Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The law of God, as seen in the Bible, is clear about what is moral and immoral. And since even people who have never encountered the law know generally what is moral and immoralSo you are happy with the entirety of Leviticus as a description of good & bad?
Its a position certainly.
Leviticus is primarily a cut and paste from many religions that predated Judaism. Most were matriarchal, but the laundry lists of accepted wisdom was passed down long before the Bible.
The law of God, as seen in the Bible, is clear about what is moral and immoral.
Actually did a spit take lol - Only by those who consider themselves the righteous. Clarity is not something the bible is know for (nor is it meant to be)QuoteWhen did we lose the ability to seek out the solution between extremes?There is a part of me that honestly wants to just slap anyone who's, like, "can't we please try to find a compromise in the exact center of this question of fact?"
2+2 is not 7. But maybe it's rude to insist that it's four, and everyone should just agree that it's 5 to be nice about it.
there's exactly zero reason to believe that wages agreed between consenting adults are not reasonable.
It is pretty amazing to me how many people can't divorce their analysis of the legal issues from their personal like or dislike of Elon. (Not in this thread but elsewhere on the internet).
It is like betting on a boxer to win or lose based on your liking them. It is an approach to things I just can't fathom.
I definitely find it hard to try to keep it separate. I try to visualize, what if person X did this? But he really has no peers that would have made this kind of rash acquisition attempt, IMO. So the cognitive dissonance doesn't allow me to fully look at the facts of the case in full isolation. I try to rely on what experts are saying about it, but I can't be sure they don't just dislike Musk as much as I do.
The secret service just happened to lose text messages from January 5th and 6th?!?
Worse they planned to purge all the records months in advance and got away with it.
Trump succeeded in turning the Secret Service into his own royal guard.
It was just one or two (thousand or tens of thousands) bad apples.
This fringe group is definitely violent and dangerous and deserves condemnation. Which is the real difference. I would assume there are exactly 0 Democratic Party politicians who support Jane's Revenge, as opposed to Republican Party politicians who downplay Jan 6th, fomented it, supported it, and fight accountability. We cannot, however, pretend that these violent groups don't exist or that the left is somehow morally superior and incapable of doing something like Jan 6th given the right provocation.
)
QuoteTime for those who wanted reform to recognize they have lost and to let it go...
Are you saying that people who have loved ones who are killed should "let it go?" That those who are might not have been killed if some stricter laws were passed should say, "Oh well, too bad, so sad. The 2nd Amendment is so much more important than my child's life. It's all for the best in the end"?
I don't think that is an option.
To be fair, it probably does suck to be a progressive and thus forced to choose, in every election of your lifetime, between a party who wants to destroy you and another party that just wants to marginalize you while lying to your face.
I guess I keep hoping that the further out there that the GOP nutbags go, at some point the non-crazy conservatives will hit the limit of their patience and get things under control. Through primaries of course, they'd rather have a lunatic Trumper than a sane Socialist, apparently.
This is fun. Liz Cheney released a video, outlining yesterday's hearing, previewing Thursday's hearing, and ending with a clip of one of Trump's attorney's suggesting to another one on January 7 to "Get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."
left-wing politics of reducing oil contributed to our current supply issues
For my part, I'm okay with protesting at homes (or anywhere else you're likely to encounter a public figure in "public"), but only because of practicality. So many celebrities and politicians now can literally move from an armored, tinted vehicle into a secured tunnel and from there into a windowless chamber that they don't actually have to witness any form of public response at all. I am firmly on the side of humanizing these figures and forcing them to experience interactions with angry commoners, and home protest is unfortunately one of the few ways remaining to do that.
How many of you will heed Lori Lightfoots literal "call to arms"?
QuoteThe point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US militaryNot the first time.
History clearly shows the occupation or aid or however you want to put it in a country that did not ask for it will fail more times then not.
Who was in charge when Afghan mission tipped over into inevitable failure - Bush. Why it took so long to admit that fact? I suspect money though the rule of charity forces me to answer more kindly
- because we really arn't that smart.
Has to be Bush. Right? Can’t be Obama, no way! It was 20 years and one single guy from 12 years ago is the reason. Nothing anyone could’ve done, the outcome inevitable. Jesus
The point you’re avoiding is that a poorly armed and trained force defeated the US militaryNot the first time.
