New Low From Trump

[ok doser]

They're all answering Anderson Cooper's call. "For the record...." It's like a duck call...they come flying in. :chuckle:

anderson cooper's a disgusting fag

 

[ok doser]

...Trump "was pushing me against the wall, and forcing his tongue down my throat."

he must have an awfully long tongue :idunno:

or she's lying

:think:

maybe his tongue is detachable

 

[Town Heretic]

the word "felony" is a word in the english language that has a long history and a variety of definitions

Sure. If you go back to the Medievil Latin it's just evil-doer. But unless someone falls out of a time machine it's not an issue.

A felon in our present day and context is someone who has been convicted of a felony. It's a legal designation. It's why Merriam Webster, Oxford, etc, define a felony as a crime. What makes if worse for you is that rm's attempt to use it is one aimed precisely at intimating a felonious act or acts, a crime. He's just skipping the jury.


Enjoy those eggs you peculiar little, obsessive compulsive you.

:think: Mind the shells.

 

[ok doser]

It's why Merriam Webster, Oxford, etc, define a felony as a crime.

i gave you the oxford definition

dint say nuttin 'bout no conviction :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

In a democratic country, a transgression of the law of one's country or international law is the only bases for one person to conclude a generalized acceptable and fair moral judgment on another person.

Well, no Guru. Neither of those is true. Here's an example of why. Someone violates the law to protest in front of an abortion clinic. Moral or immoral? Here's another one, a great deal of the Civil Rights Movement violated the law in the service of a moral good.

Sometimes the law gets it wrong. In our republic a transgression against the law requires context for a moral judgment. Otherwise, it is precisely what it rests as, a violation of the law. A serious enough violation is called a felony. And if you call someone a felon that's what you're referencing.

The above is also supported by Trump who said, if you (as a people) do not like me legally not paying taxes, then change the law. It is absolutely not correct and fair to pass negative moral judgment on Trump when he is operating within the laws of the land.

It is absolutely legal to have an abortion. The law permits it. What we can do isn't always the measure of what we should do. And when did the bare minimum approach a public virtue?

Trump call for a wall is a symbolic call for a re-look at the failed immigration policy of the U.S.A. The idea is very insightful. Trump is Gifted. He can restore the lost Christian standard to the U.S.A.

But he's not making a symbolic call. He's calling for the actual, very expensive cigar. And he can't restore a thing he doesn't demonstrably possess. It's hard to understand what Trump's notion of being a Christian entails. It doesn't appear to involve involving God in his daily life, seeking forgiveness, and attempting to lead a moral life. I don't expect anyone to get it right, to in seeking God's pleasure never fail, falter or stumble. I only expect the effort. And what he was heard speaking of and to in the recent tape tells me that expectation, voiced directly to him, would fall on willfully deaf ears.

People of the U.S.A. need to wake-up to the deep wisdom of Trump's intuitions.

People need to wake up before they pull a lever that advances a morally bankrupt man who thinks he's entitled to sexually assault women, who believes a literal wall that didn't ultimately work for China will work for us, that spending government time and money attempting to punish political opponents is a good use of the public trust, and that lying repeatedly to the public (over thirty in the last debate, fact checked) is the way to conduct his business.

A vote for Trump is a vote against reasonable conscience. . . it's time we found someone who at least pretends to be the representative of our better natures and higher aspirations. He isn't that. If you want to talk about why Clinton isn't either, I'm game. She isn't.

i gave you the oxford definition

dint say nuttin 'bout no conviction :idunno:

You sure did (provide a definition). Here's how that went for you, again:

oxford sez you're wrong and rocketdude is right

felon1 noun A person who has committed a felony.

Absent a conviction it's only an accusation that someone has committed a felony. Back to the egg cartoon with you.

 

[Gurucam]

Well, no Guru. Neither of those is true. Here's an example of why. Someone violates the law to protest in front of an abortion clinic. Moral or immoral? Here's another one, a great deal of the Civil Rights Movement violated the law in the service of a moral good.

