Epstein commits Arkanacide


https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-dead/ (https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-dead/)

and Bubba said ;
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/23f146e3-6010-4e92-863d-7a1887ee2ee8

Prison is not a safe place

Epstein commits Arkanacide


https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-dead/ (https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/convicted-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-dead/)


Trump's personal attorney Barr was "livid" when he found out.

yup a rock was lifted and a bunch of snakes scattered . But now they can sleep well at night. Another group of innocent victims who courageously came forward; denied justice ……………………...again .

Prison is not a safe place
especially when the deep state wants gone Just ask Whitey Bulger (Comey and Mueller sleep better )

But the Clintoons are the masters . Just ask James McDougal .Key witness in the Starr investigation who died from a heart attack in jail. There are ultiple other coincidental deaths surrounding Bubba and Evita . Besides the well known famous suicide of Evita's colleague at Rose Law Firm Vince Foster ,the sequence that most intrigues me is the case of Ron Brown. Bubba's Commerce Sec ,Brown was under investigation and supposedly was going to cut a Deal .The plane he was in on his way to a trade mission crashed . A pathologist found a hole in the back of his head resembling a gun shot wound. The next day ,his attorney was murdered in a drive by shooting . Then a few days after the crash ;the air traffic controller monitoring Brown's flight committed Arkanside

Trump's personal attorney Barr was "livid" when he found out.



He is AG and not Trump's personal attorney .


Barr said that he was "appalled" to learn of Epstein's death while in federal custody and that the incident “raises serious questions that must be answered.” The Justice Dept will conduct an investigation . This is a DOJ failure .
U.S. Attorney Berman has some 'splain to do .Evidently he was taken off suicide watch . I wonder who provided the rope.

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prison-experts-are-stunned-angry-jeffrey-epstein-was-taken-suicide-n1041121 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prison-experts-are-stunned-angry-jeffrey-epstein-was-taken-suicide-n1041121)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U89DzP8NGM4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2ysiQoDXpjMP7GxihIxNY0Rp9CNExoJ3nu6z-Aro9z3D9VwF8VdZrdVyc

He is AG and not Trump's personal attorney .



I guess you have not been watching the TV news or reading the papers for the last few months.

lets put it this way . He's as much Trump's personal lawyer is as Loretta ;secret meetings on the tarmac ,Lynch was for the emperor ,or Eric ,contempt of Congress Holder , was for the emperor .

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p370x247/68483702_10220193482964146_7724783296453804032_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_oc=AQkpEF3sa-NLurZvvf_aBEhOrfPXBl9iMHsh07MrI_TaJ1xDcBPBwipJtJmJ N-euAsw&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=a351d81be967591a2760464fd5f489e2&oe=5DD12880 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10220193482924145&set=p.10220193482924145&type=3)

lets put it this way . He's as much Trump's personal lawyer is as Loretta ;secret meetings on the tarmac ,Lynch was for the emperor ,or Eric ,contempt of Congress Holder , was for the emperor .


None of that changes the fact that Barr is a failure at representing the American people as AG. His letter of application where he misstates the basic law re Kings and Emperors and presidents is an embarrassment to anyone who respects the law.

Conservatives and right wing loonies love to spin and exaggerate the Obama administration, but cannot bring themselves to admit this is the most corrupt, incompetent, chaotic administration in our history. Doesn't come close to Nixon and he got caught. I know tax cuts for the rich, and tough cruel talk, and actions keeps you enthralled, but I would wait on that sigh of relief for a while as more documents and revelations about Epstein are sure to surface, and no telling whose name gets spit out. The guy spent a lifetime building wealth and doing all kinds of stuff, and I suspect we have barely scratched the surface of it.

I would wait on that sigh of relief for a while
I hope all the slugs who traveled to Epstein's pedophile Island get caught . All I'm saying is that it is very likely that they made the call that 'dead men tell no tales' . I have no political dog in that fight . Republican ;Democrat ,if they went there to abuse Epstein's sex slaves then castration is the most lenient punishment I would prescribe.

I can only agree with that sentiment, and hope the victims of this peodiphile predator and his enablers get their justice.

They had a big roundup of migrants in Mississippi last week and I know that will be cheered by many and the absolute cruelty and poor planning will be ignored. Of course the employers will face no consequences, other than they need more workers to replace the detained ones.

While I can get with enforcing the law, I have always advocated for the most human efficient implementation of that enforcement. Again the dufus administration deeply disappoints in that regard, but no surprise there. O'Rourke just unloaded on the dufus visit claiming none of the shooting victims in El Paso agreed to see the prez, so he settled for a photo with the orphaned baby whose parents were massacred. Consoler in chief he ain't. He adds to the general depression as I realize for all the lofty words and intent, we as a nation fall far short of the goal, and the dufus is but the face of that failure, not the cause.

Of course the employers will face no consequences
They should unless they can prove that 100s of illegals passed E-Verify.



While I can get with enforcing the law, I have always advocated for the most human efficient implementation of that enforcement
What do you do ? Advertise ahead of time and announce that illegals at these plants should have accommodations for their children if they get detained ? If we break the law we get detained and they are not going to delay that to be more humane about it .

Beto's cheap shots from the cheap seats is disgusting I think it is deplorable that Trump ,acting in his role as President would be condemned for going to El Paso to attempt to give comfort . If he didn't he would've been condemned worse .

Taking a photo op with that baby, Trump all smiles and thumb up, was in breathtakingly poor bad taste. One story had him asking/ordering for the baby to be brought to the hospital for that purpose when none - ZERO - of the victims agreed to see him.

Not a day goes by when this evil goon fails to surpass the previous day's evil.


I think it is deplorable that Trump ,acting in his role as President would be condemned for going to El Paso to attempt to give comfort ..

