 |
And therein lies the entire problem. Anytime I consider my lifeline to be a government that takes money from one group by force of law and gives it to me, then I become, in essence, the slave of that government. God help us that we have lost the attitude of just wanting freedom and opportunity. Instead, you advocate a government sponsored "lifeline".Quote:
cutting their lifelines.
I keep on replaying Mike Lee's address in the Senate when announcing he'd vote against convicting Trump. Mandatory listening especially the beginning of the address
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/in...F-C7B386C78328
The FBI agents involved with the Flynn episode were bastards: Told him he didn't need a lawyer present for questioning....real turds.
Flynn should be set free and Trump should give him a job: Hunt down the Deep State plants still out there and pull them out by their ears, hair, or whatever else he can grab! I think Flynn would do very well with the fire that burns inside of him now.
Of course that also means you are against eminent domain where government takes someone's land to repurpose by force of law. While a government lifeline for it's citizens that need it is in my view a good thing during hard times they had no control over and very different from you being forced to contribute through taxes, or being made a slave of the government. Seems a guy from Mississippi would know what real slavery looks like and be grateful you aren't one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Luck of the draw.
Great excuse to finally recognize the ball has been dropped for a long time which has nothing to do with dropping the ball yet again in this time. Pretty words to justify not doing what must be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Boy if the FBI can bamboozle a 4 star general he must be a real horses arse in the first place. No wonder he was fired and warnings about him given to the new guy. Ever look and see the pattern of the dufus guys he likes around him, AND that have trouble with the law? Hope you remember that when a guy gets caught stealing a loaf of bread for his family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Talaniman: No, you can't blame Flynn when the FBI agents KNOWINGLY/CONSCIOUSLY LIED TO HIM! The FBI was, and possibly still is, out of control: They think they make the laws! Not too long ago the left HATED THE FBI! Why does the left love them now? Funny how that works: The left wants us to think that the FBI is beyond reproach and as pure as the wind driven snow: YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT IS B.S.! Flynn's mistake was trusting the FBI. If the FBI ever comes asking you anything, you don't say one damn word to them without a lawyer present...if you do, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.
No, I'm not against eminent domain and, for that matter, I'm not against taxes. I am against this "lifeline" mentality which teaches people that there is no real reason to be prudent, save, work hard, and plan for the future because, after all, my Lord Government has a lifeline there for me. It's just an effort to corral the votes of poor people by encouraging them, rather than taking care of themselves, to trust in the gov to provide the all important lifeline.Quote:
Of course that also means you are against eminent domain where government takes someone's land to repurpose by force of law. While a government lifeline for it's citizens that need it is in my view a good thing during hard times they had no control over and very different from you being forced to contribute through taxes, or being made a slave of the government. Seems a guy from Mississippi would know what real slavery looks like and be grateful you aren't one of those.
I can see a young guy caught up in a mess and feeling trapped but not a seasoned career national security officer that did enough dirt to be fired, not knowing his rights. That dog just don't hunt that he was duped by a couple of FBI agents and his hands were clean of all wrong doing after admitting many times he was probably being bugged when talking to foreign entities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Geez Vac, what's with the notion the left hated the FBI and now they don't? Catching a high level fish instead of an ordinary pick pocket is love? I don't think so! It's the right who should be questioned for not being suspicious that the dufus cronies are landing in jail after a trial or plea deal. Or after the latest developments the defender of war criminals intervenes in the cases of those cronies during sentencing, and the fact he perp marches others working in the WH out, and recommends prosecution for obeying a LAWFUL subpoena from the congress for testimony.
I'm still no fan of the FBI, but the dufus and his ilk are even lower on the totem pole than the FBI. They are without a doubt double dealing nefarious and corrupt actors who have no business anywhere near the trappings of what's supposed to be OUR government.