But you know what, they didn't. You can say the US "chose" to leave but the reality is the US did, in fact, surrender the battlespace to the Taliban - running away so quickly that they left billions in equipment behind
That's the beauty of the second amendment, people like you cannot enslave others by force. If you try, the cost will be so high as to make success unpalatable.
Look, if the Taliban was able to force the US to surrender when they're using nothing more than rusty AKs and sketchy IEDs
I think if we're going to be fair to Crunch as he attempts to argue on behalf of his position, we shouldn't impute motives to him or labels like "entitled prick." We've seen little in this thread to suggest that he believes that no social contract, explicit or implicit, accrues to him. I certainly understand and sympathize with the observation that governments are capable of tyranny and extreme violence, even directed at their own citizens, and that citizens might well desire to have the ability to deter that violence through the threat of their own.
will not become a mass murdering "government" Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.
This is a strong point, but I'm not sure he was making the point he thought he was making. The point I believe he was making isn't that there aren't inherent rights, but that governments are not being entirely honest when their list of "rights" are touted as being "the rights" (i.e. the intrinsic ones). It may well be the case that the government list is indeed a list of temporary privileges in practice, since concerns like 'security' and 'expediency' will trump those "rights" every time. But that doesn't actually mean the people don't have inherent rights, it just means that the word as used by government is a false or self-deluded use of the term.
Boy, everyone in this country is always running around, yammering about their *censored*ing rights. I have a right. You have no right. We have a right. They don’t a have right.
Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there’s no such thing as rights, OK. They’re imaginary. We made them up, like the Boogie Man, the Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, *censored* like that. Rights are an idea. They’re just imaginary. They’re a cute idea. Cute but that’s all. Cute and fictional. But if you think you do have rights let me ask you this, where do they come from?
People say, “Well, they come from God. They’re God-given rights.” Oh, *censored*, here we go again. Here we go again. The God excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, “They came from God.” Anything we can’t describe must have come from God. Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would have given you the right to some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head. God would have been looking out for you. God would have been looking out for you, you know that? He wouldn’t have been worrying about making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend’s parents. But let’s say it’s true. Let’s say God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights?
The Bill of Rights in this country has ten stipulations, OK? Ten rights. And apparently, God was doing sloppy work that week because we’ve had to amend the Bill of Rights an additional 17 times, so God forgot a couple of things like slavery. Just *censored*ing slipped his mind. But let’s say God gave us the original ten. He gave the British 13. The British Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29. The Belgians have 25. The Swedish have only 6. And some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a *censored*ing, *censored*, God-given deal is that? No rights at all? Why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn’t sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.
Now, if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you’re at the computer, get on the internet. Go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in Japanese Americans 1942, and you’ll find out all about your precious *censored*ing rights, OK? All right. You know about it. You know about it. Yeah. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had? Right this way, into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.
Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights. I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please. But if I do something you don’t like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you going to find a fairer *censored*ing deal than that? So the next time some *censored* says to you, “I have a right to my opinion, “you say, “Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion.” Then shoot the *censored* and walk away. Thank you.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault-weapons ban, which banned the AR-15 and other similar semiautomatic rifles.
After its ban, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, in comparison to the decade before (1984-94) and the one after (2004-14)
Once the assault-weapons ban expired 10 years later in 2004, gun manufacturers quickly began production and sales rose.
AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons are civilian versions of military weapons that gun control advocates say aren't very different.
The AR-15, like its military version, is designed to kill people quickly and in large numbers, hence the term assault-style rifle.
The gun industry, gun owners and their supporters say AR-15s are used for hunting, target practice and shooting competitions.
The AR-15 was called "America's Rifle" in a January 2016
Close public schools; problems solved.This argument is actually gaining popularity for the overall movement where conservatism = going back in time to when Men were Men and Woman were Woman and Government was managed by the Few who know what's good for everyone. Only those making such arguments - close public schools - wont say that and or don't realize that that is what they are calling for when the make such arguments.
if men were the ones to become pregnant....That argument doesn't hold up well to scrutinyI wonder if we will ever see any laws that require men/boys (family) who get a woman pregnant to be accountable for that new life..... not going to hold my breath
Meanwhile, all the conservatives are mad at Joe Biden for making political points after "the tragedy"same old play book and enough hypocrisy to go around for everyone.