"To give comfort"??????????? Are you crazy? These are the people he encouraged the shooter to kill. The killer followed Trump's twitter to the tune of dozens dead and injured.

yeah and Bernie Sanders encouraged a shooter to take shots at Republican Reps .And Elizabeth Warren encouraged the Dayton shooter . Do you know how crazy you sound ?

yeah and Bernie Sanders encouraged a shooter to take shots at Republican Reps .And Elizabeth Warren encouraged the Dayton shooter . Do you know how crazy you sound ?


Your post (again) reveals how out of touch you are with Trump's actions. Did you see the rally where Trump encouraged the "Shoot them" comment from his audience? That's only one among many. Who sounds crazy now?

Trump "encouraged " a chant of shoot them ? Not true .
But I do recall a rally where Trump specifically said that he could not order people crossing the border shot . Then ONE rally goer shouted 'shoot them' and Trump made a flippant joke that could happen "only in the pan handle ". Is that the one you are referring to ? Because that is hardly encouraging shooting

Yes, that's the one. We disagree on how that was received.

His smile, his flippant attitude, his momentary silence - all are kinds of encouragement, especially to the shooters who are frequently quoting Trump in their farewell notes.

I don't think this is even debatable. Instead of clearly and forcefully CONDEMNING these crazies, he uses the killings as a political chance to promote himself.

tomder -- "only in the panhandle"

The Texas Panhandle is 'way up north.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Panhandle

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryp01

unless he was refering to the Florida pan handle .

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Panhandle_Florida.png/220px-Panhandle_Florida.png



His smile, his flippant attitude, his momentary silence - all are kinds of encouragement, especially to the shooters who are frequently quoting Trump in their farewell notes. must be like those mysterious dog whistles .

Trump "encouraged " a chant of shoot them ? Not true .
But I do recall a rally where Trump specifically said that he could not order people crossing the border shot . Then ONE rally goer shouted 'shoot them' and Trump made a flippant joke that could happen "only in the pan handle ". Is that the one you are referring to ? Because that is hardly encouraging shooting

That may be very true but in half way sane reasonable minds, but we are talking crazy racist psychopathic homicidal sociopaths here. I believe a reasonable person would be mindful of that when he is in a public forum with an audience. Is that too much to expect from a leader?

There is nothing mysterious about dog whistles! Why is that so hard for non minorities to understand?

we are talking crazy racist psychopathic homicidal sociopaths here.
and he was there at the rally yelling 'shoot them' ? No of course not . Again ;if his words inspired a "
crazy racist psychopathic homicidal sociopaths " then Sanders and Warren did the same .



There is nothing mysterious about dog whistles! Why is that so hard for non minorities to understand?

because if we were using secret coded " dog whistles "to communicate then it would be designed so minorities wouldn't understand it .The truth is that the left assigns the label "dog whistles" to words to shape the language to mean what they want it to mean. In other words you don't hear the phrase labelling anything that progressives say . But it is used constantly to smear the language and intent of conservatives .

But maybe we should start assigning them ..How about the words
"Inclusiveness" "Diversity" really are dog whistles for 'no whites allowed ? ' hmmmm now the shoe is on the other foot.

and he was there at the rally yelling 'shoot them' ? No of course not .


That rally scene has been played thousands of times on TV. Of course, he saw it, just as you did and you weren't there, were you?

because if we were using secret coded " dog whistles "to communicate then it would be designed so minorities wouldn't understand it .The truth is that the left assigns the label "dog whistles" to words to shape the language to mean what they want it to mean. In other words you don't hear the phrase labelling anything that progressives say . But it is used constantly to smear the language and intent of conservatives .


In the racists world Tom, they use dog whistles to communicate with each other and that's a very important distinction to make. That you can't hear it speaks well for you and other non minorities, but trust me minorities always must be cautious and aware of such language for their own protection. I ask you not to dismiss the notion of prejudiced, bigoted, so you can better understand what we are really talking about and it's not the white race being criticized, just the segment consumed by hate because of race. The core base the dufus intentionally appeals to with his dog whistles that only racial haters can hear.



But maybe we should start assigning them ..How about the words "Inclusiveness" "Diversity" really are dog whistles for 'no whites allowed ? ' hmmmm now the shoe is on the other foot.


I'll let my other statement stand for your consideration.

I ask you not to dismiss the notion of prejudiced, bigoted, That I understand does exist .

In the racists world Tom, they use dog whistles to communicate with each other and that's a very important distinction to make.

How do you know that? I know a lot of white people. I can't think of one that knows some sinister, secret "dog whistle" language of racism.

Now I have heard, "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon." Nothing secretive about that one. Truth is, there is hatred in all segments of society. No one has it as their exclusive domain.

How do you know that? I know a lot of white people. I can't think of one that knows some sinister, secret "dog whistle" language of racism.


I can understand if you don't know those types of people, but they do exist and there are more than you know. I know that as fact, and encountered and have had to deal with them all my life. Not all of them are skin heads or wear hoods either, but you can't tell by looking.

I am glad my friend you don't know such haters, but you cannot tell them apart just by looking. Personally I have found they don't represent all white people but a small percentage. One or maybe two of ten.

but they do exist and there are more than you know. I know that as fact, and encountered and have had to deal with them all my life.

They are out there for sure. I've encountered them, and have also encountered anti-white racism from black people, so it is not limited to one group. In all forms it is unpleasant.

racist

[ˈrāsəst]




ADJECTIVE



prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"





NOUN



a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"he has been targeted by vicious racists online"

What a load of crap, the minorities are prejudiced against the majority in the same way majorities can be prejudiced, do you really think the minorities wouldn't wage the same wars if they could? get it through your head black people can be racist, and when you throw religion in the mix like Islam or Hinduism you get militant racism

What a load of crap, the minorities are prejudiced against the majority in the same way majorities can be prejudiced, do you really think the minorities wouldn't wage the same wars if they could? get it through your head black people can be racist, and when you throw religion in the mix like Islam or Hinduism you get militant racism

You can make the case for the majority and minority feeling the same about each other, fear, hatred mistrust, but would point out that any major religion would result in the same militant racism as well wouldn't it, we know that it has. Fact is Clete we humans have a history of the majority whatever it is, having and holding power over the minority, often cruelly and in oppressive ways. Illogical to think the minority would like it, but that has seldom been considered before, since nothing but abject assimilation and capitulation seems to be the goal of the majority.