So people who need help during a tough time are being led to some type of dependence on a government life line, but it's okay for people to help them through charity? Dude please, if you have not recognized charity is not enough, and they need more substantive help then you deny reality of the size and scope of the real issues people have. I mean explain to me what happens at YOUR charity when indeed people have greater need than what YOU can honestly provide?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So for the five hundredth time, there is a great difference between me helping someone by choice versus being compelled to do so by the government. I do it to help people. I get involved with them and, hopefully, help them learn to make better choices in life. If you were doing it then you would know that. The government does it to get the votes of poor people and leaves them just as they found them except that, in many cases, they are worse off because they become dependent upon government assistance and even develop a sense of entitlement to it.Quote:
So people who need help during a tough time are being led to some type of dependence on a government life line, but it's okay for people to help them through charity? Dude please, if you have not recognized charity is not enough, and they need more substantive help then you deny reality of the size and scope of the real issues people have. I mean explain to me what happens at YOUR charity when indeed people have greater need than what YOU can honestly provide?
That's commendable of you, keep it up, but I spent years learning, and getting people back on their feet, no matter the reasons they had fallen, and charity ain't enough all the time. We both no its a network of people, because people are unique and have different issues to be addressed and that often involves professionals. Can you get an ex con a job? How about the mom with no skills that needs childcare so she can get the skills to get a job?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
JL I don't even want to diminish what you do, but I just lived in some places that are fair in size from where a bunch of people just wanted help, and the charities do help, I've worked with many, can't do without them, but that's where I probably learned the most about the importance of networking to provide a huge variety of services and yeah that government assistance is as invaluable as the charities and they do work together in many areas so it just burns my bum that you get so bent out of shape and would deny the right help people need for some draconian out of touch notion they will get hooked on government assistance.
I have seen much good that private and public cooperation can do and proud to be a part of the efforts. You should rethink your position guy, because you never know how great people can be if you deny them the right help.
Right now? We have ex cons leave the drug rehab center regularly and get a job within a week. With this economy we have now, getting a job is no problem.Quote:
Can you get an ex con a job?
And again, when the gov starts taking money by force of law from one American and giving it to another American, we are in big trouble.
I am very well aware of what help can mean to people. I'm all for me and you personally doing that very thing a lot. What you are in favor of is voting for people who will make other people give money to the poor.Quote:
You should rethink your position guy, because you never know how great people can be if you deny them the right help.
Then you have been in big trouble for a long timeQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
JL, by law you are the government, and we all live here by consensus. So whether you agree with the law or not you are free to comply or suffer the consequences just like everybody else so stop whining like you are a VICTIM!
There is a third option, one which you exercise to the fullest. I can voice my opinion and try and sway public opinion.Quote:
JL, by law you are the government, and we all live here by consensus. So whether you agree with the law or not you are free to comply or suffer the consequences just like everybody else so stop whining like you are a VICTIM!
yup!! 8dQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
now nanny Bloomy wants Evita to run as VP on his ticket lolololol
my advice for him would be to watch his back if he becomes President . The Clintoons have long knives .
tomder55: Would love for Bloomturd to take Hillary on as VP: She will get her arse beat AGAIN by Trump!
Bloomturd will be a horrible candidate: He has NO CHARISMA! Bloomturd COULD NOT LEAD FLIES TO FRESH DOG SH&T!
Do we really need this level of rhetoric. It is obvious you hate minorities and while I don't condone their lifestyle choices, this level of rhetoric is unnecessary and points to a level of hatred that is unbecomingQuote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
It is on the strong side.
Paraclete: Bloomturd is WHITE! Where the devil do you get that I hate minorities? No basis for that statement....I stand by my claim Bloomturd is as UNCHARISMATIC as he can possibly be and will be trounced by Trump.
Vac, I don't know where he got the hating minorities thing from either. I've never seen you post a racial remark.
