"A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America." This is what you said. You hate the guy, I get it.
That doesn't say all Christians, some I assume are good people.
Some? Hate is a black hole that you may never recover from.
That's reading an awful lot into things. Manaford was apparently tampering with two witnesses. He was caught red handed repeatedly contacting people he wasn't supposed to. He was told not to do something, and he did it anyway.
That's a crime in and of itself. Felony.
Criminal actions by Trump's former campaign manager. If you don't want to be charged with felonies, maybe don't do the act. Especially now, why risk it? Oh right Trump's pardoning people to send a message and he just doesn't give a damn because the rule of law means nothing when Trump's your bud.
I didn't say he should get a pass for contacting people he probably should not have been contacting. Instead, I only suspect that they are going to try and convict him on these charges rather than the other charges because they can definitely make these charges stick.
Issuing a pardon does not equate to "doesn't give a damn about the rule of law". Issuing a pardon *is* the rule of law, as written in the Constitution itself.
re: @Grond0 Gates' charges being dropped...sure, they could have probably gotten a conviction on at least one charge (if not more) so all that really means is that Gates is a poor poker player--he folded at the first Mueller bluff.
To the more recent turn in the thread, I'll only say this: I dont think it's really possible to attack a particular religion without attacking the people of that religion. You may not mean to be offensive in doing so, but people strongly identify and define themselves as believers of a particular religion... so they cannot help but feel as though they're being attacked.
And therein lies the problem. If your belief system is so engrained that it makes you unable to handle criticism then maybe it's time to take a step back and rethink your life choices. I have no problem with smart and good religious people. You're free to believe whatever the hell you want. But I see 90% of the world fighting each other over what imaginary friend is the best one, judging others that don't follow their holy book, and they think the atheists are the immoral ones...
"A guy who is on his third trophy wife and can't spell bible and certainly throws the first stone and is just an ass has high support from christian extremists in America." This is what you said. You hate the guy, I get it.
That doesn't say all Christians, some I assume are good people.
Some? Hate is a black hole that you may never recover from.
And here I thought it was meant to be an ironic echo of Trump, as that is what the origin of this thread branch derailed to.
@Matthieu "BTW I find these religious discussions awfully boring, it's like arguing about swords and shields in modern warfare."
Well shields have evolved for police use, rather than modern warfare, but swords still have a use.
In particular, the Force Reconnaissance Battalion of the Philippines’ Marine Corps and the Special Action Force arm their soldiers with blades, like the Ginunting and Bolo. The ginunting and the bolocan can reach up to 20″ (~51cm) and ~13″ (~33cm) respectively, making them around twice as long as what might be considered knives.
These swords continue to be used regularly in the low-intensity conflicts that take place in the jungles of the Southern Philippines for a number of reasons. For one, the thick jungles of Mindanao in which they operate facilitate - in fact, they demand - ambushes at close quarters. The dense foliage inhibits the use of firearms by limiting lines of sight, breaking up fields of fire, and providing an overabundance of cover and concealment to all parties. This is further coupled by the fact that the foliage severely limits visibility. Furthermore, the dense jungle greatly enables swift and effective withdrawals: the separatists and terrorists can very easily disappear into the green at the first sign of trouble.
The terrain thus demands the use of blades. The Marines’ adversaries are likely to utilise the blade in ambush attacks for a variety of reasons. For one, blades are relatively easier to procure than a gun. Furthermore, they can be extremely effective, both kinetically and psychologically, especially when its wielder has already been drugged up under a chemical cocktail, as terror groups are wont to do these days. Most crucially, blades are silent, and do not draw attention like firearm reports.
Because their adversaries are very likely to have already closed the distance and have already deployed their blades in the event of an ambush, the Marines are also forced to deploy their blades instead of their firearms, which are less effective at extreme close quarters. The Marines are also incentivised to utilise blades through the same logic: they can strike swiftly and silently in ambushes without alarming their quarry.
Some usually means a small amount. So a small amount of Christians are good people? Controversial it is not. Ignorant, it is.
Christianity teaches that all humans are inherently evil.
No, not inherently evil necessarily, but they believe that there is no way a person can balance their good acts vs. the bad and come out ahead. Therefore one can't 'earn' their way to heaven under the old law.
Some usually means a small amount. So a small amount of Christians are good people? Controversial it is not. Ignorant, it is.
Christianity teaches that all humans are inherently evil.
No, not inherently evil necessarily, but they believe that there is no way a person can balance their good acts vs. the bad and come out ahead. Therefore one can't 'earn' their way to heaven under the old law.
