let me ask if your right to a gun become a bigger priority than stopping killers from killing innocent unarmed people? Loony's and criminals don't care about the law and it's no wonder that ordinary people with precious stuff to protect would want a gun as well as people who hunt and shoot for sport. Maybe a loon can buy a gun with a clean record, but he isn't a loon until he does loony stuff so we have a mess between legal and non legal and the fools in between.

I got no good answers either, other than banning guns or getting better cops for everywhere and everybody. Unfortunately there are enough bad cops to scare the hell out of most of the population, and even they have a few loons among them. You just can't tell anymore so lock your doors and keep the hardware handy.

Good Luck with that living in fear. No guns in my house, haven't hunted in decades so we got good locks. Scared for everybody else everywhere else. What a crap shoot with no end in sight. Sometimes you have to laugh, because crying doesn't do any good.

I got no good answers either, other than banning guns or getting better cops for everywhere and everybody. Unfortunately there are enough bad cops to scare the hell out of most of the population, and even they have a few loons among them. You just can't tell anymore so lock your doors and keep the hardware handy.

I agree with you. It's a tough problem to solve. A complete ban on gun ownership would do the job. I guess you could say it worked in the USSR and nazi Germany. It has worked in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, but people there are powerless to oppose corrupt and murderous governments, so they live in much greater fear than we do.


Good Luck with that living in fear. No guns in my house, haven't hunted in decades so we got good locks.

If every homeowner owned a gun, knew how to use it, and was willing to use it, then that would stop a lot of needless violence. Laws mandating mandatory and prompt execution for gun murderers would help. A revival of genuine morality where kindness and neighborly love are more popularized than being able to sing or shoot a basketball would help. Making it more difficult for mentally disturbed people to own or have access to guns would help.

"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/#RgpYJwV8HRBWLhMJ.99

State of Mississippi has an open carry law. Our violent crime rate is considerably below the national average. Even with the open carry law, I rarely see anyone "packing", but a few people do.

If every homeowner owned a gun, knew how to use it, and was willing to use it, then that would stop a lot of needless violence.
Who does he shoot while trying to find the bad guy or figure out who he is? And does the homeowner put on clothes first (after waking up from a deep sleep) before venturing out into the main part of the house to shoot the burglar who might really be his wife or teenager son who is craving a midnight snack?

I won't buy into that corrupt murderous government as that's plain fear mongering, and I just don't see that happening nor a ban on all guns. There are some though that we could take out of circulation and BAN with exceptions like certification, registration and licensing standards.



If every homeowner owned a gun, knew how to use it, and was willing to use it, then that would stop a lot of needless violence. Laws mandating mandatory and prompt execution for gun murderers would help. A revival of genuine morality where kindness and neighborly love are more popularized than being able to sing or shoot a basketball would help. Making it more difficult for mentally disturbed people to own or have access to guns would help.

Small rural sleepy college towns can get away with that sort of thing, but such towns aren't exactly a bedrock of crimes in the first place. Loonies don't seem to be deterred by being fried and there seems to be 10 more to take their place when they are. Not sure that helps cut crime or violence to be honest though the death penalty is a hot topic. If everybody was a good human all our problems would be solved but the reality is that's not the case, and I doubt that changes and goes deeper than the entertainment business.

I go with making it a priority to vet the ones buying guns a more practical approach. That includes a medical and psyche evaluation which is what military and cops are subject to, so in line for the general public as well when it comes to buying a gun. Won't solve the problems tomorrow, but I think a good first step.

A complete ban on gun ownership would do the job. I guess you could say it worked in the USSR and nazi Germany. It has worked in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, but people there are powerless to oppose corrupt and murderous governments,

So, at its root, it's really about government which you guys truly hate even a benign one like the USA.


or shoot a basketball

Dog whistle. Wow!

I go with making it a priority to vet the ones buying guns a more practical approach. That includes a medical and psyche evaluation which is what military and cops are subject to, so in line for the general public as well when it comes to buying a gun. Won't solve the problems tomorrow, but I think a good first step.

Thousands more people are killed in car wrecks every year than gun homicides. Should we do a psych test for a drivers license? Just another big government solution and a wide open avenue to the government taking away guns.

Say what you will about the city in Georgia, but 25 years with no gun homicide as compared to Chicago which can't make it 25 hours without a gun homicide.


I won't buy into that corrupt murderous government as that's plain fear mongering,

That's because you don't live in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa, Russia, Cuba, Iran, or any one of many other countries where they live in daily fear of the government and have their liberties severely curtailed. Your answer is really amazing. You act as though oppressive governments don't exist. Just an astonishing position.


So, at its root, it's really about government which you guys truly hate even a benign one like the USA.

A complete nonsense answer. The point is to AVOID large, oppressive, and corrupt governments. Wake up and smell the coffee. You might want to think a bit about why our government is "benign".

Thousands more people are killed in car wrecks every year than gun homicides. Should we do a psych test for a drivers license? Just another big government solution and a wide open avenue to the government taking away guns.;/QUOTE]

I think state and federal governments could work that out better after much more debate than just the two of us, and like I said it's an idea and a place to start as opposed to conflating one problem with another one, which may well require a different approach.

