New Low From Trump

1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
DavidK said:
I need interpretation on this one. I don't see where I made you think I'm going to have a personal relationship with the president.



Family money. Family connections. Bailing on failing companies and running with as much as he could get. Showmanship and bravado. Exploiting tax law. Being ruthless. None of these skills do I want used to "fix" the government.

There are a lot of ways to come by a great deal of money other than solid business sense. Why do you think we are told that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil?


Can you point me to a place where I said my objection to Trump was that he has no experience running a nation?



I see a theme throughout Daniel that rulers have a tendency to become filled with their own importance and power. When the get to the place where they want to take the place of God, to be the people's savior, He can no longer extend mercy and humbles them in dramatic ways.

God does indeed set up "the basest of men over the kingdoms of men", but usually as a correction to oppress them to bring them to repentance. It's a way He gives us the very thing we desire so we can learn the folly of that desire and turn back to desiring Him.

I very much think that Trump has been established by God. I just don't think it means any sort of blessing for this nation. It's a correction and test for the Church.




You posted this in response to my incredulity that you seem to think anything God does, we can do also. I take it that you think that proving the "good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" means that.

I'll point out that God reserves some things to Himself alone. Vengeance is one of those things. It's perfectly right for Him because He is perfectly righteous, but His word is very clear that it is a terrible pit for our souls.

As the master of all history, it is His pleasure to establish and remove the rulers of the nations. He does place wicked ones in power as a judgment to provoke us to repentance. But then He turns and judges those very wicked men when they inevitably grow proud and blasphemous. It is only presumption to think that because He does this, we are authorized to do likewise.
Click to expand...

You've convinced me.

You're too confused to make a decision.

It'll be better that you stay home on election day. :)
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
patrick jane said:
Trump gets stuck on issues.
Click to expand...



bill got stuck on dresses :eek:


dresses worn by women hillary called "Bimbo eruptions” and said “I would crucify her” and “We have to destroy her story”


trump needs to hammer this over and over and over and over
 
Town Heretic

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
1Mind1Spirit said:
You remind me of the guys sitting in line to talk to the prosecutor.
Click to expand...
You remind me of a guy with a strong opinion, but no discernible understanding of why he holds it or particular grasp of the judicial system.

As a layman I would walk right past them and cut my own deal.
Click to expand...
Your opinion of your opinion isn't in question. Cut what deal? In what court? Civil? Criminal? Municipal?

They would start to whine about me cutting in front of them.
Click to expand...
Who? No responsible prosecutor would let you do that and no lawyer would care (but they still wouldn't let you do it).

You know why I did it?
Click to expand...
Because you're rude and feel entitled? Because you were in some municipal court where no one really cared and it probably made a couple chuckle? But that wouldn't actually work in a serious courtroom.

It's entertaining though.

I had to go back to work as I had men counting on me to feed their families.
Click to expand...
So none of the lawyers had firms, with staff and families? Peculiar jurisdiction. Can everyone else see this courtroom or just you?

Hey, then you might ask yourself why I didn't need them guys to start with.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't. If it's small claims you don't. If it's serious, you would, or you'd have a fool for a client.

Of course none of that has spit and diddle to do with your evidencing any understanding of the process and none of it rebuts or answered the free instruction on points of law you got a bit ago. But I'll give you points for the entertainment value, again.

:e4e:
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Hillary and Kaine support abortion and late term abortions. We can't have Hillary appointing Supreme Court Judges. Not to mention how Hillary will destroy our gun rights
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Trump needs to stop complaining about the media and crying victim and get back to the key issues like jobs, the economy, immigration and health care etc.
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Town Heretic said:
Who? No responsible prosecutor would let you do that and no lawyer would care (but they still wouldn't let you do it).


Because you're rude and feel entitled? Because you were in some municipal court where no one really cared and it probably made a couple chuckle? But that wouldn't actually work in a serious courtroom.

It's entertaining though, so by all means continue.
Click to expand...

First I lied?

Then... well it couldn't have been a serious courtroom?

It is now clear who lied when you said I ran into a lawyer.:rotfl:


So none of the lawyers had firms, with staff and families? Peculiar jurisdiction. Can everyone else see this courtroom or just you?
Click to expand...

Feel threatened by truth do yuh?

Are you sinking?

You think because I said I had men depending on me I was insinuating they didn't?

The point was they were making money sitting there providing a service that some of us with a little guts and brains don't need.


No, I wouldn't. If it's small claims you don't. If it's serious, you would, or you'd have a fool for a client.
Click to expand...

For being a fool, I've sure saved alotta money acting Pro Se.


Of course none of that has spit and diddle to do with your evidencing any understanding of the process and none of it rebuts or answered the free instruction on points of law you got a bit ago. But I'll give you points for the entertainment value, again.

:e4e:
Click to expand...

You know nothing of points of law and have only believed socialistic liberal propaganda meant to keep you from thinking for yourself.

It also taints the jury pool in favor of big government and less freedom.
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
1Mind1Spirit said:
Who's this we you speak of?

Gotta mouse in yer pocket?
Click to expand...

We as a nation had our chance with Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz to start legislating again based on the original intent of the Constitution, but evidently nominating a reality tv star was more important. Donald Trump doesn't admire that great document, he wants to be king.
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
ok doser said:
isn't this what you clowns have been saying ever since 2000?

and you think it's gonna work, what - eventually? :darwinsm:


you're insane
Click to expand...

If you Libertarians would just stick with your own party and not mess around with the conservative party, things would be ok.
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You boyz oughta try picking up a constitutional law book sometime. SCOTUS decisions don't dictate law, they decide a specific case

Town Heretic said:
In fact, there's been a lot of discussion about the power of review and how the Court has in essence struck, created or mandated new law. But thanks. Nothing gets me chuckling in the morning quite like a layman lecturing me on the law. :thumb: :)
Click to expand...

If you really want a good "chuckle", how about we start a thread and go one on one? We can call the thread

"The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers"

Anyway, there are times when the Court, in interpreting the Constitutionality of old and new law, can in essence create/mandate new law or abolish it. The first interruption of a state law came in Fletcher v Peck, a couple of hundred years ago. Roe undid and caused the creation of more than a little law. In relatively recent education cases the Court through it's holding in essence told the legislatures to get to making laws aimed at implementing its holding. Most recently, the Court struck down laws relating to restrictions on the marriage contract.
Click to expand...

Key words: "The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers".
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
We as a nation had our chance with Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz to start legislating again based on the original intent of the Constitution, but evidently nominating a reality tv star was more important. Donald Trump doesn't admire that great document, he wants to be king.

ok doser said:
ted cruz was unelectable in the general


he proved it by being unelectable in the primary
Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking to you. I don't attempt to reason with someone who calls me a "pedophile" and accuses me of sexually molesting my own children and then later beating them.

Yep, I'm the one who is "insane" here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top