Because humans are inherently evil...
It's about the only bit of Christianity that can be supported with empirical evidence.
Some usually means a small amount. So a small amount of Christians are good people? Controversial it is not. Ignorant, it is.
Christianity teaches that all humans are inherently evil.
No, not inherently evil necessarily, but they believe that there is no way a person can balance their good acts vs. the bad and come out ahead. Therefore one can't 'earn' their way to heaven under the old law.
Because humans are inherently evil...
It's about the only bit of Christianity that can be supported with empirical evidence.
That's black and white thinking. Let's just say 'not good enough'.
To be honest, this forum is one of the best places for debating this kind of stuff. Even dialogue that is flagged is pretty innocuous compared to what I've seen out in the newspaper forums.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
And yet the whole incident is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the left REPEATEDLY insisted WOULDN'T happen if gay marriage were legalized - and by doing so, they were able to win over support for their cause from many moderates and independents. Now that the push for gay marriage has succeeded, there's suddenly a whole new objective that the left is pushing for in its place, as if the fight for gay marriage never existed or was meaningless in the first place. It's a classic example of moving goal posts once one objective is achieved.
The left has as much to answer for in this whole incident as the right.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
I dare you to go to a Muslim country and ask for something for a Gay Wedding. I double dare you.
That's where we are headed in the States. And that's a problem. Religious extremists rule many Muslim countries. That's the way we are headed here.
No, it isn't. The left won an ENORMOUS victory for itself when it succeeded in getting gay marriage legalized (by virtually the SAME SCOTUS that it's now slamming for its decision). Then it tried to push too far in one ideological direction and the SCOTUS put a kibosh on THAT particular push (although WITHOUT setting a precedent for future decisions - which is still a small victory for the left). This isn't "extremism ruling" anything, it's exactly the way a two-party system and culture SHOULD work.
On a side note, NYC is now considering a proposal to allow parents to CHOOSE a "genderless" option for their children on birth certificates - are you going to make a similar claim that this law "panders to fairy tales" and is an example of "America dying" as well, or do you judge it differently because it happens to coincide with the left's ideological beliefs?
The "the left pushed too hard on gay marriage" trope is so damn tired. As if thousands upon upon thousands of gay couples over the decades didn't have one of the members of those partnerships DIE before they could have the same rights as the rest of the country, all so the fragile sensibilities of those opposed to it wouldn't be shaken. So now we are going to use the perfectly normal human reaction to being targeted by religious bigotry to argue against the prudence of gay people no longer being treated as 2nd class citizens. Support for their cause?? The cause was basic equal rights. It wasn't something they should have had to "ask" for. How about this?? If you receive a license from the State to operate a business, you have to abide by certain rules, which would mean serving the public without obvious prejudice.
And I guaran-damn-tee that if a story came out about, let's say, a certain deli somewhere just started flat-out refusing to serve sandwiches to people they knew were either conservative or Christian, the same people praising this decision would be apoplectic.
How about this?? If you receive a license from the State to operate a business, you have to abide by certain rules, which would mean serving the public without obvious prejudice.
And I guaran-damn-tee that if a story came out about, let's say, a certain deli somewhere just started flat-out refusing to serve sandwiches to people they knew were either conservative or Christian, the same people praising this decision would be apoplectic.
No. A business owner *always* retains the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, even if those reasons are hateful and/or irrational.
I think that second scenario would be hilarious and I would actually like to see it happen.
I'm hoping we move on soon, because it's been excruciatingly tedious so far.
I did mention that everyone should walk away from that particular topic but no one listened.
*************
In totally unrelated news, the Miss America pageant is doing away with the swimsuit competition. Now if they would only do away with the Miss America pageant altogether, along with all other such pageants.
The "the left pushed too hard on gay marriage" trope is so damn tired. As if thousands upon upon thousands of gay couples over the decades didn't have one of the members of those partnerships DIE before they could have the same rights as the rest of the country, all so the fragile sensibilities of those opposed to it wouldn't be shaken. So now we are going to use the perfectly normal human reaction to being targeted by religious bigotry to argue against the prudence of gay people no longer being treated as 2nd class citizens. Support for their cause?? The cause was basic equal rights. It wasn't something they should have had to "ask" for. How about this?? If you receive a license from the State to operate a business, you have to abide by certain rules, which would mean serving the public without obvious prejudice.
And I guaran-damn-tee that if a story came out about, let's say, a certain deli somewhere just started flat-out refusing to serve sandwiches to people they knew were either conservative or Christian, the same people praising this decision would be apoplectic.