[QUOTE]Say what you will about the city in Georgia, but 25 years with no gun homicide as compared to Chicago which can't make it 25 hours without a gun homicide.

It's a nice college town and I am very familiar with that area but comparing it to the millions in Chicago is two entirely different issues and if you weren't so paranoid about "BIG" government taking your guns away then maybe you could see that. I mean geez JL, you could fit the whole town of which you speak into Soldier Field and still have a half empty empty stadium. An that's a small NFL stadium. It just don't compare is my point.



That's because you don't live in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa, Russia, Cuba, Iran, or any one of many other countries where they live in daily fear of the government and have their liberties severely curtailed. Your answer is really amazing. You act as though oppressive governments don't exist. Just an astonishing position.

You don't live there either so know nothing about their problems or how to solve them. You have demonstrated a fear of your own government and you have any gun you want, so that cannot be the whole answer either. I recognize the primitive exploitive nature of those repressive dictatorships, and the way they control the population with capitalists money to ELITES to keep it that way. Iran in particular 9And add China and Russia too!} was exploited at one time by Euro businesses and then America, and that led directly to the 12ers revolt and power grab, made even worse with the dismantling of Iraq another repressive government that was our partner after the Shah fell, and we did business with Saddam who emerged after the overthrow of his government. You get the general idea here but it was us chasing the dollars that destabilized much of the Mideast and South America and even Africa by westerners chasing that dollar.


A complete nonsense answer. The point is to AVOID large, oppressive, and corrupt governments. Wake up and smell the coffee. You might want to think a bit about why our government is "benign".

It's never been as benign as you think and has promoted the big bucks crowd for a long time going back to it's founding. It was a slow slog but the elites that control the money that have been running OUR government, just less obvious than those murderous repressive governments we all rail against. You went from being cool and thoughtful to partisan and dismissive rather fast, even for you in the face of disagreement.

Your loony right wing roots come through loud and clear. Too much dufus red meat in your diet.

I think state and federal governments could work that out better after much more debate than just the two of us, and like I said it's an idea and a place to start as opposed to conflating one problem with another one, which may well require a different approach.

Reasonable reply. Worth building on.


It's a nice college town and I am very familiar with that area but comparing it to the millions in Chicago is two entirely different issues and if you weren't so paranoid about "BIG" government taking your guns away then maybe you could see that. I mean geez JL, you could fit the whole town of which you speak into Soldier Field and still have a half empty empty stadium. An that's a small NFL stadium. It just don't compare is my point.

Murder rate in Chicago is about 1 per 6,000 people, year after year after year. The murder rate in Kennesaw is 0 per 33,000, year after year after year for the past 25 years.


It's never been as benign as you think and has promoted the big bucks crowd for a long time going back to it's founding. It was a slow slog but the elites that control the money that have been running OUR government, just less obvious than those murderous repressive governments we all rail against.

Come on, Tal, Surely you are not trying to compare living in the U.S. with living in Zimbabwe, Russia, Iran, or any one of dozens of other repressive regimes where liberties are constantly threatened. If you think it's comparable, I encourage you to go live in one of those countries for a year. You'll be so glad to get back to the U.S. you'll pee your pants when you get off the plane.

BTW, I didn't say our government was benign. That was a quote from Athos.

Murder rate in Chicago is about 1 per 6,000 people, year after year after year. The murder rate in Kennesaw is 0 per 33,000, year after year after year for the past 25 years.

You could easily say the same for the burbs of Chicago where Kennesaw is but a burb of Atlanta. It's a huge difference between the big city and the small burb towns they approximate. Keep an open mind on that please, and explore how many gun shops there are in that small town of 33,000 and growing rapidly. Hey I don't knock what they've done, not at all but they crime rates are very different for different reasons JL, and you often cannot take what rural America can do and import it to the millions in a large city. Especially a well to do one. The whole flavor of poverty is immensely different, and much more desperate.

Wait don't tell me, you live in a small town where everybody knows everybody, and the streets are empty at 10 pm. It's not a small difference.


Come on, Tal, Surely you are not trying to compare living in the U.S. with living in Zimbabwe, Russia, Iran, or any one of dozens of other repressive regimes where liberties are constantly threatened. If you think it's comparable, I encourage you to go live in one of those countries for a year. You'll be so glad to get back to the U.S. you'll pee your pants when you get off the plane.

I don't compare the US to anyplace and have no plans to even visit, Canada maybe soon, but there is NO comparison and I implied none. With all our problems and challenges, I am grateful for where I was born. That doesn't mean it's paradise on Earth, and couldn't use some improvements here and there, but still NO comparisons as that would be patently unfair.

LOL, there are many places here though that are dangerous enough to stay out of.

You could easily say the same for the burbs of Chicago where Kennesaw is but a burb of Atlanta.

I'll bet you can't. Maybe so, but zero homicides in 25 years is pretty impressive.


explore how many gun shops there are in that small town of 33,000 and growing rapidly.

They have a law that everyone who is a head of a household is to own a gun. So yeah, I imagine they have a lot of gunshops.


Wait don't tell me, you live in a small town where everybody knows everybody, and the streets are empty at 10 pm. It's not a small difference.