Hating minorities is not confined to race, vac's latest remarks show hatred of goys who are a minority, at least where I come from
What part of lifestyle don't you understand you have made very specific gay hate remarks now you try to cover by saying you are not racist,Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Paraclete: FIND WHERE I SAID/DEFENDED MYSELF THAT I WAS NOT "RACIST" IN THIS THREAD: Nowhere did I use that term and YOU KNOW IT: You are attempting to draw an inference that doesn't exist and it is UNBECOMING OF YOU. Also, nowhere have I said I hated anyone or anything, other than communists, which I freely admit that I detest with passion.
Gay means "happy": I don't participate or in any way adhere to the cute plays on words: As an Australian, and a purist of the English language, I would very much assume you have an utter disdain for the adulteration of this beautiful language by those who try and reinvent it to conform to their twisted concepts. Homosexuals are not a minority...not a minority by any stretch of the imagination. A "lifestyle" does not qualify you for any rating as a "minority": The next thing you will draw an inference with and to is that White Supremist are a minority because they, too, live a "lifestyle" that only a few percentiles of the population do. For WAY, WAY, WAY TOO LONG we have allowed THOUGHT POLICE, like yourself as you apparently aspire to be, to define what is accepted as fact which isn't fact and I say to hell with that idea.
Homosexuals DO NOT HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS OR PRIVLEGES BEYOND THE RIGHTS OR PRIVLEGES OF ANYONE ELSE. And, being homosexual doesn't offer you any special "armor" or shield against scrutiny: If you parade your precious "lifestyle" up on the proverbial "Public Square", as in running for POTUS, then you should be prepared for whatever comes your way: You better put on your Big Boy Pants when you run for President: Trump has been attacked viciously every single day leading up to his election and every single day since he was elected so why should a homosexual candidate not be attacked, what make him special? The homosexual Presidential Candidate can't wear his mantle of homosexuality as a shield to deflect ANY RHETORIC directed his way: He doesn't get a pass!
I also find your "selective" moral outrage to be more than a little strange: You admonish abortion as "a sin", and I agree with you, but you turn right around and do not have a problem with homosexuality: How does that square with your Christian views?
As I said vac, I don't approve of their lifestyle or the life style of neo-nazi or communists, but your outrage is unbecoming. Where I come from we count gays as a minority, but if they are part of the majority there, I don't think that is news. For the sake of definition, a minority is any group who is not in the majority and may hold different views to the majority. There are many sins, and none of us are immune. Nor long ago here a prominent sports star made a declaration somewhat similar, however, he used the word homosexual and that is all anyone saw. He was castigated in the media, etc. As to a candidate wearing a mantle of homosexuality, he probably just feels he was following the lead of BO, although he didn't come out of the closet.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/in...421fe868fb02b8
Minorities don't let things go, you exhibit the same traint
I don't know what the gay lifestyle is other than a choice of sexual partners, and probably no different in heteros in the sense of how they conduct their lives and on average are no more or less promiscuous than heteros. The dufus just sets a very low bar for respectful public discourse though, and unfortunately influences others to follow suit. As far as I can remember though many of us have pet names for public figures, or political parties.
You really think BO was a closet gay Clete? That's almost slanderous.
Paraclete: O.K., if you think the Campaign season in the U.S. is not as civil in the U.S. as it should be, you are probably right....but you should extend that thought: It used to be that once the "CAMPAIGN" and elections were over, civility came back into fashion: BUT NOT SINCE TRUMP WAS ELECTED! The atmosphere is as acrid as Australia's air this Summer from all the fires....he hasn't been offered any olive branches and, because of his nature, to fight back, he has also responded-in-kind! So, civility is going the way of dinosaurs it would appear.
I am willing to be more "civil" by your definition but I will continue to point out extreme differences in candidates....you don't like the word I used to identify the homosexual candidate, then I won't use that word to identify him as such...….but I reserve the right to identify him for what he is.