The "left" pushed hard to stop (the right I guess?) from being able to be bigoted based on hatred and insecurity. Oh my, right, what-a-revolution.
What's next, the left wanting women to get equal pay to men. It's too much right?
For me there are two issues 1) He declined them Service due to their sexual orientation 2) His grounds were religious
And let's not forget the entrepreneur chose to make this an issue by making both above points. He could have simply said "Sorry I don't have time for your order" to avoid this.
@Grond0@FinneousPJ I have a problem with people calling me a loony because I am different. I have a problem with people thinking I should just shut up and take being called a looney. I am certainly not okay with the hypocrisy shown when these same people immediately jump down the throat of someone making a connection between hedonism and atheism, not as a littleral argument, but to make a point about insulting entire groups of people wholesale. Pot and kettle.
@Matthieu The "church" during the dark ages was all politics. They broke their own doctrine and even prevented others from being able to read it for the sole purpose of political advantage. It was all politics. But hey, go ahead and continue the poorly researched sweeping hate filled generalizations. I mean "Love you neighbor." screw those guys amirite? We don't need any of that here.
@smeagolheart You post about "Looney people with an imaginary friend in the sky" was pretty all inclusive. Sounded like "all Christians" to me.
@Grond0@FinneousPJ I have a problem with people calling me a loony because I am different. I have a problem with people thinking I should just shut up and take being called a looney. I am certainly not okay with the hypocrisy shown when these same people immediately jump down the throat of someone making a connection between hedonism and atheism, not as a littleral argument, but to make a point about insulting entire groups of people wholesale. Pot and kettle.
@Matthieu The "church" during the dark ages was all politics. They broke their own doctrine and even prevented others from being able to read it for the sole purpose of political advantage. It was all politics. But hey, go ahead and continue the poorly researched sweeping hate filled generalizations. I mean "Love you neighbor." screw those guys amirite? We don't need any of that here.
@smeagolheart You post about "Looney people with an imaginary friend in the sky" was pretty all inclusive. Sounded like "all Christians" to me.
I don't remember calling you a loony. I also don't remember jumping down the throat of anyone. You must be confused.
How about this?? If you receive a license from the State to operate a business, you have to abide by certain rules, which would mean serving the public without obvious prejudice.
And I guaran-damn-tee that if a story came out about, let's say, a certain deli somewhere just started flat-out refusing to serve sandwiches to people they knew were either conservative or Christian, the same people praising this decision would be apoplectic.
No. A business owner *always* retains the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, even if those reasons are hateful and/or irrational.
I know you think that should be the situation, but that's by no means the general law. I think most States have some form of anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits business owners dealing with the general public from discriminating on the basis of certain characteristics. Race is a common one there with sexual orientation being somewhat less so (about half the country is covered by that). The Masterpiece case occurred in a state with such legislation and the SCOTUS affirmed that such protection was proper: "Certain religious and philosophical objections are protected, but do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services.”
The SCOTUS decision in favor of the owner was quite a narrow one, relying on 2 particular points: - the original decision showed hostility rather than the required neutrality to the owner's religious beliefs, - the making of the cake involved artistic expression, protected as free speech. Having looked at it a bit more now the decision did not give any general precedent that would allow religious beliefs to be used as a defense against discrimination in future. People concerned with civil rights should therefore continue to try and extend those at the State level without feeling that work would be wasted.
Some usually means a small amount. So a small amount of Christians are good people? Controversial it is not. Ignorant, it is.
Christianity teaches that all humans are inherently evil.
No it doesn't. Literally the first things the Christian Bible say about humans is "Let us make man in our own image." Genesis 27a
And "God saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good." Genesis 1:31a
Yup, inherently evil right there. The concept of original sin, is as a disease. Its not inherent to us. We are good, but infected with something that we cannot cure ourselves of. It always baffles me why non religous people seem to think they know more about a book than someone who has been reading it for their whole life.
Some usually means a small amount. So a small amount of Christians are good people? Controversial it is not. Ignorant, it is.
No, that's not what some means. Some means an unspecified amount.
some səm/Submit determiner 1. an unspecified amount or number of. "I made some money running errands" 2. used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified. "she married some newspaper magnate twice her age" pronoun 1. an unspecified number or amount of people or things. "here are some of our suggestions" 2. at least a small amount or number of people or things. "surely some have noticed" adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal 1. to some extent; somewhat. "when you get to the majors, the rules change some"
The problem with religion is that they always get hijacked by the most radical factions. In the US, that happens to be what is commonly referred to in political science or demographic terms as the "religious right". They are the ones on TV and making the most noise claiming to speak for those who are both Christian and moral. This particular faction is historically virulently anti-gay. This is also the faction of the faith that has the most political power. I know for certain based on his previous posts that @ThacoBell does not feel this way. Sadly, the entire faith of all denominations are now branded this way because of decades of high-profile demogauguery from the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk.