Actually live just outside of a town of about 36,000. Scarcely a month goes by without a murder being committed. Most people have guns in the their homes and yes, as you said, the crime is concentrated in a certain area of town.

Actually live just outside of a town of about 36,000. Scarcely a month goes by without a murder being committed. Most people have guns in the their homes and yes, as you said, the crime is concentrated in a certain area of town.

I live in a small regional city of about 40,000. We rarely have a murder here, maybe a suicide now and then. So I have to wonder what is wrong with the people in that town, that their lives are so hopeless that they have to resort to violence to solve their problems. Even when we have a vast influx of tourists once or twice a year the level of violence doesn't increase much, perhaps an uptick in road deaths. We have an ethos that, generally speaking, violence isn't acceptable

JL: Actually live just outside of a town of about 36,000. Scarcely a month goes by without a murder being committed.
I live in a middle-class Chicago suburb, population around 44,000. During the past ten years, there have been fewer than five murders.

So I have to wonder what is wrong with the people in that town, that their lives are so hopeless that they have to resort to violence to solve their problems.

Quite a number of low income housing units filled with single parent families and an absence of fathers. Kind of a predictable outcome. It's the something the Gospel could fix if believed on.

Poverty over time leads to crime and violence. This is nothing new. You're right JL, quite a predictable outcome. Takes a lot more than the gospel to fill an empty belly. That's an old story too.

Poverty over time leads to crime and violence. This is nothing new. You're right JL, quite a predictable outcome. Takes a lot more than the gospel to fill an empty belly. That's an old story too.

Poverty of mind. Poverty of spirit. Those are the real problems. The Gospel can fix those, and when those are repaired, then other areas begin to fall in line. The life changing power of Jesus is very powerful.

Quite a number of low income housing units filled with single parent families and an absence of fathers. Kind of a predictable outcome. It's the something the Gospel could fix if believed on.

Undoubtedly that is a solution, what do you recommend, door to door preachers?

Undoubtedly that is a solution, what do you recommend, door to door preachers?

Why not?

Undoubtedly that is a solution, what do you recommend, door to door preachers?
Christian churches with practical outreach programs.

Christian churches with practical outreach programs.

Absolutely!! Not just Christians.

Absolutely!! Not just Christians.
Best would be that Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and everyone in between put their collective heads together to minister to and raise up the less fortunate not only spiritually but especially in their everyday physical and emotional needs. Being preached at goes only so far.

Best would be that Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and everyone in between put their collective heads together to minister to and raise up the less fortunate not only spiritually but especially in their everyday physical and emotional needs. Being preached at goes only so far.

WG gets it right again!

Best would be that Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and everyone in between put their collective heads together to minister to and raise up the less fortunate not only spiritually but especially in their everyday physical and emotional needs. Being preached at goes only so far.

Being preached at does very little. Admitting your lost state and trusting in Christ as your all in all will accomplish a great deal. I have watched it happen many times. As a confessing Christian, that is what I thought you believed. What did Jesus do? Did he go around handing out food and clothing all the time, or did he preach that people believe and live differently? If you answered he primarily preached, then you get it right.

Not all, but most poverty starts in the heart. Poor life choices generally start in the heart. Having/fathering children outside of marriage, which is at the core of most poverty in America, is a heart disease. It's a change in heart that most people need. Now it's wonderful for the church to come alongside and help, which is why I do what I do, but without a change in heart, it's all pointless and in vain.

Might add that I cannot imagine why any atheist should feel any moral compulsion to help the poor. Where would that moral compulsion come from for them? Not speaking of a desire, but of a genuine moral necessity, or of any moral code of any sort.

trusting in Christ as your all in all will accomplish a great deal.

No doubt in many cases, but not all.


What did Jesus do? Did he go around handing out food

Jesus fed the 5,000, then he preached to the crowd.


Poor life choices generally start in the heart.

This is called "blaming the victim". Self-righteous Christians do that extremely well.


I cannot imagine why any atheist should feel any moral compulsion to help the poor.

You badly need to get out and meet some atheists. Most that I have met have better morality than the average Church-going Christian. Especially the born-again type Christians. They're not big on helping others - they're into their personal salvation, which is ok. It's better than nothing.

This is called "blaming the victim". Self-righteous Christians do that extremely well.


Jesus must have been a self-righteous Christian. The teaching that poor life choices begin in the heart is His teaching, not mine.



You badly need to get out and meet some atheists. Most that I have met have better morality than the average Church-going Christian. Especially the born-again type Christians. They're not big on helping others - they're into their personal salvation, which is ok. It's better than nothing.

I did not say atheists did not do moral acts. I said they had no basis for morality. As to comparing their morality to the average Christian, I don't think you have any idea what the average Christian's morality is, but famous atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tend to work against your theory.


Jesus fed the 5,000, then he preached to the crowd.

The question is what did He primarily do. He primarily taught. He fed the multitude twice.

I did not say atheists did not do moral acts. I said they had no basis for morality.
Yes, they do. Romans 2:14-15 (NLT) -- 14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

Best would be that Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, and everyone in between put their collective heads together to minister to and raise up the less fortunate not only spiritually but especially in their everyday physical and emotional needs. Being preached at goes only so far.