Individuals and even large groups of people, have the right to self expression and protesting within the parameters of the law. The sentiments of protesters remains his or their private moral position, until they convince the government that more that 50% of the electorate share their view. Then their government can and must enact their sentiments (or moral position) as a law of their land.

Under a democratic system only then can any moral position be enforced on the entire populace.

In a proper democracy, absolutely no idea of morality can be justly binding on all people, unless it is properly determined that it the will of the majority and it is incorporated as a law of their land.

In working democracies, referendums are constitutionally provided so as to ensure that no set of 'self righteous' 'taboo controlled' minorities impose their will on the majority.

The Brexit vote exemplified the correct path that a democratic populate must take in finally determining the collective moral position even for those protesting before an abortion clinic. It must be made very clear (through a referendum, if necessary) that the majority hold that abortions are wrong before that become the country's moral or other position.

Duly elect members who constitute a democratic government is simply an expedient way of serving the democratic will of the population, through their representatives. Representatives are required to ensure that their votes and ideas are serving the will of the majority of those who they represent.

In a true and working democracy these representatives are not there to serve their own ideas . . . however, this is not so in 'make believe democratic', Banana republics.

In Banana Republics leader arbitrarily impose their religious and other ideas unilaterally on their population.

One would hope/assume that the U.S.A. is an actual real and working democracy, for the people and by the people, 24-7.

 

[ok doser]

You sure did (provide a definition). Here's how that went for you, again:

how it went for me was that i proved you were wrong - nothing in the definition about conviction, only about committing


i realize that's something your fragile ego can't handle, but maybe you can get anna or rusha to console you

 

[Town Heretic]

how it went for me was that i proved you were wrong

Now that's a guy waiving a hand-stitched flag.

- nothing in the definition about conviction, only about committing

They probably assume anyone reading a dictionary can read and understand that you aren't a felon without a felony conviction. But you go on calling and using it any ol way that makes your heart pitter-patter until you find the next imagined reason to jump up and down in front of me.

I omit the only reason you actually attempted any of this and send you a pos rep tonic and hope you feel better soon. :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

maybe this will help you:

felon noun A person who has committed a felony.

felony noun A crime regarded in the US and many other judicial systems as more serious than a misdemeanour.

a felony is a crime

a felon is a person who has committed that crime

nothing about conviction



if you're still confused, i can use finger puppets :idunno:



or, you can go tell the people at oxford that they're wrong :darwinsm:

 

[Town Heretic]

Individuals and even large groups of people, have the right to self expression and protesting within the parameters of the law.

But both of my examples were of unlawful, yet moral conduct. The law may or may not be a moral instrument.

Under a democratic system only then can any moral position be enforced on the entire populace.

My point being that the law isn't necessarily a moral instrument in a secular republic. It can be, often is by parallel, but sometimes isn't. Sometimes it's just pragmatics. There's nothing inherently immoral in the distinction one mile per hour makes, by way of, though that distinction can technically get you a speeding ticket.

In a true and working democracy these representatives are not there to serve their own ideas . . . however, this is not so in 'make believe democratic', Banana republics

There's long been a debate on the point. The problem with making someone elected to office the slave of the opinion of those who elect him, without regard for his judgment and unique position within the power structure is that often people are elected by a majority that itself has disparate views on any number of subjects. So which views does he then represent? It seems the better course to let those who make promises along a line of issues do their best to keep them, without regard for taking a windsock poll on any particular. If they fail to do enough to suit you then you're free to throw the rascals out of office when they come up for reelection.

In Banana Republics leader arbitrarily impose their religious and other ideas unilaterally on their population.

No one, least of all me, is arguing for that. In fact, our government is set up to avoid it, to allow everyone their own ideas so long as those ideas don't attempt to deprive anyone else of his rights.

One would hope/assume that the U.S.A. is an actual real and working democracy, for the people and by the people, 24-7.

