New Low From Trump

[Gurucam]

The Kingdom of God is not a democracy, it is a monarchy. What the monarch says is right and wrong is right and wrong, regardless of consensus.

Clearly that is Peter's view, not Jesus. There is no absolute morality for those who follow Jesus. It is all a matter of personal individual and collective choice:

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.

Acts: 13 King James Version (KJV)
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Romans: 8 King James Version (KJV)
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Galatians: 5 KJV N.T.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Romans:3 King James Version (KJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

2 Corinthians: 3 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Jesus threw out the best moral law, the ten commandments. There is no other moral law that is left or enforceable on Christians (N.T. people) other than the laws of one's land and international law . . . and so be it.

Of course, Jesus did not do away with the ten commandments for O.T. people. He did away with it only for Christians (N.T. people). O.T. people must uphold all the laws perfectly or they go to hell.

James: 2 KJV N.T.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Romans: 3 KJV N.T.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith only to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Only O.T. people are under the law.

N.T./Christian people are not under the law. They are under righteousness of God that is without the law:

Romans:3 King James Version (KJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

People who promote that the law is still intact for Christians are unawares, false spying brethren. They are committing a very serious crime against Jesus:

Galatians: 2 KJV N.T.
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

 

[Crucible]

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.

You make such accusations daily on here, bro

Maybe you should acknowledge what you dish out all the time.

 

[Foxfire]

What are the odds of there being less than one such report per day for the next month?

The October surprise that just keeps on giving. :jawdrop:

It's up to 11 women that have added their names now.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I hope you're leaving yourself a trail of breadcrumbs.

What this says to me is that you're actually listening.

:think:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's up to 11 women that have added their names now.

What's up to them?

Unpack that for me please.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You make such accusations daily on here, bro

Maybe you should acknowledge what you dish out all the time.

I used to think he had a little sense.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Clearly that is Peter's view, not Jesus. There is no absolute morality for those who follow Jesus. It is all a matter of personal individual and collective choice:

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.

Acts: 13 King James Version (KJV)
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Romans: 8 King James Version (KJV)
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Galatians: 5 KJV N.T.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Romans:3 King James Version (KJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

2 Corinthians: 3 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Jesus threw out the best moral law, the ten commandments. There is no other moral law that is left or enforceable on Christians (N.T. people) other than the laws of one's land and international law . . . and so be it.

Of course, Jesus did not do away with the ten commandments for O.T. people. He did away with it only for Christians (N.T. people). O.T. people must uphold all the laws perfectly or they go to hell.

James: 2 KJV N.T.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Romans: 3 KJV N.T.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith only to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Only O.T. people are under the law.

N.T./Christian people are not under the law. They are under righteousness of God that is without the law:

Romans:3 King James Version (KJV)
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

People who promote that the law is still intact for Christians are unawares, false spying brethren. They are committing a very serious crime against Jesus:

Galatians: 2 KJV N.T.
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Could be said better but that's the jist of it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

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.

You make such accusations daily on here, bro

Maybe you should acknowledge what you dish out all the time.

I mock evil people frequently here on TOL (I'm having a grand ole time mocking sexual deviant Donald Trump). If that is the same as accusing a follower of Christ of having sex with children and molesting and beating his own, then I'm not seeing the connection.

BTW, I see that TOL's "moral crusader" reported me, not his fellow Trumpeteer.

 

[Town Heretic]

First I lied?

I don't know. Maybe you live in some backwater where courtrooms are run like markets.

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

No, it couldn't. I'm guessing either small claims or traffic/municipal court, again.

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

Unlike your sanity, my credentials aren't a matter of speculation.

Feel threatened by truth do yuh?

How do you get that out of my responding to your declaration of having employees with families to feed by noting lawyers and law firms have staff and families?

Are you sinking?

I get the feeling you're missing a metaphor.

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

No, I was noting your reason for the bravado wasn't, in point of fact, a thing that made you different. The only thing that made you different in that scenario was your poor manners.

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.

I know you think that, which is why I speculated the matter wasn't important. Small claims, by continuing example, was established to afford people the chance to settle matters where it wouldn't make sense, economically, to hire an attorney and where the case facts were simple and straight forward. But of you're handling your own case and it's serious, involving significant capital, legal issues or incarceration, then you're letting your ego talk you into a very foolish move.

It's not about being smart. Lots of very smart people don't try to operate on other people or themselves, even with a medical degree, let alone without one.

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

Like I said, I'm not against pro se actions, depending on the circumstance.

You know nothing of points of law

I actually hold a doctorate in it, passed a few bars and was, before taking an extended sabbatical, licensed to practice on the state and federal level, including before the S. Ct. While in practice I regularly wrote and reviewed appellate work for other lawyers. They didn't come to me because I had a winning smile and a comfortable office...though I suppose I did.

What you don't know would fill a law school. Oh, and I taught prelaw for a bit at the university level.

and have only believed socialistic liberal propaganda meant to keep you from thinking for yourself.

That's just unsupported noise, but make as much of it as soothes you.

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

Supra.

:e4e:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

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.

Caution to the wind sissy.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I don't know. Maybe you live in some backwater where courtrooms are run like markets.


No, it couldn't. I'm guessing either small claims or traffic/municipal court, again.


Unlike your sanity, my credentials aren't a matter of speculation.


How do you get that out of my responding to your declaration of having employees with families to feed by noting lawyer and law firms have staff and families?


I get the feeling you're missing a metaphor.