I had the strange idea that this is what secular society is doing through the political process, and look, the measure of success is more not less poor. I agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ needs to get outside the doors of the church

Jesus must have been a self-righteous Christian. The teaching that poor life choices begin in the heart is His teaching, not mine.

Then what is your teaching, if not the same as Jesus?


I said they had no basis for morality.

You need to expand your worldview. For a start, see WG's answer.


I don't think you have any idea what the average Christian's morality is, but famous atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tend to work against your theory.

Of course I do. I've been surrounded by Christians my entire life as most Americans have. Naming 3 famous dictators doesn't do much for YOUR theory.

Then what is your teaching, if not the same as Jesus?

It's the same.


You need to expand your worldview. For a start, see WG's answer.

WG's answer was from scripture. Atheists deny the authority of scripture.

Besides, if two atheists disagree on a moral issue, how do they resolve the disagreement? They will not accept WG's answer, so how will they decide? They have no transcendent standard to appeal to. That's what I mean when I say they have no moral code.

Seems to me someone needs to get some perspective. Atheism, secularism, humanism, communism leads to very poor outcomes. Jesus wasn't about advancing the human society of the day by human means, he wanted people to put their focus on what is important,
seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you What part of that tells you to advance any philosophy other than his. Christianity is about relationship, it has nothing to do with advancing secular outcomes and certainly nothing to do with advancing other beliefs

One of my favorite scriptures from Luke 2. "For this day in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord (the Messiah)."

Now who was born? A Saviour, and rather plainly for people who needed saving, for it says, "there has been born for you." There is salvation is no other place.

One of my favorite scriptures from Luke 2. "For this day in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord (the Messiah)."

Now who was born? A Saviour, and rather plainly for people who needed saving, for it says, "there has been born for you." There is salvation is no other place.

Yes, great message, unfortunately, today people don't think they need saving. The message of salvation has become unpopular, this is the age of grace, repentance is no longer preached, but rather we must meet people's needs before we have the right to speak to them of salvation, and allow any expression of human conduct without correction. The phrase " not that there is anything wrong with that has become common". We are having a great debate here at the moment, a real side show, because a sportsman dared to quote a scripture which enunciated a list of sins which included homosexuality. The fellow has been pillared by the press, his career destroyed, and even ministers have not stood by the word of God

Yes, great message, unfortunately, today people don't think they need saving.

Even many confessing Christians seem not to see the need for it.


a sportsman dared to quote a scripture which enunciated a list of sins which included homosexuality. The fellow has been pillared by the press, his career destroyed, and even ministers have not stood by the word of God

We might be entering an age where we will be called upon to suffer for our beliefs.

Even many confessing Christians seem not to see the need for it.



We might be entering an age where we will be called upon to suffer for our beliefs.

I don't think that age ever ended, we just have the fortune to live in a place where overt persecution isn't acceptable, but that doesn't stop people using legal means to stop the message being preached. There might be free speech, but you can't say what you think with impunity.

Just read this concerning atheists and morality and thought it was pretty good.

"She knew she had certain moral duties, and that those duties lay outside of herself. But these duties could only be grounded in something transcendent and personal: God. "

https://reasonsforjesus.com/popular-atheist-blogger-leah-libresco-converts-christianity/?fbclid=IwAR3AfRsgfps0Q_xtcomHvDuuFif3Dz-RU4UEoLtzOXgDv-H9DSFfAxk4uww

WG's answer was from scripture. Atheists deny the authority of scripture.


You continue your misreading of reality. Atheists deny the existence of a god. They certainly can appreciate parts of any religious book (scripture) that they deem praiseworthy.


Just read this concerning atheists and morality and thought it was pretty good.

"She knew she had certain moral duties, and that those duties lay outside of herself. But these duties could only be grounded in something transcendent and personal: God. "

Then how do you explain morality when exhibited by atheists?

Then how do you explain morality when exhibited by atheists?


And again. The question is not one of whether or not atheists do good things. The question is how to define "good" or "moral".


You continue your misreading of reality. Atheists deny the existence of a god. They certainly can appreciate parts of any religious book (scripture) that they deem praiseworthy.

Thank you for that excellent description of a person who denies the authority of scripture. The key is "that they deem praiseworthy." They take the place of authority

And again. The question is not one of whether or not atheists do good things. The question is how to define "good" or "moral".

So you agree that atheists do good? But you don't know why they do good? E.g., their basis for doing good. Do I have that right?


Thank you for that excellent description of a person who denies the authority of scripture. The key is "that they deem praiseworthy." They take the place of authority

You're welcome.

Don't you do the same with scripture? You consider it to be based in authority since you deem it so? That key works both ways.

So you agree that atheists do good? But you don't know why they do good? E.g., their basis for doing good. Do I have that right?

That they do "good" has never been in contention. I've said that from the beginning. The point is that they have no authority for determining what is "good" other than their own personal impressions. If two atheists disagree on what is "good", they have no superior moral authority to appeal to.


Don't you do the same with scripture? You consider it to be based in authority since you deem it so? That key works both ways.

That's a good point. It's similar to the authority a policeman has. I recognize his authority. My recognition does not give him authority, but rather acknowledges it. The same is true of the Bible. I recognize the authority it has, but my recognition does not give it authority. It simple acknowledges it.