I'm optimistic by nature, though I understand how power and influence have a way of undermining a generally good intent.

 

[DavidK]

Yep.

Where did you get your tape measure?

The scripture. And before anyone points out that everyone has sinned, and everyone falls short, I'll point out that there is a distinction between those who recognize this and mourn it, and those who either ignore it or revel in it.

Key word in that is seemingly.

We know nobody else has got it done, so why would you not give a business man who does not need the job a chance?

Or is it that he just does not measure up to your standard of Holiness?

I can only go by what I hear from his mouth, and what I hear are ideas that are all over the place without guiding principle or serious thought behind them. I don't believe, "No one else has done it, maybe this guy will", is a reasonable way of choosing someone for leadership.

I don't expect him to be holy. I do, however, expect someone who wants my vote to exhibit a minimum of self-control and rational planning.

In Daniel it says that God sets up the basest men over the kingdoms of men.

Look up base, it means vile and morally corrupt.

Ooh! I've been specifically studying Daniel recently. What do you think the common theme is for the book? I don't want to bias your answer, so I'll give you mine for that question after your response.

If He does it, why would he be mad at you for doing it?

Are you really claiming that as long as God does something, He's happy with us doing it? :noway:

 

[PureX]

This is not supposed to be a democratic republic, nor a "banana" (oligarchic) republic. It's supposed to be a constitutional republic. Which means that our elected officials are supposed to represent the majority of their constituents but only up to the point were the will of the majority would infringe the rights of the minority, or would contradict the expressed intent of the constitution.

Our elected officials are not intended to "rule" over us. They are not intended to impose their own opinions or will or morality in ANY WAY, on the rest of us. They are intended to serve our will and intent, rather than their own. This is a very important ideal that seems to have been lost in recent years by both politicians and the citizenry. And we are losing our freedom inch by inch, as a result.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Worth a read:

"I hope these brief reflections will not be in the category of “stirring up,” but rather might provide some clarity about what Christians should agree on and what we may not have to agree on."

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-this-confusing-election-season-ten-thoughts/

AMR

 

[freelight]

Jill Stein

Jill Stein

Continuing from my first post here,

All should know they do NOT have to vote for the candidates in the 2 main parties, since there are 3rd party candidates available, and others. If Trump has hit an all-time low, or Hilary doesn't float your boat,.....I'd recommend considering Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Amaju Baraka. As she says, the people ought to be free to not only vote, but to know who they can vote for, all potential and qualified candidates so the people can choose. This is a recent interview below from Oct. 11, 2016.

Jill Stein for President

If you google interviews with Jill Stein, you'll see she holds her own very well. Some of her interviews have been 'snipped' and 'edited' as well, censored if you will. Why? Maybe she speaks the truth? Do your own research, vote from your own conscience.

 

[Gurucam]

If, as a Catholic, you believe that abortion is wrong. I must ask why?

I can show you, in the clearest possible terms that popes and Catholics totally contradict themselves with their belief and proper-gander that abortion is bad.

Is it not a Catholic belief that when children die, they all go straight to heaven (having done no good or bad). Therefore abortion is a direct and fail safe way to heaven. And they hold the belief that entry into heaven is the purpose of life. And they hold the view that the best thing that one person can hope for and can do, for his/her child is to ensure his or her delivery to heaven.

Therefore, for Catholics, based on their teachings, abortions must be a blessed act all around.

Fact is, a child who is not aborted have to fight up to qualify for heaven. And the sad fact is that only a few make it by living out their normal life spans.

Matthew: 7 King James Version (KJV)
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Where as, according to Catholic beliefs, being aborted is an absolute fail safe way to get to heaven.

Why suffer a whole life time with no guarantee of heaven when abortion is a fail safe path to heaven, with absolutely no suffering at all? The decision to abort their not born child should be a no brain-er for Catholics.