All minorities, by your definition or by mine, strive to "fit in" and become undistinguishable amongst the general population UNLESS they choose to make themselves obtuse and stand out and bring attention to themselves, which invites the majority of the population to then recognize them as nonconformists. Paraclete, you have STEREOTYPED minorities by saying that "Minorities don't let things go" and, in effect, you have stated a view that minorities cannot assimilate with the majority population, reinforcing the idea that they are to be regarded as "different" and that they should be treated as such.
Interesting observation. I wonder how far we intend to go with "tolerance". If a man sleeping with a man is OK, and a man marrying a man is OK, then how about a man marrying two men, or two women, or a fifteen year old girl, or for that matter an animal? Already there is a movement to be able to "self identify" as a dog. So now that we have cast off the idea of moral boundaries, where does it go?Quote:
Paraclete, you have STEREOTYPED minorities by saying that "Minorities don't let things go" and, in effect, you have stated a view that minorities cannot assimilate with the majority population, reinforcing the idea that they are to be regarded as "different" and that they should be treated as such.
jlisenbe: I am fixing to answer your question with a response that I KNOW you, as a fellow Southerner, have heard before and a phrase I have heard my Father say before: We are "Going To HELL If We Don't Straighten Up!" Have any truer words ever been said?
From JL: "...a man sleeping with a man is OK, and a man marrying a man is OK. And women loving and marrying each other."
Don't forget. God set up binary, but after what happened in Genesis 3, those binary types took it upon themselves to disobey their Creator and, as a result, ushered in non-binary types. (Hey! Those male-male, female-female matings mean no abortions!!! God always brings good into our lives.)
Now the universe is full of uncountable possibilities. (There was no death before Genesis 3, so what did lions and tigers eat?)
W.G.: You left out the little part about PROCREATE: Without a WOMAN-MAN COUPLING, there is no HOMOSEXUAL...and there is NO MAN, PERIOD! Given unto their own devices, homosexuals will go the way of dinosaurs: they will go extinct because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT PROCREATE...THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT SUSTAIN THEIR POPULATION AND THE POPULATION WILL EVENTUALLY DIEOFF.
The world can be cruel. One of the cruelest notions is that homosexuals can rely on the charity of a MAN-WOMAN COUPLING to continue their populations. Use logic to find the end results of this.
Again and again, as I have said before, even if you are an atheist or agnostic or even a religious person of any description: NATURAL LAW and THE LAWS OF NATURE DICTATE THE ABSURDITY OF HOMOSEXUALITY: IF YOU DON'T FIND IT IN NATURE, IT IS UNNATURAL. It is very simple.
You flippant attitude is unappealing. There are no "non-binary types" in the Bible. It plainly condemns sex outside of marriage and plainly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.Quote:
Don't forget. God set up binary, but after what happened in Genesis 3, those binary types took it upon themselves to disobey their Creator and, as a result, ushered in non-binary types. (Hey! Those male-male, female-female matings mean no abortions!!! God always brings good into our lives.)
Now the universe is full of uncountable possibilities. (There was no death before Genesis 3, so what did lions and tigers eat?)
There is nothing in the Bible that forbids homosexuality. And since lesbian couples cannot reproduce (except by means of expensive IVF) nor can gay couples, your fears about abortion are washed away. Those couples adopt the parentless children whose bio-parents can't support them or don't want them. And there are a lot of parentless children out there! -- and always will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Homosexuality is very much in nature. Do some homework!
Of course there are! Of course, the writers didn't SAY it in print because it wasn't that uncommon. Hmm, what about David and Jonathan's love for each other? Do some honest research beyond the fundie stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, God started out with male-female marriage, but that got turned on its head in Genesis 3.
https://whatdewhat.com/interesting-a...change-gender/Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Homosexuals have survived as long as man without procreating. What makes you think they won't continue?