I think you are playing with words. All people have the capacity for good and evil. That some choose to exercise that is the human condition. Innately we know the rules but some choose not to follow them. Noone ever had to teach child to say no. I acknowledge the authority of someone greater than myself but some people are not capable of this

I'm not sure what you mean by having "the capacity" for good or evil. Paul settled the issue of the goodness of man in Romans 3. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning.

“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

That they do "good" has never been in contention. I've said that from the beginning. The point is that they have no authority for determining what is "good" other than their own personal impressions. If two atheists disagree on what is "good", they have no superior moral authority to appeal to.


You don't have that authority either if you want to be frank about it. You can be motivated by the book and words of ancient man, but you cannot control the words or motivations of others, no matter how you choose to categorize them, or judge their words.


I think you are playing with words. All people have the capacity for good and evil. That some choose to exercise that is the human condition. Innately we know the rules but some choose not to follow them. Noone ever had to teach child to say no. I acknowledge the authority of someone greater than myself but some people are not capable of this

I tend to agree, each human chooses his/her own path, some are rockier than others. Some have better options and conditions than others.

Does that explain the dufus being foisted on us by the god loving minority?

you cannot control the words or motivations of others, no matter how you choose to categorize them

Never suggested I could.


, or judge their words.

Like you are judging (evaluating) my words?


I tend to agree, each human chooses his/her own path, some are rockier than others. Some have better options and conditions than others.

Absolutely true.


You don't have that authority either

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're saying that the authority does not reside in me, then you are right. If you are saying I have no higher authority to appeal to, then you are not correct. My higher authority is God's Word.

The point is that they have no authority for determining what is "good" other than their own personal impressions.

Both atheists and Christians determine what is good by personal impressions. The atheist by an informed conscience. The Christian by books written over 2,000 years ago which, among other things, contain instructions to slay every man, woman and child in battle. Which is superior?


It's similar to the authority a policeman has. I recognize his authority. My recognition does not give him authority, but rather acknowledges it. The same is true of the Bible. I recognize the authority it has, but my recognition does not give it authority. It simple acknowledges it.

The authority of the policeman is based on the law of the community. The authority of the Bible has no basis except its own self-referential claims. Like you admit, you may recognize it but such recognition does not give it authority.

Both atheists and Christians determine what is good by personal impressions.

Not true. It's on the level of saying we determine what is legal based on personal impressions of the Constitution.


The Christian by books written over 2,000 years ago which, among other things, contain instructions to slay every man, woman and child in battle.

You would have to understand the circumstances of the invasion of Canaan. I don't think you do.


The authority of the policeman is based on the law of the community. The authority of the Bible has no basis except its own self-referential claims. Like you admit, you may recognize it but such recognition does not give it authority.

Read the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah 53 and get back with us. Check out the empty tomb and let us know what you think. Read the accounts of the life of Jesus. To suggest that the Bible has no basis for authority is simply not true.

Again you have turned politics into religion. For the record I and many others are not bound by your religious interpretations, nor are your fellow Christians. It personally doesn't matter what you believe only that you voted for and support the policies of a PROVEN liar and cheater. Doesn't matter what you quote to justify it either.

For the record I and many others are not bound by your religious interpretations, nor are your fellow Christians.

For the record, when did I say you were?


It personally doesn't matter what you believe only that you voted for and support the policies of a PROVEN liar and cheater.

In the 2016 election, we were presented a choice between two liars/cheaters. You voted for one and I voted for the other. I'm not sure how that gives you ownership of the moral high ground.

Besides, on what basis do you say that lying if immoral? Is that merely your own opinion, or do you have a higher authority to appeal to?

Not true. It's on the level of saying we determine what is legal based on personal impressions of the Constitution.

You do know, do you not, that the Constitution has to be interpreted? The interpretation is performed by the personal (informed) impressions of the judges.


You would have to understand the circumstances of the invasion of Canaan. I don't think you do.

You just struck a blow for the relativity of morality. And managed to insult me at the same time. A doubleheader! I thought you frowned on personal attacks. We all await your understanding of invading Canaan.


Read the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah 53 and get back with us.

I don't think I will, but if you wish to make your point here re those prophecies, I'll be more than happy to read your take.


Check out the empty tomb and let us know what you think.

I can do this from memory but you need to be more specific for me to relate what I think about the empty tomb.


Read the accounts of the life of Jesus.

I've read the Gospels many times. I like them. Your point?


To suggest that the Bible has no basis for authority is simply not true.

I said its basis was self-referential. That means its claim to authority is found within itself. There is no evidence outside itself that makes the claim it derives its authority from God. None.

I said its basis was self-referential. That means its claim to authority is found within itself. There is no evidence outside itself that makes the claim it derives its authority from God. None.

Read my previous answer again.


You just struck a blow for the relativity of morality. And managed to insult me at the same time. A doubleheader! I thought you frowned on personal attacks. We all await your understanding of invading Canaan.