By definition the minority cannot be racist, only react to racism. They cannot make or effect or enforce any policy without the agreement of the majority. So being well aware of your bias's and prejudices over the years as well as your many flashes of rationality I'm sure you can grasp the simple concept of the majority reaping what it sows when it has suppressed and dominated the minority against it's will.

What? You think the spoils go to the victor? For a while they do, but it comes with a price for keeping those spoils. The load of crap is in your illogical assumption that the majority and the minority are on equal footing. They are not. Not even close and of course the majority has the motivation to keep it that way. Their idea of survival based on weak perception and very human ego.

Silly humans, you are all alike even though you invent a bunch of crap to prove you are NOT!

You can make the case for the majority and minority feeling the same about each other, fear, hatred mistrust, but would point out that any major religion would result in the same militant racism as well wouldn't it, we know that it has. Fact is Clete we humans have a history of the majority whatever it is, having and holding power over the minority, often cruelly and in oppressive ways. Illogical to think the minority would like it, but that has seldom been considered before, since nothing but abject assimilation and capitulation seems to be the goal of the majority.

By definition the minority cannot be racist, only react to racism. They cannot make or effect or enforce any policy without the agreement of the majority. So being well aware of your bias's and prejudices over the years as well as your many flashes of rationality I'm sure you can grasp the simple concept of the majority reaping what it sows when it has suppressed and dominated the minority against it's will.

What? You think the spoils go to the victor? For a while they do, but it comes with a price for keeping those spoils. The load of crap is in your illogical assumption that the majority and the minority are on equal footing. They are not. Not even close and of course the majority has the motivation to keep it that way. Their idea of survival based on weak perception and very human ego.

Silly humans, you are all alike even though you invent a bunch of crap to prove you are NOT!
Look long ago what happened when a war is won is the defeated became slaves or they were just wiped out, we are too nice now to even think that , but we have no problem enslaving people with poverty and low wages, so now we have minorities and a social conscience because it is politically expedient, wake up and smell the roses, it helps to keep the stink out

By definition the minority cannot be racist, only react to racism. They cannot make or effect or enforce any policy without the agreement of the majority

You are mixing definitions. There is a difference between racism by law, such as the Jim Crow laws, versus personal racism. There is very little racism mixed with law. What people encounter now is racism by individuals or groups of individuals. Whether it is skinheads or BLM, that kind of racism most definitely cuts across racial lines.

Besides, you act as though minority groups such as blacks or Hispanics are standing alone. That is very much not true. Democrats count on the votes of millions of white liberals who see things about the same that black liberals see them. When you look at that, then your entire "majority/minority" argument falls to pieces.

By definition the minority cannot be racist, only react to racism. They cannot make or effect or enforce any policy without the agreement of the majority. So being well aware of your bias's and prejudices over the years as well as your many flashes of rationality I'm sure you can grasp the simple concept of the majority reaping what it sows when it has suppressed and dominated the minority against it's will.

What? You think the spoils go to the victor? For a while they do, but it comes with a price for keeping those spoils. The load of crap is in your illogical assumption that the majority and the minority are on equal footing. They are not. Not even close and of course the majority has the motivation to keep it that way. Their idea of survival based on weak perception and very human ego.


Excellent points!!

You are mixing definitions. There is a difference between racism by law, such as the Jim Crow laws, versus personal racism. There is very little racism mixed with law. What people encounter now is racism by individuals or groups of individuals. Whether it is skinheads or BLM, that kind of racism most definitely cuts across racial lines.

Besides, you act as though minority groups such as blacks or Hispanics are standing alone. That is very much not true. Democrats count on the votes of millions of white liberals who see things about the same that black liberals see them. When you look at that, then your entire "majority/minority" argument falls to pieces.

The majority whatever is seldom in control, you think they are. The real minority that has the money has the control, and if you ever wake up to it that would change in a hurry. You're just to willing to buy into the distraction which is highlighting difference and making it the conflict while you get led by the nose to protect what you think is yours from the others.

Who makes the law, and why? Who enforces the law? Why was there reconstruction and Jim Crow and why did there have to be a Civil Rights Act? Come on guy you can't make up history or the effects of it. When this country declared independence, and wrote the constitution it left many people out of such grand ideas, and to this day many minority groups are still fighting to be part of those big words and ideas centuries later. So please don't tell me what you have done while at the same time telling me how hard you worked to get yours.

I've told you many times to look up stuff that explains why there is, and has always been racism, but you obviously did NOT, so it's no wonder you flail about with little or no understanding of it, or dismiss it as trivial or not important enough to address. You aren't alone, your fellow conservatives are just as clueless as you are, but the struggle continues. They too are distracted chasing whatever your elites shine in front of you.

The majority whatever is seldom in control, you think they are. The real minority that has the money has the control, and if you ever wake up to it that would change in a hurry

There might be some truth to that, but it does not support your contentions about racism.


Who makes the law, and why? Who enforces the law? Why was there reconstruction and Jim Crow and why did there have to be a Civil Rights Act? Come on guy you can't make up history or the effects of it. When this country declared independence, and wrote the constitution it left many people out of such grand ideas, and to this day many minority groups are still fighting to be part of those big words and ideas centuries later. So please don't tell me what you have done while at the same time telling me how hard you worked to get yours.