And again, there are no binary types in the Bible. When you say it is not said in print, then you are admitting it. As to Jonathan and David, they were both married, fathers of children, and there is not a whisper in the Bible of them sleeping together as man and woman. Even worse for your case, David's great sin did not involve sex with a man, but sex with a woman. You really should be ashamed of yourself to represent the Bible is such a way as to simply confirm your political persuasions. It is really pitiful. And then you further disgrace yourself by suggesting I need to do research. You present not one word of text, and then suggest someone else needs to do research. It is quite an adventure in misplaced boldness.Quote:
Of course there are! Of course, the writers didn't SAY it in print because it wasn't that uncommon. Hmm, what about David and Jonathan's love for each other? Do some honest research beyond the fundie stuff.
As to your absurd comment on marriage, (Yes, God started out with male-female marriage, but that got turned on its head in Genesis 3), there is first of all not the slightest indication that what you say is true. Worse, even a grade school child would note that Jesus himself quoted the Genesis passage in Mark 10 as His view of marriage. There is not a whisper of a hint anywhere in the Bible of God approving gay marriage. You sometimes accuse me of shaming you. I wear the badge proudly. When one intentionally misrepresents the clear and plain teaching of the Bible, that person should be shamed thoroughly. Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by simply saying that you really don't care what the Bible says.
Yes, it sure did, didn't it!Quote:
Yes, God started out with male-female marriage, but that got turned on its head in Genesis 3.
My goodness, as of Genesis 3, babies were born LEFT HANDED! and with a missing body part! and autistic! and ... and ... and ...
Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by digging beyond the literal and the KJV of your Bible.
Let's see. People were born left handed, so now we have binary types? Well of course.Quote:
My goodness, as of Genesis 3, babies were born LEFT HANDED! and with a missing body part! and autistic! and ... and ... and ...
Your prejudice betrays you. I don't use the KJV and I'm well aware that the Bible has many passages that are not to be taken literally. Unlike you, however, I don't just make it up as I go along to suit my preconceived notions. Unlike you, I do believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally in most places, even if it disagrees with your beliefs. You make statements which you cannot even begin to support with scripture, and then you get mad when you are called out on it.Quote:
Your intellectual honesty would be much better served by digging beyond the literal and the KJV of your Bible.
BTW, to address another of your prejudices, I am not a fundamentalist. I never cease to be amazed at the prejudice and perfect willingness to engage in name-calling of the group that is so insistent on calling for tolerance.
The aftermath of Genesis 3. You missed walking over the bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I learned the name-calling from you.Quote:
BTW, to address another of your prejudices, I am not a fundamentalist. I never cease to be amazed at the prejudice and perfect willingness to engage in name-calling of the group that is so insistent on calling for tolerance.
How about conservative instead of fundie?
Please, please, please do some research! I actually used to be like you, so I understand.
WG, you cannot simply keep appealing to Genesis 3. At some point you need content.
But I am not the apostle of tolerance. That is you.
Conservative is fine.
I assure you I have read as much on the Bible as you have and probably more. I never used to be like you and never hope to. I will not make it up to suit my own tastes as you do.
If you have done so much persuasive research, then employ it. You have nothing to support your contentions. That is my chief complaint about you and why I would never hope to be like you. You might not like my conclusions, but you cannot say I have no scripture to base them on.
BTW, I would be happy to join with you in calling for legal limits on presidential vacationing. I felt the same way when Obama was pres.
You don't KNOW what happened in Genesis 3???Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I very much doubt that you have. At least sixty years' worth?Quote:
I assure you I have read as much on the Bible as you have and probably more. I never used to be like you and never hope to. I will not make it up to suit my own tastes as you do.
No, it's time you start digging and researching. You obviously have no respect for what I say, so please do some honest reading in reputable concordances and histories of Bible lands and Jewish practices. Read Kissing Fish by Roger Wolsey. Read up on the cultural background and meaning of St. Paul's made-up word, arsenokoites.Quote:
If you have done so much persuasive research, then employ it. You have nothing to support your contentions. That is my chief complaint about you and why I would never hope to be like you. You might not like my conclusions, but you cannot say I have no scripture to base them on.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 PM. |