There was no personal attack. I simply said I didn't think you understood the circumstances. If you think that is a personal attack, then you must lead a sheltered life. The inhabitants of Canaan had been given 400 years to move towards God and had refused. The culture was so unspeakably wicked and depraved that nothing remained but to eliminate it, much as what happened at Sodom. You forget that God is still the judge of the whole earth. But that was not a blanket command to go out and wipe out whole cities as a matter of course.


I don't think I will, but if you wish to make your point here re those prophecies, I'll be more than happy to read your take.

I didn't think you would.


I've read the Gospels many times. I like them. Your point?

That when you perform miracles and are raised from the dead, then I will grant authority to you. Until then, I think I'll stick with the words of the man who did perform miracles and was raised from the dead.


You do know, do you not, that the Constitution has to be interpreted? The interpretation is performed by the personal (informed) impressions of the judges.

It is interpreted in its application, but the basis form of our government is clearly spelled out. That does not prevent corrupt men/women from injecting their own ideas into the mix, but a common sense reading of the Constitituion would reveal that. If, for instance, the SC decided that it was illegal to print newspapers, it would be easy to disprove that. The Bible is the same way. So yes, they have to be read and understood, but not on the basis of mere personal impressions. Words still have meaning.

Read my previous answer again.

Please refresh my memory. What exactly did you write that disputed the fact that the Bible is self-referential (as I explained to you). I can find nothing, which is why I ask for your help.


The inhabitants of Canaan had been given 400 years to move towards God and had refused. The culture was so unspeakably wicked and depraved that nothing remained but to eliminate it, much as what happened at Sodom.

Your answer borders on blasphemy. To attribute to God the things that are the devil's may be the unforgivable sin. But let's bring it down to our level. The "wickedness" of Canaan, you must realize, is attested to by the Hebrew scribes - the victors. You know what they say about the victors and the vanquished when history is written, don't you? We don't have the other side (the Canaan side) of the story. Even so, the punishment was pretty drastic.


You forget that God is still the judge of the whole earth.

I haven't forgotten that for a moment, but the god you describe is not the God I believe in. Mine doesn't go around slaughtering whole families because of wickedness. Mine preaches forgiveness. And exactly how is a child wicked?


But that was not a blanket command to go out and wipe out whole cities as a matter of course.

Gee, that makes me feel so much better.

I haven't forgotten that for a moment, but the god you describe is not the God I believe in. Mine doesn't go around slaughtering whole families because of wickedness. Mine preaches forgiveness. And exactly how is a child wicked?

I am describing the God of the Bible. If you serve a different god, then you are free to do that. I understood we were describing the God of the Bible. If you want to question the accuracy of the narrative, then I don't know why you would believe any of it.

As to the authority of the Bible, go back and read my previous answer and think carefully about it.

This came in later - in for a penny, in for a pound.


=jlisenbe;3836763I didn't think you would.

If you knew, why did you ask? You still have the chance to make your point.


That when you perform miracles and are raised from the dead, then I will grant authority to you. Until then, I think I'll stick with the words of the man who did perform miracles and was raised from the dead.

There's much more to the Bible than the words of Jesus.


a common sense reading of the Constitituion would reveal that. If, for instance, the SC decided that it was illegal to print newspapers, it would be easy to disprove that.

Thank you. You are proving my point. "Common sense", informed conscience is required - not simply a claim to authority. That's how Kings operated in the world the USA left behind.


The Bible is the same way. So yes, they have to be read and understood, but not on the basis of mere personal impressions.

At root, there is nothing else but "mere" personal impressions. That's how everything starts when examining any proposition. Cogito, ergo sum.


Words still have meaning.

Sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you. Your difficulty with the meaning of words is well-known. Well, I think I just insulted you, but truth may be a defense.

So men in states that make laws that go against the Constitution would be wrong?

I am describing the God of the Bible.

Actually, we were discussing the Bible's claim to authority. You brought up the Canaan business and the Bible God slaughtering everybody.


If you serve a different god,

Well, we apparently do since I don't believe in a god as monstrous as yours.


If you want to question the accuracy of the narrative, then I don't know why you would believe any of it.

That's called a non-sequitur. Much of the Bible is accurate but not always in a literal sense. There are members here who have studied the Bible in a scholarly way, and they may be able to give you some guidance.


As to the authority of the Bible, go back and read my previous answer and think carefully about it.

I've responded twice now to this, and you have yet to explain your meaning. Don't say I didn't give you a chance.

"Common sense", informed conscience is required - not simply a claim to authority.

That is the root of our disagreement. Words have meaning and convey meaning. Conscience is not the deciding factor so much as the words. As it says in Matthew, "And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any."

Being truthful is the key, and for that to happen there must be an objective standard of truth that resides above the conscience and thoughts of mere men like you and me.


I've responded twice now to this, and you have yet to explain your meaning. Don't say I didn't give you a chance.

And this my third time to suggest you read carefully my first answer. I have given you a chance as well.


That's called a non-sequitur. Much of the Bible is accurate but not always in a literal sense.

Unsurprisingly, I do not agree. The text of Joshua is very plain and I know of no one who seriously suggests it is metaphorical. Now you don't like the outcome, and I see that, but if you set aside a text because it displeases you, then you make yourself out to be the judge and not God. I much prefer God show me what displeases Him since it is His opinion that really matters .