And again, there is some truth to what you are saying, but what was true 100 years ago does not support your contention of racism now. If any group of people really want to make progress in a hurry, they can find leaders who will call for a love of the two parent family, an embracing of lawful behavior, and an insistence on a high quality education system.


I've told you many times to look up stuff that explains why there is, and has always been racism, but you obviously did NOT, so it's no wonder you flail about with little or no understanding of it, or dismiss it as trivial or not important enough to address.

You are the one contending that racism is rampant. You should find the material to back up your claim and stop whining about what I will or won't do.


You aren't alone, your fellow conservatives are just as clueless as you are, but the struggle continues. They too are distracted chasing whatever your elites shine in front of you.

A completely meaningless statement. They only elite I am following after is Christ.

All due respect but bad enough you claim there is no racism, when the simple thing to do is Google institutional racism or gentrification, and follow the links at your own leisure, but to hide behind your religion is a lousy excuse.

It's quite extensive and a lesson into reality and history. Like studying the bible.

If you have done it, then make your case. We are all waiting.

All due respect but bad enough you claim there is no racism, when the simple thing to do is Google institutional racism or gentrification, and follow the links at your own leisure, but to hide behind your religion is a lousy excuse.

It's quite extensive and a lesson into reality and history. Like studying the bible.


That's some religion he hides behind. That's the one where if you don't believe the way he does you spend eternity in hell being tortured. That includes toddlers and infants who aren't believers because they can't be. He makes no distinction. Then there's the billions of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc., etc., etc., who never heard of his god, but no matter, they all go to hell anyway.

Still waiting for him to deny or clarify but all he offers is "The Bible told me so".

Still waiting for him to deny or clarify but all he offers is "The Bible told me so".

What a crazy comment. The Bible is the foundation of Christian belief. To say, "The Bible says,"is the end of the discussion for us. Anyone with any familiarity with the Christian faith would know that.

I'm not hiding behind anything and if you will do what you typically don't do and read the original comment, then you will realize that. For a Christian to say "I follow Christ" is a very normal thing. You plainly have but little understanding of my faith.

You plainly have but little understanding of my faith.


I understand that your belief is that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

Do you deny that? Yes or no?

If no, does it include infants and toddlers?

I understand that your belief is that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

Do you deny that? Yes or no?

If no, does it include infants and toddlers?

I've never denied that, largely because of this passage in Revelation 20. "11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

As to toddlers and infants, that is less clear. My understanding is that, since they are not guilty of sin, there would be nothing to judge them for. David was convinced his infant child was in heaven.

To say, "The Bible says," is the end of the discussion for us. Anyone with any familiarity with the Christian faith would know that.
Which Bible translation? Whose interpretation?

I've never denied that, [a Bible passage follows]

As to toddlers and infants, that is less clear. My understanding is that, since they are not guilty of sin, there would be nothing to judge them for. David was convinced his infant child was in heaven.


Ah, at least that's progress of a sort. Let's go a step further. How about others who may not be guilty of sin - say, an adult who is mentally disabled and doesn't know right from wrong.

Ah, at least that's progress of a sort. Let's go a step further. How about others who may not be guilty of sin - say, an adult who is mentally disabled and doesn't know right from wrong.

Not yet. First it's time for you to summon up some courage and state your position, which would REALLY be progress. Do you accept the Revelation passage?

Not yet. First it's time for you to summon up some courage and state your position, which would REALLY be progress. Do you accept the Revelation passage?
Accept the Revelation passage as what?

"Revelation was the last book to be accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and even at the present day some Nestorian churches reject it. It was tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship, and it was not until 419 that it was included in the canon."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13997/what-historical-reasons-resulted-in-revelation-being-included-in-most-christian

Accept the Revelation passage as what?

Truth. You plainly don't. Now Athos needs to answer.

For me, I'm perfectly happy to take my stand in Revelation as in any other book of the Bible.

Not yet. First it's time for you to summon up some courage and state your position, which would REALLY be progress. Do you accept the Revelation passage?


Revelation is a literary gem. Sure I accept it. It's full of colorful language, metaphors and symbols, angels and anti-Christs, lakes of fire, books with names written in them, etc., etc., etc.

Did you know it barely made it into the canon? Even then many thought it wasn't really inspired, just a sort of weird dream of John. I think (not sure) the Orthodox have pretty much rejected it and don't use it in their services. I DO know that Luther rejected it - oddly enough for the same reasons I object to it, all the hades and hell stuff - and when he translated his Bible he put Revelation in some back window. Anyway, not in the Bible proper.

Back to the question - the mentally disabled adult. ??

Truth. You plainly don't. Now Athos needs to answer.

For me, I'm perfectly happy to take my stand in Revelation as in any other book of the Bible.
Truth of what????? (I borrowed some of Athos' punctuation marks when he wasn't looking.)

Stop being evasive. So do you accept the passage noted above as truth or not?

Stop being evasive. So do you accept the passage noted above as truth or not?
Truth of literary genius. I'm a Preterist.

I missed something here because no one has quoted the scripture where it's okay to worship a lying cheating dufus who treats men women and children like animals and bears them false witness. Can any of you scholars of scripture help find where thats part of Christianity please?

Truth of literary genius. I'm a Preterist.

Like I said. Evasive.


I missed something here because no one has quoted the scripture where it's okay to worship a lying cheating dufus who treats men women and children like animals and bears them false witness

Wow. I must be the one who really missed something here. That would be the place where anyone suggested we worship Mr. Trump. And, of course, the holier than thou mantra starts back up again.

Like I said. Evasive.
Not at all. Look up Preterist.

Not at all. Look up Preterist.

So you are really and seriously trying to suggest that Revelation came to pass by A.D. 70???

Evasive.

