I have no problem with the idea that our country is under judgement, but a vote for someone other than Trump, is a vote for a judgement more harsh. It is a vote for greater calamity to come upon your children and grand children.
You think a vote for Trump is going to somehow make our judgement less harsh? Bwahahahaha, The judgement for innocent blood of 50 million infants is going to be less harsh because we voted a man who promises to curb illegal immigration and debt. Unless we repent all the voting to manage judgement will be met by laughs from the One who sits on the throne.
A few years ago, an opposite direction vehicle ahead of me, pulled out to pass a semi. The driver of that vehicle apparently didn’t care about an imminent head-on collision, and so continued to pass the semi. I slowed down and pulled off the road in order to avoid certain disaster. I wasn’t trying to manage God’s judgement; I was just using the faculties that God gave me in order to get out of the way.
So then you really don’t know that neither option would get you out of the way of the semi? Are you going to vote for Hillary to insure that judgment comes ASAP?
I could have altered the analogy to reflect that; but the point remains the same. The two candidates represent two different courses of action. Which course ameliorates the damage? Mr. Wilson is suggesting that we play a game of chicken. My children are with me in this “car,” just as they were in the circumstance I described above. I am not willing to play chicken now, any more than I was then.
They do not represent a different course of action. Long before state endorsed sodomy and baby slaughter our country pursued greed at the expense of the lives of untold millions. In our foreign policy we have exported our greed and imposed harsh dictators over the weak. We do this to protect american interests. We slaughtered women and children in our westward expansion. We enslaved minorities to protect our american interests. All of this is greed, I have been a member of conservative churches since the Lord called me to repentance. I sat under preaching where it was presented to me… Read more »
Hard to know where to begin here… I do agree with some of what you wrote, but the thing I am aiming at is Mr. Wilson’s argument about managing God’s judgement. What he is doing, in my opinion, is pleading for God’s judgement to be more severe. Yes, by all means, we ought to repent of our individual sins, and perhaps corporate repentance is appropriate also. But asking for a more severe judgement, in my opinion, is a reckless thing to do. God will give us the judgement that He gives, and the judgement that He gives is the judgement… Read more »
First, because the most likely reason Putin prefers Trump is that Trump is a babe in the woods when it comes to foreign policy, and Putin figures (probably correctly) that he’ll be able to run circles around Trump. Second, because Russian ties to both Assange and Snowden strongly suggest that Putin is behind, or at least has a role in, attacks on our security agencies. Third, because what is known of Trump’s financial affairs strongly suggests he owes Russian banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which could make him beholden to Putin in the event of a dispute. Fourth, because… Read more »
If you’re claiming Clinton is a communist, you are mistaken. The whole basis for the Bernie Sanders campaign is that she’s too cozy with Wall Street. Her actual policy positions are slightly left of center, but only slightly, and not nearly enough for people who actually are leftists.
If you are functioning within a crony capitalist system, you need to be a crony capitalist in order to survive. Your failure to mention that Trump wants to do away with crony capitalism appears to reveal a spirit of partisanship.
I wasn’t pleased when I heard the first rumblings of a Trump candidacy, but after the public response to his announcement I took a deeper look. I found someone much different than I had expected. You may be right, but I think there is more to him than your blunt assessment. Now that he won the election, it might be a good idea to replace your cynicism, with thoughtful charitable skepticism.
Alternately, what Russia does to her neighbors is none of our business, because there’s an ocean between here and there, and it’s high time that the US stopped trying to make everybody in the world like us, because they are not suited for it.
Hillary “What difference does it make that I was asleep when the 3 am crisis phone call came in” Clinton is highly unlikely to deal any better with Putin than she did with Benghazi.
Trump, at least, will probably want our countries on good enough terms that he can sell Putin an Atlantic City time-share condo.
Ruh-roh, in spite of the “facts”, (at least according to Randman) Krycheck’s opinion is right, and the New York Times article finding no Putin / Trump links is wrong.
Trump is a “babe in the woods” re; foreign policy? ; – )
Please Krychek, now’s your chance to enumerate all of HRC’s awesome foreign policy “successes”! Go wild! ; – ) How was Libya a “success”?