So men in states that make laws that go against the Constitution would be wrong?

First of all, don't you think it is sexist of you to limit law-making to men? (<:

Would it be legally wrong? Yes, so long as you bear in mind that the Constitution sets plain limits on the power of the fed government. Would it be morally wrong? Depends, but then I am the only one on this thread that seems to have a moral standard that is above the opinions of men, so that might not be a fair observation for you to respond to.

Added note: Lest he sharply rebuke me, I must note that Clete, I believe, regards the Bible as authoritative.

First of all, don't you think it is sexist of you to limit law-making to men? (<:

Would it be legally wrong? Yes, so long as you bear in mind that the Constitution sets plain limits on the power of the fed government. Would it be morally wrong? Depends, but then I am the only one on this thread that seems to have a moral standard that is above the opinions of men, so that might not be a fair observation for you to respond to.

Added note: Lest he sharply rebuke me, I must note that Clete, I believe, regards the Bible as authoritative.

Your a card, with or without humor, arrogance, loony fonts.

Your a card, with or without humor, arrogance, loony fonts.

Someone has to cheer up this thread!! Still plan on buying you that cup of coffee one of these days.

Athos: Much of the Bible is accurate but not always in a literal sense.

JL: Unsurprisingly, I do not agree.
Is. 55:12 -- The mountains and hills will burst into song, and the trees of the field will clap their hands!

I did not agree that my reference was a non-sequitur. You must be more careful about your partial quotes. Also, I have explained in previous posts that I understand that some parts of the Bible are metaphors, analogies, or idioms. Is your memory fading???

I did not agree that my reference was a non-sequitur. You must be more careful about your partial quotes. Also, I have explained in previous posts that I understand that some parts of the Bible are metaphors, analogies, or idioms. Is your memory fading???
Oh, silly me! You do it, so I figured anyone else can too.

Oh, silly me! You do it, so I figured anyone else can too.

I'll let it slide this time, but it must not happen again. (symbol for humor)

I'll let it slide this time, but it must not happen again. (symbol for humor)
Oh, yeah. I'm supposed to be a submissive woman. I keep forgetting.

Oh, yeah. I'm supposed to be a submissive woman. I keep forgetting.

You see? Your memory is fading! Thank goodness I'm here to remind you of these things. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

I must note that Clete, I believe, regards the Bible as authoritative.

When the Lord is silent, refer to what he has previously said.

When the Lord is silent, refer to what he has previously said.

God is never silent, humans just may not be listening. Perhaps we are saying the same thing basically Clete? For sure there doesn't seem to be any evidence the dufus listens to God, or have I missed something here?

God is never silent, humans just may not be listening. Perhaps we are saying the same thing basically Clete? For sure there doesn't seem to be any evidence the dufus listens to God, or have I missed something here?

God uses the foolish things of this Earth to confound the wise, I'll let you chew on that for a while

Already had breakfast, but confounding or not things have to be dealt with.

I see my post was hijacked for more bible discussion.

I see my post was hijacked for more bible discussion.

It's all Wondergirl's and Tal's fault.

It's all Wondergirl's and Tal's fault.

Gen. 3:12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me-she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

*WG points finger at JL* (Post #68, "Quite a number of low income housing units filled with single parent families and an absence of fathers. Kind of a predictable outcome. It's the something the Gospel could fix if believed on.")

What a lousy time for your memory to kick in.

I see my post was hijacked for more bible discussion.

See what happens when you don't show up.

Yes, they do. Romans 2:14-15 (NLT) -- 14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

Post 80. And the first person to quote from the Bible was (drum roll) Wondergirl! Can't escape it. You had some involvement in this hijacking yourself. Admit your wrong-doing!!

Post 80. And the first person to quote from the Bible was (drum roll) Wondergirl! Can't escape it. You had some involvement in this hijacking yourself. Admit your wrong-doing!!
Nope, you were the Pied Piper. You started it with Post 68. ("Quite a number of low income housing units filled with single parent families and an absence of fathers. Kind of a predictable outcome. It's the something the Gospel could fix if believed on.")

I see my post was hijacked for more bible discussion.

There are many points of view Tom, you want to stick to the pure political, however there are lessons to be learned from a biblical perspective

It's the something the Gospel could fix if believed on.

Strictly speaking, I did not mention the Bible in that post, but I am most happy to admit to leading the charge to discuss things Biblical. I hope that will characterize the rest of my existence on this earth.

But being the first to QUOTE the Bible implicates you as well. Be careful. You could get the reputation of being an evangelical Christian if you are not careful.

You have to admit the dufus and his lawyers have the House all tied in knots trying to interview witnesses and getting documents. More court cases coming.

But being the first to QUOTE the Bible implicates you as well. Be careful. You could get the reputation of being an evangelical Christian if you are not careful.
Oh, I've been an evangelical Lutheran all my life. It used to be a unique adjective describing Jesus' words in Matt. 28:19 -- until the fundies stole it so they'd look and sound better.

I'm surprised to hear that. You don't seem to believe that accepting Christ as Lord and Savior will radically change and improve a person's life, or at least I never see you state that on this board.