Based on their belief that people who die as children (especially unborn children), do not pass go and do not collect sin but instead go straight to heaven, Catholics should be strongly advocating for the legalizing of abortions.

Unless they delight in their people being buried in the earth, in hell, with Satan.

The above are based on Catholic beliefs. Are they not totally contradictory?

Americans cannot accept Catholic ideas and beliefs (like their stand on abortion) based on their logic.

From all appearances, Catholics belong in a Banana Republic among foolish superstitious people like them under dictator leaders who cannot be bother to be logical or do not need to be logical for their charges.

It is not that Catholic cannot bring their ideas and beliefs for consideration as a national agenda. However they tend to project that their ideas and beliefs are somehow absolutely wise. Clearly their ideas and beliefs must be subject to accurate democratic screening. Nothing short of referendums must be used. Their ideas are not as wise as they are misled to believe. Also they are not as wise as they are misled to believe.

I rest my case, you be judge and jury and indeed correct any inaccuracies in fact.

 

[Angel4Truth]

They're all answering Anderson Cooper's call. "For the record...." It's like a duck call...they come flying in. :chuckle:

I think its a money call.

 

[Town Heretic]

Worth a read:

"I hope these brief reflections will not be in the category of “stirring up,” but rather might provide some clarity about what Christians should agree on and what we may not have to agree on."

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-this-confusing-election-season-ten-thoughts/

AMR

Interesting. Mostly I agree, though I think his #2 was a failed ends/means exercise as advice goes. Five and six were spot on. Overall, I thought it was a mature reflection on the problem facing the country.

 

[Gurucam]

But both of my examples were of unlawful, yet moral conduct.

If by 'unlawful' you mean against the law of a country then what you said is totally not possible.:

Unlawful conduct cannot be moral. A country's law is the measure of morality for that nation. Transgression of morality as defined by law is punishable. And such people can be justly judged and condemned by others, but only after guilt is established in a court of law. This is the only way that civilized people can live together.

Transgressing the law of a country is blatant disrespect for the majority of other citizens. The correct path is to seek a referendum on the law which one seek to transgress. One cannot be permitted to transgress any law of the land (that is applicable to everyone) simply to make a point or fight a cause.

Outside of the laws of a country and international laws, there are no other moral position that matters. Every one has freedom, liberty and justification to do any thing that is not against the law. There are no moral position (good or bad) on things that are not against the law. This is the established rules of life every where in the civilized world.

One has freedom, liberty and justification to choose to do any thing that is not against the law and justly expect no judgment (moral or other) about his actions. This is how civilized and bigot-free people live, in democracy, harmony and mutual respect.

If something is not illegal there can be and is, no moral (good or bad) position about it. It is simply another thing like sleeping, eating, breathing, etc.

Any other position is 'out of place' interference in people's private affairs.

The above was the enlightened Christian life style in the U.S.A. before O.T. people over ran the place.

Everyone is free to try to get their morality ideas into the law books. However in a democracy, the only right and Christian way is to drum up majority citizen support for it.

Romans: 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Do not be misled. The caption, 'I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus' confirms that the above is a literal, untouched, 'stand on its own' declaration about morality, from the Spirit of Jesus/Spirit of Truth to Paul.

 

[Town Heretic]

That is not possible. Unlawful conduct cannot be moral.

I disagree. More, the law can be immoral and unlawful activity the only recourse. Just so, "Tell me, sir, are you hiding any Jews on these premises?" said the SS Colonel at your door.

Law is the measure of morality for a nation

I don't agree. It certainly can be, but it frequently isn't.

 

[Danoh]

Worth a read:

"I hope these brief reflections will not be in the category of “stirring up,” but rather might provide some clarity about what Christians should agree on and what we may not have to agree on."

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-this-confusing-election-season-ten-thoughts/

AMR

:thumb:

Thanks for that link, bro.

You and I are not alone in such a sober view.

Would that more so called Believers were as spiritually sound on this issue.