@Grond0@FinneousPJ I have a problem with people calling me a loony because I am different. I have a problem with people thinking I should just shut up and take being called a looney. I am certainly not okay with the hypocrisy shown when these same people immediately jump down the throat of someone making a connection between hedonism and atheism, not as a littleral argument, but to make a point about insulting entire groups of people wholesale. Pot and kettle.
@Matthieu The "church" during the dark ages was all politics. They broke their own doctrine and even prevented others from being able to read it for the sole purpose of political advantage. It was all politics. But hey, go ahead and continue the poorly researched sweeping hate filled generalizations. I mean "Love you neighbor." screw those guys amirite? We don't need any of that here.
@smeagolheart You post about "Looney people with an imaginary friend in the sky" was pretty all inclusive. Sounded like "all Christians" to me.
I'm not talking about all Christians. I'm talking about the extremists. These people that have a lot of problems. Some, I assume, are good people.
But yeah imaginary friend, which one is correct? There's so many to choose from? That's what all the wars are about, giving the wrong answer to the god question. So it's probably better to keep this out of the purview of the government like the first amendment says.
You know what would be interesting? Lets not call it the "religious right". These people are just using religion as a screen. It even gives them more legal leeway due to religious rights laws. Lets not call them by their protective screen. "Bigoted right" removes the screen and calls the hate itself into question, it forces them to engage with it. Maybe its too combative and will shut down possibility of communication? There are a lot of smart people here, maybe we can think of good name for it.
@Grond0@FinneousPJ I have a problem with people calling me a loony because I am different. I have a problem with people thinking I should just shut up and take being called a looney. I am certainly not okay with the hypocrisy shown when these same people immediately jump down the throat of someone making a connection between hedonism and atheism, not as a littleral argument, but to make a point about insulting entire groups of people wholesale. Pot and kettle.
@ThacoBell as I said before I have not deliberately insulted anyone and I have most definitely not called anyone a looney. I would though like to know what it is I've said that has upset you - just so I can think about how to avoid that in the future.
There have been some recent statements in the thread that I agree have been insulting and I don't approve of those at all. It may be the case that an apparent insult can be explained away through clarifications, but if you believe you have been deliberately insulted the proper response would be to flag the post for moderators to consider - that helps avoid tit-for-tat responses. I accept the point @Balrog99 made about things being far worse on many public forums, but that's not relevant to me. I don't like reading insults and just wouldn't participate in the thread any more if that approach became the norm.
Comments
Issuing a pardon does not equate to "doesn't give a damn about the rule of law". Issuing a pardon *is* the rule of law, as written in the Constitution itself.
re: @Grond0 Gates' charges being dropped...sure, they could have probably gotten a conviction on at least one charge (if not more) so all that really means is that Gates is a poor poker player--he folded at the first Mueller bluff.
************* I know *exactly* what a gay bar is--my former step-mother (she is dead now) used to own one. In East Texas.
I have no problem with smart and good religious people. You're free to believe whatever the hell you want. But I see 90% of the world fighting each other over what imaginary friend is the best one, judging others that don't follow their holy book, and they think the atheists are the immoral ones...
Well shields have evolved for police use, rather than modern warfare, but swords still have a use.
In particular, the Force Reconnaissance Battalion of the Philippines’ Marine Corps and the Special Action Force arm their soldiers with blades, like the Ginunting and Bolo. The ginunting and the bolocan can reach up to 20″ (~51cm) and ~13″ (~33cm) respectively, making them around twice as long as what might be considered knives.
These swords continue to be used regularly in the low-intensity conflicts that take place in the jungles of the Southern Philippines for a number of reasons. For one, the thick jungles of Mindanao in which they operate facilitate - in fact, they demand - ambushes at close quarters. The dense foliage inhibits the use of firearms by limiting lines of sight, breaking up fields of fire, and providing an overabundance of cover and concealment to all parties. This is further coupled by the fact that the foliage severely limits visibility. Furthermore, the dense jungle greatly enables swift and effective withdrawals: the separatists and terrorists can very easily disappear into the green at the first sign of trouble.