There are many points of view Tom, you want to stick to the pure political, however there are lessons to be learned from a biblical perspective

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/ (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/)

You have to admit the dufus and his lawyers have the House all tied in knots trying to interview witnesses and getting documents. More court cases coming.
Yeah I get their game . Drag Hope Hicks up to the Hill for 8 hrs ,with all the costs going to the witness ;having to retain legal council etc. ,when there was absolutely nothing to gain from her testimony . Hicks had already endured hours of testimony before the House and Senate, and Mueller's investigators. They were even asking personal questions about her love life . If Trump did not supply the lawyers ,their fee would've come out of her pocket ,not out of that slob Nadler's.That pos repeatedly insulted her by calling her Ms Lewandowski(referring to rumors from the discredited book 'Fire and Fury ' by Michael Wolffe ,that she had an affair with Cory Lewandowski. ).When she finally called him out on the insult his snarky reply was the he was 'preoccupied ' . That is the kind version of the event . There is a possibility that the pompous, arrogant, and sanctimonious jerk Nadless is losing it and genuinely thought her name was Lewandowski .

I haven't gotten my hands on the transcripts yet, or stocked up on eye glass cleaner but closed sessions don't have the same impact on the public as open hearings do so this round belongs to the dufus hands down and I suspect will lead to a court battle over "IMMUNITY", and executive privilege. Yeah, lawyers are expensive, even for the well heeled and more for civil and criminal attorneys. Probably why our jails are full of ordinary criminals.

Costs money to OBJECT at the proper time, which they did extensively the other day. The gloves come off after the August recess I suspect.

Probably why our jails are full of ordinary criminals.

Does the fact that they broke laws have any bearing on them being in jail?

That's a matter of debate since my premise was affording legal representation since most cannot. Hope Hicks can, and has a rich guy behind her and she isn't even being prosecuted for a crime, it was just a hearing. So you don't think there are two sets of criminal justice for the rich and poor?

So you don't think there are two sets of criminal justice for the rich and poor?

No, but I would agree that the rich have an advantage in being able to afford more capable lawyers. Best advice is to avoid breaking the law.

The biggest problems I see with the criminal justice system are its use of a number of corrupt/inept people and an ocean of laws that most people have no hope of being familiar with.

I'm sure that's very comforting for the targets of any infractions that lands them in the criminal justice system. In the case of someone like Hope Hicks she has admitted to telling white lies over small things which is her version that begs the question of what small things she told those white lies about, and why you need two teams of lawyers to explain it.

The disparity in prosecution and sentencing between powder and rock cocaine is a huge one, and that's but one example off the top of my head. Equal protection under the law has long been a fallacy that sounds good but has little basis in fact.

Costs money to OBJECT at the proper time, which they did extensively the other day. The gloves come off after the August recess I suspect.

This is redundant BS . If they have something start the impeachment .


. Hope Hicks can, and has a rich guy behind her and she isn't even being prosecuted for a crime, it was just a hearing. So you don't think there are two sets of criminal justice for the rich and poor? Anyone who testifies to Congress and does not have representation present is nuts . She has already spent a fortune on that and before this week had many hours of testimony between both houses of Congress and Mueller's investigators . All they are looking for is a perjury trap . Stop the games .

Hicks needs a lawyer alright as even without the transcripts of her testimony I have already gleaned she was helping cover up many of the dufus antics, and that was outlined in the Mueller Report. Not surprising at all the right is impatient, but not so much at the stall tactics of the dufus. The only ones worried about perjury traps are LIARS who can't keep their story straight, and we all know the dufus falls in that category, so his cohorts may be as confused about which LIE they should tell. Hicks whole testimony is based on NOT answering questions, so it's good she has two sets of expensive lawyers.

Sader blew off his testimony before the house Intell committee this morning so we may have nothing to chew on this weekend except this Iran shakedown, saber rattling debacle until a subpoena can be issued. Or maybe Roy Moore trying again in Alabama.

Stop the games .


As soon as the color of Trump's clothing is the same as the color of his hair.

Tal you'll have your fodder Sunday morning after Trump appears on 'Meet the Press' . I generally don't watch those Sunday shows but I may have to make the time to at least dvr it .

All they are looking for is a perjury trap . Stop the games .


What else they got if not the game? They got beat playing their own game...the game must go on!

Tal you'll have your fodder Sunday morning after Trump appears on 'Meet the Press' . I generally don't watch those Sunday shows but I may have to make the time to at least dvr it .

I can't wait for this red meat for the base spin fest. Answer questions? The dufus? On fake news? Rating bonanza for Chuck Todd! Must see TV for me!

He doesn't shy away from leftist pit bulls . He allowed Clintoonopolis access for 48 hrs .

49183


God uses the foolish things of this Earth to confound the wise, I'll let you chew on that for a while

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/173/17308/1730865.jpg

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/172/17297/1729716.jpghttps://www.arcamax.com/newspics/173/17302/1730291.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/173/17309/1730948.jpg

The second cartoon where it is said, "If we win in 2020, you'll be able to come right in the front door," whose statement to a certain Russian official does that remind you of???

Maybe Obama colluded with the Russians, TWICE like the dufus did and will do again...he said so.

The real question here is when will the posturing end and dialogue begin?

Likely after the war.