So you are really and seriously trying to suggest that Revelation came to pass by A.D. 70???

Evasive.
Revelation was written for a definite purpose. That's why the book almost didn't make the cut into the canon. In order to understand Revelation, you must understand apocalyptic literature. The author of Revelation admits to living during the very time his visions are concerned with, and in the last chapter his angelic guide forbids him from sealing his scroll 'because the time is near' and the events 'must soon happen'.

Wow. I must be the one who really missed something here. That would be the place where anyone suggested we worship Mr. Trump. And, of course, the holier than thou mantra starts back up again.

Even if you don't worship the dufus, of which I'm not convinced since you sure sound like it, where in scripture does it allow for cruelty to men, women, and children and allows you to even support a racist? How can I even be holier than thou when you have a bible and I don't.

Anybody ever see the dufus going to church?

Revelation was written for a definite purpose. That's why the book almost didn't make the cut into the canon. In order to understand Revelation, you must understand apocalyptic literature. The author of Revelation admits to living during the very time his visions are concerned with, and in the last chapter his angelic guide forbids him from sealing his scroll 'because the time is near' and the events 'must soon happen'.

If you really believe Revelation has already happened, then I don't know what to tell you. Passages such as this have plainly not happened, and certainly not by A.D. 70. "9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice"

Evasiveness is, I believe, your middle name.

If you really believe Revelation has already happened, then I don't know what to tell you. Passages such as this have plainly not happened, and certainly not by A.D. 70. "9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice"

Evasiveness is, I believe, your middle name.
It was a vision!!!!!!!!!!

It was a vision!!!!!!!!!!

From God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just have chosen not to believe it. There you are. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it. You are free to believe what you wish. But as Elijah said, “How much longer will you waver, hobbling between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him!"

If the Bible is true, then follow it. If not, then throw it away.

From God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are those from Athos' stash?

You just have chosen not to believe it. There you are. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it. You are free to believe what you wish. But as Elijah said, “How much longer will you waver, hobbling between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him!"
Huh? How am I not following Him?

If the Bible is true, then follow it. If not, then throw it away.
"The Bible is true." That means you take every word literally?

Huh? How am I not following Him?


I'm not suggesting you are not following Him. I am suggesting you are evasive when it comes to coming down on one side or the other of a scripture.


"The Bible is true." That means you take every word literally?

Of course not, but the whole "literal/metaphoric" argument can easily become nothing more than an excuse for trying to explain away those parts of the Bible that I personally don't care for. So for me to not take a passage literally, I need to have a really good reason.

How you miss the point, as Paul told us all of scripture is useful for teaching, for rebuke so not one word can be ignored and it really doesn't matter whether it is literal or metaphoric it is something God wants us to know but the detail is his alone. I am reminded of a quote from Einstein "I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details"

I'm not suggesting you are not following Him. I am suggesting you are evasive when it comes to coming down on one side or the other of a scripture.
I was very specific, not evasive.

Revelation tells us that Jesus Christ returns to earth, ushers in the Last Judgment, and establishes a new Heaven and a new Earth.

Good. Then you accept the scripture. Wonderful, Wondergirl!


it really doesn't matter whether it is literal or metaphoric

Of course it does. It matters a great deal. When, for instance, Jesus says He is the door of the sheepfold, He does not literally mean He is a door or that we are literally sheep. And the passage we looked at in Revelation is another prime example.

Truth. You plainly don't. Now Athos needs to answer.


Athos answered immediately after you. See post 51.

Now back to the question - the mentally disabled adult ??

Of course it does. It matters a great deal. When, for instance, Jesus says He is the door of the sheepfold, He does not literally mean He is a door or that we are literally sheep. And the passage we looked at in Revelation is another prime example.

Ok you don't want to be a sheep led by the good shepherd Jesus and yet he tells us my sheep hear my voice. I am one of his sheep because if the Lamb of God sees me as a sheep then a sheep I am. As I said it doesn't matter I am what God wants me to be. Bah, Bah, Bah!

So you're a sheep, JL isn't, or is and doesn't know it.

can't help myself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaSa78_NM0

Athos answered immediately after you. See post 51.


Now back to the question - the mentally disabled adult ??

This was your reply. "Revelation is a literary gem. Sure I accept it. It's full of colorful language, metaphors and symbols, angels and anti-Christs, lakes of fire, books with names written in them, etc., etc., etc." You and WG must have gone to the same school of evasive answers.

As to the mentally disabled, I don't know of any scripture which addresses it, so I would agree with Abraham's observation. "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

This was your reply. "Revelation is a literary gem. Sure I accept it. It's full of colorful language, metaphors and symbols, angels and anti-Christs, lakes of fire, books with names written in them, etc., etc., etc." You and WG must have gone to the same school of evasive answers.
What part of Athos' response is evasive?


As to the mentally disabled, I don't know of any scripture which addresses it, so I would agree with Abraham's observation. "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
And JL slaps responders down for being evasive....

What part of Athos' response is evasive?


A simple yes or no would have been nice. Instead we get a long discussion of literary gems, angels, and lakes of fire.


And JL slaps responders down for being evasive....


I answered honestly. Do you know of a scripture that addresses the judgement of the mentally disabled?

A simple yes or no would have been nice. Instead we get a long discussion of literary gems, angels, and lakes of fire.
Apparently, you haven't read the book.

I answered honestly. Do you know of a scripture that addresses the judgement of the mentally disabled?
"A simple yes or no would have been nice."

Apparently, you haven't read the book.

Only a few dozen times.


"A simple yes or no would have been nice."

Go back and read the question. "Now back to the question - the mentally disabled adult ??" That does not call for a yes or no answer. If you believe that all questions should ultimately be answered with scripture, then I'm saying I don't know other than to say the Judge of all the earth will do what is right. So I would be happy to accept an "I don't know" answer when it is appropriate, but to answer with long, indecisive verbiage is called being evasive.