The terrain thus demands the use of blades. The Marines’ adversaries are likely to utilise the blade in ambush attacks for a variety of reasons. For one, blades are relatively easier to procure than a gun. Furthermore, they can be extremely effective, both kinetically and psychologically, especially when its wielder has already been drugged up under a chemical cocktail, as terror groups are wont to do these days. Most crucially, blades are silent, and do not draw attention like firearm reports.
Because their adversaries are very likely to have already closed the distance and have already deployed their blades in the event of an ambush, the Marines are also forced to deploy their blades instead of their firearms, which are less effective at extreme close quarters. The Marines are also incentivised to utilise blades through the same logic: they can strike swiftly and silently in ambushes without alarming their quarry.
It's about the only bit of Christianity that can be supported with empirical evidence.
The left has as much to answer for in this whole incident as the right.
No, it isn't. The left won an ENORMOUS victory for itself when it succeeded in getting gay marriage legalized (by virtually the SAME SCOTUS that it's now slamming for its decision). Then it tried to push too far in one ideological direction and the SCOTUS put a kibosh on THAT particular push (although WITHOUT setting a precedent for future decisions - which is still a small victory for the left). This isn't "extremism ruling" anything, it's exactly the way a two-party system and culture SHOULD work.
On a side note, NYC is now considering a proposal to allow parents to CHOOSE a "genderless" option for their children on birth certificates - are you going to make a similar claim that this law "panders to fairy tales" and is an example of "America dying" as well, or do you judge it differently because it happens to coincide with the left's ideological beliefs?
And I guaran-damn-tee that if a story came out about, let's say, a certain deli somewhere just started flat-out refusing to serve sandwiches to people they knew were either conservative or Christian, the same people praising this decision would be apoplectic.
I think that second scenario would be hilarious and I would actually like to see it happen. I did mention that everyone should walk away from that particular topic but no one listened.
*************
In totally unrelated news, the Miss America pageant is doing away with the swimsuit competition. Now if they would only do away with the Miss America pageant altogether, along with all other such pageants.
What's next, the left wanting women to get equal pay to men. It's too much right?
1) He declined them Service due to their sexual orientation
2) His grounds were religious
And let's not forget the entrepreneur chose to make this an issue by making both above points. He could have simply said "Sorry I don't have time for your order" to avoid this.
@Matthieu The "church" during the dark ages was all politics. They broke their own doctrine and even prevented others from being able to read it for the sole purpose of political advantage. It was all politics. But hey, go ahead and continue the poorly researched sweeping hate filled generalizations. I mean "Love you neighbor." screw those guys amirite? We don't need any of that here.
@smeagolheart You post about "Looney people with an imaginary friend in the sky" was pretty all inclusive. Sounded like "all Christians" to me.
The SCOTUS decision in favor of the owner was quite a narrow one, relying on 2 particular points:
- the original decision showed hostility rather than the required neutrality to the owner's religious beliefs,
- the making of the cake involved artistic expression, protected as free speech.
Having looked at it a bit more now the decision did not give any general precedent that would allow religious beliefs to be used as a defense against discrimination in future. People concerned with civil rights should therefore continue to try and extend those at the State level without feeling that work would be wasted.
And "God saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good." Genesis 1:31a
Yup, inherently evil right there. The concept of original sin, is as a disease. Its not inherent to us. We are good, but infected with something that we cannot cure ourselves of. It always baffles me why non religous people seem to think they know more about a book than someone who has been reading it for their whole life.
səm/Submit
determiner
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"
pronoun
1.
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions"
2.
at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal
1.
to some extent; somewhat.
"when you get to the majors, the rules change some"
But yeah imaginary friend, which one is correct? There's so many to choose from? That's what all the wars are about, giving the wrong answer to the god question. So it's probably better to keep this out of the purview of the government like the first amendment says.
George Carlin: Do you believe in God? 55 seconds
You know what would be interesting? Lets not call it the "religious right". These people are just using religion as a screen. It even gives them more legal leeway due to religious rights laws. Lets not call them by their protective screen. "Bigoted right" removes the screen and calls the hate itself into question, it forces them to engage with it. Maybe its too combative and will shut down possibility of communication? There are a lot of smart people here, maybe we can think of good name for it.
There have been some recent statements in the thread that I agree have been insulting and I don't approve of those at all. It may be the case that an apparent insult can be explained away through clarifications, but if you believe you have been deliberately insulted the proper response would be to flag the post for moderators to consider - that helps avoid tit-for-tat responses. I accept the point @Balrog99 made about things being far worse on many public forums, but that's not relevant to me. I don't like reading insults and just wouldn't participate in the thread any more if that approach became the norm.