No, I was noting your reason for the bravado wasn't, in point of fact, a thing that made you different. The only thing that made you different in that scenario was your poor manners.


I know you think that, which is why I speculated the matter wasn't important. Small claims, by continuing example, was established to afford people the chance to settle matters where it wouldn't make sense, economically, to hire an attorney and where the case facts were simple and straight forward. Bit of you're handling your own case and it's serious, involving significant capital, legal issues or incarceration, then you're letting your ego talk you into a very foolish move.


Like I said, I'm not against pro se actions, depending on the circumstance.


I actually hold a doctorate in it, passed a few bars and was, before taking an extended sabbatical, licensed to practice on the state and federal level, including before the S. Ct. While in practice I regularly wrote and reviewed appellate work for other lawyers. They didn't come to me because I had a winning smile and a comfortable office...though I suppose I did.

What you don't know would fill a law school. Oh, and I taught prelaw for a bit at the university level.


That's just unsupported noise.

"
Supra.

:e4e:

I already knew you were a doofus with no hands on experience.

Thanks for letting everybody else know.

Far as my manners, I've never been held in contempt.

 

[Town Heretic]

I already knew you were a doofus with no hands on experience.

Nothing in my writing led to that conclusion, so you're consistent in approach at least.

I added a few particulars to give you a fuller sense of my involvement in practice, but you rushed into your usual block quote avoidance and likely missed it. Add to that score years of VAWA work where I actively kept the maximum client base approved by the state bar. I've tried, literally, thousands of cases outside of my appellate work.

You should stick to the crazy political philosophy.

Thanks for letting everybody else know.

Those voices in your head are all you, you know. Well, you might not, but they are.

Far as my manners, I've never been held in contempt.

You mean legally. lain:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Nothing in my writing led to that conclusion, so you're consistent in approach at least.

I added a few particulars to give you a fuller sense of my involvement in practice, but you rushed into your usual block quote avoidance and likely missed it. Add to that score years of VAWA work where I actively kept the maximum client base approved by the state bar. I've tried, literally, thousands of cases outside of my appellate work.

You should stick to the crazy political philosophy.


Those voices in your head are all you, you know. Well, you might not, but they are.


You mean legally. lain:

I'm a roofer by trade.

Yer like the architect that runs a valley straight into a wall then says hey man, can you make that not leak?

Sorry if yer trying to bring a guilt complex into this doesn't work.

The Holy Spirit is applauding me right now.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

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.

Caution to the wind sissy.

Since Town Heretic didn't take me up on my offer to debate one on one in a thread entitled

"The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers"

maybe you would like to?

Heck, a big bad roofer like yourself should be able to handle a "sissy" like me with ease.

When can we start?

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm a roofer by trade.

It's a good trade. And I bet you know everything you can about it, take pride in your work and do the best you can on a job.

Yer like the architect that runs a valley straight into a wall then says hey man, can you make that not leak.

But you don't know me or mine, aren't trained to offer an informed opinion on the complexities of law and have spent a lot of time ignoring anything but your bias.

Sorry if you think that yer trying to bring a guilt complex into this doesn't work.

Not even a little right.

The Holy Spirit is applauding me right now.

Like I said, the health of your opinion of yourself is in no part unestablished. But its fruit is another matter.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No

I've tried, literally, thousands of cases outside of my appellate work.

Impossibility.

 

[Town Heretic]

Impossibility.

That's why I think you're a nut...well, it's one reason. Do you know how many clients a maxed out VAWA attorney carries in a month? It's like triage or speed chess. I covered five poor counties for about five years starting out and I was always carrying the maximum. I expanded that into civil protection after that. Thousands wasn't hard to make at all. I did the trial work and other lawyers did the follow ups. I was a trial dog and unlike most lawyers, we work hard and often for our living.

Latter I prosecuted criminal and civil matters, adding to the totals at a slower pace. Toward the end, before my son was born, my success at the appellate level led me to a more normal pace, but expanded the coverage to a satisfying degree, mostly but not entirely out of courtrooms.

Like I said, you likely know your profession, but you aren't qualified to speak to mine.


Edit side note: the average California public defender handles around 400 felony cases a year.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's a good trade. And I bet you know everything you can about it, take pride in your work and do the best you can on a job.

Yep.

It's called working with your hands.

But you don't know me or mine, aren't trained to offer an informed opinion on the complexities of law and have spent a lot of time ignoring anything but your bias.

What's my bias?

Not even a little right.

Prove it.

Like I said, the health of your opinion of yourself is in no part unestablished. But its fruit is another matter.

Give with one hand hand take away with the other.

Blow it, buddy.

 

[Crucible]

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

That's why I think you're a nut...well, it's one reason. Do you know how many clients a maxed out VAWA attorney carries in a month? It's like triage or speed chess. I covered five poor counties for about five years starting out and I was always carrying the maximum. I expanded that into civil protection after that. Thousands wasn't hard to make at all. I did the trial work and other lawyers did the follow ups. I was a trial dog and unlike most lawyers, we work hard and often for our living.

Latter I prosecuted criminal and civil matters, adding to the totals at a slower pace. Toward the end, before my son was born, my success at the appellate level led me to a more normal pace, but expanded the coverage to a satisfying degree, mostly but not entirely out of courtrooms.

Like I said, you likely know your profession, but you aren't qualified to speak to mine.


Edit side note: the average California public defender handles around 400 felony cases a year.

You said you tried that many cases, not cut deals that shove the rights of the accused into the trash bin, which is actually what you did.