Go back and read the question. "Now back to the question - the mentally disabled adult ??" That does not call for a yes or no answer. If you believe that all questions should ultimately be answered with scripture, then I'm saying I don't know other than to say the Judge of all the earth will do what is right. So I would be happy to accept an "I don't know" answer when it is appropriate, but to answer with long, indecisive verbiage is called being evasive.
#47 as a followup to #44 by Athos: Ah, at least that's progress of a sort. Let's go a step further. How about others who may not be guilty of sin - say, an adult who is mentally disabled and doesn't know right from wrong.

#47 as a followup to #44 by Athos: Ah, at least that's progress of a sort. Let's go a step further. How about others who may not be guilty of sin - say, an adult who is mentally disabled and doesn't know right from wrong.

I'm not sure what your point is.

To be clear on the issue of being evasive, I try to give a firm yes or no. If I'm not sure, I'll say I'm not sure. If my answer is conditional, I'll state the conditions, but I hope I don't cloak my reply in a fog of words which have no function other than to "muddy the waters".


Revelation was written for a definite purpose. That's why the book almost didn't make the cut into the canon.

Are you back to the idea that Revelation was intended to be some sort of secret code?

Dufus sycophant ultra conservative Ken Cuccinelli said the immigration poem on the statue of liberty was only meant for Europeans. Is that true or is that blatant racism right in front of our faces?

https://time.com/5651068/trump-immigration-ken-cuccinelli-statue-of-liberty/

Cuccinelli is a disgrace to all Americans.

I'm not sure what your point is.

THE POINT IS you never answered my question about mentally disturbed adults and whether they go to hell for eternal punishment because they did not believe.


To be clear on the issue of being evasive, I try to give a firm yes or no.

Or simply evade the question entirely which I asked THREE times! You EVADED all three.


but I hope I don't cloak my reply in a fog of words which have no function

You don't "cloak your reply" in ANY words much less foggy ones!

To be clear on the issue of being evasive, I try to give a firm yes or no.
Or simply evade the question entirely which I asked THREE times! You EVADED all three.

You intentionally misrepresented my reply by leaving out the part where I ALSO said I would say I didn't know or present conditions when that is appropriate. I responded and told you I knew of no scripture that addressed the mentally disabled and so, that being the case, I would agree with Abraham that the Judge of the earth would do what was right.

Your previous reply, however, about the Revelation passage was this. ""Revelation is a literary gem. Sure I accept it. It's full of colorful language, metaphors and symbols, angels and anti-Christs, lakes of fire, books with names written in them, etc., etc., etc."

So you accept it as a "literary gem"??? That was not the point and you know it. It's your specialty to ask many questions and yet never say anything concrete yourself.

Why are you still arguing your religious stuff in the forum for politics and current events? Whenever you get cornered on your social and cultural stances how convenient you bring out your bible. Then ad nauseum berating your responders just as you do when your social crap falls short. I think the antics of you're alt right, far ring wing loony coalition may be a bit much for even you to defend so you happily retreat to your religious comfort zone and your bible. What you think no one knows what your doing?

It's disgraceful you protect the lying cheating dufus with your book of ancient man's opinions and preachings which you base your faith on, but none of that has a hill of beans to what's happening in your country, by your elected officials and all do respect your bible ain't gonna save us until we get with the facts that you are so happy to ignore and dismiss.

I ain't mad at ya though, because if I was in the same weak position I would change the subject you have proven less than adequate in and move the conversation to one I was better fit to comment on. However my friend you have succeeded in hijacking this forum yet again.

Just articulating the obvious!

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you are the one who decided to make religion an issue. Your post was, "All due respect but bad enough you claim there is no racism, when the simple thing to do is Google institutional racism or gentrification, and follow the links at your own leisure, but to hide behind your religion is a lousy excuse." I had simply pointed out that I am a follower of Christ and not of the repub party. I don't hide behind anything. Don't need to. If you don't want to talk about religion, then don't. It's so simple.

I haven't tried to justify Trump with my religious views. If you would get out of your fantasy world and actually read these posts, it would be very helpful. And as I've said many times before, if you voted for HC (as you did), then you completely give up the moral high ground and all of your complaints afterwards just have a hollow ring to them. If you dems decided to nominate someone with some moral values, then it will be different, but you won't do that. Anyone with moral values won't be the champion for unlimited abortion and you dems are as addicted to that as any drug addict is to his drug of choice.

I am partially guilty with the religious thing. If someone can move the last several posts - say this page, 81-86 posts to the Religious Discussion board for Members only, I will try to continue the brouhaha there. Woops, I mean, Civil Discussion.

If someone can move the last several posts - say this page, 81-86 posts to the Religious Discussion board for Members only, I will try to continue the brouhaha there. Woops, I mean, Civil Discussion.

Good idea.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you are the one who decided to make religion an issue. Your post was, "All due respect but bad enough you claim there is no racism, when the simple thing to do is Google institutional racism or gentrification, and follow the links at your own leisure, but to hide behind your religion is a lousy excuse." I had simply pointed out that I am a follower of Christ and not of the repub party. I don't hide behind anything. Don't need to. If you don't want to talk about religion, then don't. It's so simple.

Don't worry I don't, not here anyway, but nice dodge away from the topic of institutional racism and the control of wealth in this country.


I haven't tried to justify Trump with my religious views. If you would get out of your fantasy world and actually read these posts, it would be very helpful. And as I've said many times before, if you voted for HC (as you did), then you completely give up the moral high ground and all of your complaints afterwards just have a hollow ring to them. If you dems decided to nominate someone with some moral values, then it will be different, but you won't do that. Anyone with moral values won't be the champion for unlimited abortion and you dems are as addicted to that as any drug addict is to his drug of choice.

Your choice of the dufus who has the morals of a worm, doesn't say much for your morality either my friend, though you try to elevate it by slinging mud constantly at someone who LOST 3 years ago. I mean the dude doesn't even go to church on Sunday or any other day and he gives YOU the moral high ground?

Your choice of the dufus who has the morals of a worm, doesn't say much for your morality either my friend, though you try to elevate it by slinging mud constantly at someone who LOST 3 years ago. I mean the dude doesn't even go to church on Sunday or any other day and he gives YOU the moral high ground?

The truth is, we vote on the basis of issues. You, for instance, are in favor of legalized abortion through nine months, so you voted for HC. I wanted someone who would assign good fed judges, recharge the economy, and balance the budget. Got two out of three on that one. So it all comes down to issues for both of us. We both voted for a person morally corrupt in several ways because of the issues they supported.


Don't worry I don't, not here anyway, but nice dodge away from the topic of institutional racism and the control of wealth in this country.

Dodge?? Not on your life. Ready and willing to discuss either one.

The truth is, we vote on the basis of issues. You, for instance, are in favor of legalized abortion through nine months, so you voted for HC. I wanted someone who would assign good fed judges, recharge the economy, and balance the budget. Got two out of three on that one. So it all comes down to issues for both of us. We both voted for a person morally corrupt in several ways because of the issues they supported.



You are mistaken as usual, but glad you got 2/3 of what you wanted and are happy with the deal you made for your vote.

Happy?? No. Last pres I was happy with was Reagan. I don't look to people for happiness anymore. Too unpredictable.

Getting back to the OP, an evil has been removed from the world and it is a pity all those who associated with him didn't get the same treatment, an equivalent of the Biblical millstone

Happy?? No. Last pres I was happy with was Reagan. I don't look to people for happiness anymore. Too unpredictable.

I heard that!


Getting back to the OP, an evil has been removed from the world and it is a pity all those who associated with him didn't get the same treatment, an equivalent of the Biblical millstone

If you mean Epstein, I think it's just getting started with the victims seeking their due. Cheated of a day in court, his empire and anyone in it is subject to retribution, and rightfully so.

Just a followup question. Why isn't Bubba a witness at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial? He flew on the Lolita Express at least 26 times. And he is not alone in the omissions. Trump,Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates among many other elites have insight about the goings on at Little St James.
Sex trafficking is a worldwide menace that has to be eradicated.

It appears that all that all the big names aren't needed to make the case against Epstein henchwoman.

Why isn't there a case to be made against the big names? Why should they get off without charges?

There may be even more swamp critters that could be exposed if some of the known perves were held accountable

the prisons were negligent . Other than that nothing to see here . He offed himself The Clintonistas breath a sigh of relief .

DOJ issues scathing rebuke of Bureau of Prisons detailing multiple failures that led to Jeffrey Epstein's suicide | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/politics/epstein-suicide-doj-inspector-general-report/index.html)

New administration . Transparency rules the day. Right ?

Apparently not. Pam Bondi tough DOJ boss . Kash Patel tough FBI Director . Kash can't be blamed . He is still rearranging the furniture . Bondi demanded that the FBI hand over all they have about Epstein. They handed over stuff she claimed was on her desk. She said she would release it all yesterday. And indeed she released what she had minus victims identities . What did she have ? NOTHING
She was bamboozled .

Release of Jeffrey Epstein files sparks anger among MAGA faithful: ‘The evil deep state LIED TO YOUR FACE’ (https://www.yahoo.com/news/release-jeffrey-epstein-files-sparks-011806408.html)

Yes indeed they lied . Epstein recorded everything .It went back so far that some of it was on tape and not digital It fits in an office ;a warehouse ...... NOT on a desk.

She is demanding an explanation from Kash who can't possibly give her one . What she had she got before he was confirmed.

What Kash ;Bongino need to do is to raid the offices of the 2nd District in NY and seize everything and do some serious interviews with the staff .Let them know they risk obstruction charges if they don't cooperate. This may be the last opportunity to take control of these intel and law enforcement agencies.

Trump didn't in his 1st term .So what he got was an FBI storm trooper raid rifling through Melania's underwear draw .

Maybe Epstein's client list will never be revealed . I mean ;a member of the Royal Family was a frequent flier to Epstein Island . Add this to the JFK assassination files we will never see.

Pam Bondi looks foolish and naive . My suspicions about her are reemerging.


Flashback 2012 when Florida was a purple state .

Florida Guv Rick Scott appointed Pam Bondi to prosecute George Zimmerman ;accused of murdering Trevon Martin. Zimmerman was clearly framed . Evidence showed he shot in self defense while his head was being bashed into the sidewalk . Yet Bondi's appointed prosecutors smeared him during the trial.

The case against Zimmerman eventually collapsed. He was acquitted. He was investigated for race crimes for another three years, and spent considerable time in prison while the cases against him proceeded. His reputation was ruined and many people still think he killed Martin with no provocation and in cold blood for racist reasons.
It was cases like this that led to BLM riots and the execution of cops .

Gaetz get out now. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=852135&p=3899082#post3899082)

I hope she is up to the task . But there is no denying this was a screw up

I hope she is up to the task as well. This is going to be a tough job. The level of corruption is breathtaking.

ok so they waived all these files and said we have the goods on the Epstein mysterious end in a prison cell where the cameras were conveniently not working and the guards asleep .

Yesterday Dan Bongino said ..... 'umm actually he did commit suicide. '


I was asked about some of the details surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case. I have reviewed the case. Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. There’s no evidence in the case file indicating otherwise. I’m not asking you to believe me, or not. I’m telling you what exists, and what doesn’t. If new evidence surfaces I’m happy to reevaluate.

Dan Bongino on X: "I haven’t done any media interviews to this point because I want to keep the attention on the work. I don’t work for myself anymore, I work for you. But it is important to relay to you what we’re doing, and the media can be a tool for that. That’s why we chose a long-form" / X (https://x.com/FBIDDBongino/status/1924115672021241991)


Uh yeah ; it was unlikely that the files they had would admit to anything else. duh

Why make a big show of waiving the files then ?

https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims3/default/strip/false/crop/8256x5504+0+0/resize/1100/quality/50/format/jpeg/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Faf%2Fa9%2F48930cb94c e280edeb83cb095e1d%2Fgettyimages-2201631023.jpg

Yeah they reviewed to JFK assassination to and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy. Now there is quality investigative work !!!
I expected more from Kash Patel and Bongino .

I'd have to go back to Bongino's podcasts . I'm pretty sure his contention then was that you would have to be crazy to believe Epstein committed suicide . Trump's name in the black book ? Nothing to see here !

Trump is turning out to be just another D.C. pol. They spend money like there's no tomorrow. DOGE was largely a Broadway play. So much of what's done just seems to be yet another attempt to place yet another feather in Trump's cap. I don't know who we can turn to that can get this out-of-control spending back to a place of sanity.

There are few Reps on Capitol Hill that even care . And worse ;there is no indication that the American people care . Reality is going to hit then right between the eyes .

This Moody's downgrade is very troubling. We will see the effects in the coming days. We had a mini bond crisis after Trump announced his ridiculous tariffs . If investors loose faith in the greenback watch out .

How convenient . Now FBI says there is no Epstein client list .
Pam Bondi ; you said you had the files on your desk. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino what happened ?

DOJ, FBI review finds no Jeffrey Epstein 'client list,' confirms suicide: Memo - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-fbi-review-finds-jeffrey-epstein-client-list/story?id=123526125)

The story keeps on getting stranger and stranger . Who was the lead investigator in the Epstein case before he "committed suicide " ? That would be Maurene Comey ;daughter of former FBI head James Comey .

Epstein grand jury docs released to Ghislaine Maxwell prosecutor (https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/06/15/jeffrey-epstein-grand-jury-transcripts-released-to-ghislaine-maxwell-prosecutor/73388404007/)

She also blew the Sean Diddy Combs case .


The daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/james-comey) Maurene Comey faced a setback when the jury found the performer not guilty of some of the most serious charges, including racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. However, the jury did side with prosecutors on two counts, finding Combs guilty of violating the Mann Act of 1910 by transporting women across state lines for prostitution.

FBI Director Comey's daughter faces mixed verdict as Diddy trial prosecutor | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-fbi-director-comeys-daughter-suffers-high-profile-loss-prosecutor-diddy-trial)



There are approximately 6,300 Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) employed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Two cases involving high profile sex trafficking cases were both given to the daughter of the FBI director ......nothing odd about that ! .
That would be the same FBI Director who personally led two "honeypots " to infiltrate the 2016 Trump campaign.

FBI eyes claims of Comey-era 'honeypot' operation against Trump | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-investigating-claims-comey-era-honeypot-operation-against-trump-2016-campaign-report)


The "noble lie" comes from Plato’s Republic, where Socrates describes a myth told to citizens to maintain social order.

Noble lie - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie)

Missed this one but found it when doing follow up on the Epstein story. There was another convenient suicide . This case it was one of the victims . Virginia Giuffre was one of the first victims to speak out . She inspired other victims to come forward .

Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein's most prominent abuse survivors, dies by suicide (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-giuffre-one-jeffrey-epsteins-prominent-abuse-survivors-dies-s-rcna203027)

She pointed ja accuse finger at Prince Andrew .

Who's Paying Prince Andrew's Settlement to Virginia Giuffre? | TIME (https://time.com/6149123/prince-andrew-settlement-virginia-giuffre-royal-finances/)

She is now the 3rd victim to die of "suicide " or "drug overdose" .

HUNTER EXCLUSIVE: Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre 'feared she would be murdered' (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/hunter-exclusive-epstein-victim-virginia-121332428.html)

Seems there were more than just Rum punch cocktails being served on Fantasy Island .


So why is there suddenly no client list after Pam Bondi claimed she had the evidence on her desk ?

Resurfaced Clip Shows Bondi Acknowledging Epstein List ‘Sitting On My Desk’ (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ohPJk8Ukbpo)

She says she won't release any more because there is child sex abuse in the files . Yeah we knew that . We are not asking to watch it .

Pam Bondi explains missing minute in DOJ's Jeffrey Epstein video, defends FBI (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5390069-pam-bondi-explains-epstein-video/)

There has to be another reason that the client list that everyone said the government had will not be released. No I don't think it was because Trump was on it. The Dems would've rushed that proof to the press a long time ago . As it turned out ;it was the Dems leading the cover up

Sen. Marsha Blackburn demands subpoena for Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’ flight logs (https://nypost.com/2023/11/10/news/sen-marsha-blackburn-demands-subpoena-for-jeffrey-epsteins-lolita-express-flight-logs/)

Who else was implicated ?

I am currently going with a different hypothesis. I think perhaps it was withheld as evidence in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell . Maxwell(convicted of sex trafficking) was the only person charged and convicted in this case besides Epstein . The client list should've been given as discovery to the defense. Then Maxwell could claim that there was selective prosecution which is a violation of the 14th Amendment 'equal protection clause'

Selective Prosecution - The Sanders Firm, P.C. (https://www.thesandersfirmpc.com/selective-prosecution)

If there is no client list then there is no other people to prosecute . I don't think we will ever see the list .

Dershowitz says he knows Epstein client list names: ‘But I’m bound by confidentiality’ (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5395597-dershowitz-says-he-knows-epstein-client-list-names-but-im-bound-by-confidentiality/)

yup he knows the names and he is one of them .