Did you read the entire article, or just the headline? Because it’s a fairly misleading headline, but you have to read the whole article to figure that out. Go ahead and harp on Benghazi; nobody else cares. Most people understand that the Secretary can’t personally oversee security everywhere, and the people for whom that’s an issue weren’t likely to vote for her anyway. If you meant the fall of Libya itself, it was inevitable, and you can thank Bush the Lesser for sowing the seeds. He’s the one that brought instability to the entire Middle East with his ill-advised invasion… Read more »
Where did I say the Middle East was stable before Bush 43? Show me where I said that. I don’t know when I have inter-acted with anyone with a worse reading comprehension than you. And by the way, I lived there for three years. The Middle East has probably never been “stable” as we think of it here in the West. What Bush did was to take a pre-existing problem and make it worse by orders of magnitude, which is the sense in which I meant that he “brought” instability to the Middle East. I never suggested there was none… Read more »
“He’s the one that brought instability to the entire Middle East with his ill-advised invasion of Iraq, ” ‘check, “brought instability to the entire Middle East” means you are saying he brought instability to the middle east, because it was “stalbe” before he brought it. That’s a wide open (ridiculous) statement. You need to be more careful what your write, rather than lying about my reading comprehension. Try listening to yourself or proof-reading yourself before you post. You will sound less silly that way! ; – ) But let’s give you the benefit of a doubt. “Presidents not yet born… Read more »
First, if there is more than one possible interpretations of what someone writes, don’t pick the one that only an idiot would believe. No thinking person would believe the Middle East was stable before Bush got there, so it’s highly unlikely that that was my intended meaning. Second, saying that somebody brought something doesn’t mean there wasn’t some of it already there. If I bring eggs from the store, that doesn’t mean I might not have still had a few in the refrigerator from the last shopping trip that I haven’t used up yet. And that’s the sense in which… Read more »
“No thinking person would believe the Middle East was stable before Bush got there, so it’s highly unlikely that that was my intended meaning.”
Actually ‘chek, no “thinking person” would write such a thing,
but you did.
If you are so smart, you can be more precise in your language, rather than making the absurd generalizations that you do.
Here is an example of a more precise statement:
‘chek, you and HRC are in no position to lecture anyone else about “logic”. ; – )
Well, you are the person who thought that “Bush brought instability to the middle east” meant that the middle east had previously been stable, which does look like a reading comprehension issue to me.
And my comment isn’t sarcasm tell anyway, because sarcasm tell requires that you have made a reasonable argument, which you have yet to do.
Didn’t say he was the only one, or that there wasn’t already instability there.
And as far as honest self-quotes, I’ve already said multiple times that you mis-read what I said, but despite that, you’re continuing to claim that I said something I didn’t. So you’re not in any real position to be lecturing anyone else about honesty.
determiner
1.
a. single; lone; not two or more ⇒ one car
b. (as pronoun) ⇒ one is enough for now, ⇒ one at a time
c. (in combination) ⇒ one-eyed, ⇒ one-legged
English ‘chek! ; – )
You mis-spoke. I did not mis-read.
“He’s THE ONE that brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East”
Except that in this context, “one” actually means “person” as in Bush was the person who brought instability to the Middle East. But let’s cut to the chase. Why would you persist in claiming a meaning I’ve now disavowed several times? Probably because you can’t defend against the fact that Bush did destabilize the Middle East, horrifically so, and had there been no American invasion of Iraq there would be no ISIS. There would also be far more Christians living there. So your only real strategy is to take attention off Bush’s catastrophic Middle East policy by focusing on misinterpreting… Read more »
My point has always been, You said: “He’s THE ONE that brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East” You meant: “Bush was the person who brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East” At least you got some free schooling on a blog! Bonus schooling! Here is what “brought” means! ; – ) v.t. brought, 1. to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker. 2. to cause to come to or toward oneself; attract. 3. to cause to occur or exist: 4. to cause to come into a particular position, state, or… Read more »
I appears that what we’re witnessing here is Krychek losing his grip on reality. He says one thing, then denies having said it, then confirms he said that very thing.
Same thing I said to “A” dad — you’re focusing on your misinterpretation of a single line in one of my comments to avoid having to deal with my larger point, which is that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was disastrous. You harp on four people who died at Benghazi while ignoring the thousands who would still be alive if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, many of them your fellow Christians. As catastrophes go, Bush’s invasion of Iraq will live in immortality. And because you have no defense to that point, you take a single line of mine out of context and… Read more »
Hello, McFlychek! Rather than clarifying what you supposedly meant (which we still don’t know, because all you did was reiterate what you said at first), you dodged, weaved, and basically did everything you could to keep from owning your blunder. All it would have taken is something similar to, “Bush brought more instability to an already unstable region…” But you couldn’t even do that. What good is your “larger point” if you can’t even get the definitions of simple words right? Aren’t you the one who said words have precise meanings? When “A” dad tells you exactly what those words… Read more »
I’ve clarified at least three times that “Bush brought more instability to an already unstable region” is what I said and meant the first time, and I’m not going to keep clarifying it just because you and “A” Dad continue to pretend not to be able to read. Instead, I will simply accept your concession that you have no defense to my larger point, which is that Bush brought more instability to an already unstable region. Whatever Secretary Clinton’s failings may have been, they pale in comparison to the tens of thousands of people in the Middle East who are… Read more »
*facepalm* Krychek, do you even read? Are you capable of comprehending what others are saying? Are you capable of comprehending what you even write? Do you even think when you write? You said: Bush brought more instability to an already stable region You might want to edit that, champ. But make sure you acknowledge the edit; if you try to be sneaky about it, I have a screenshot. But then you said this: Instead, I will simply accept your concession that you have no defense to my larger point, which is that Bush brought more instability to an already unstable… Read more »
OK, that last one was a typo and I’ve now fixed it. Thanks for calling it to my attention; I did mean “unstable” rather than “stable”.
Now, why are you still harping on that side issue instead of the main point? Yes, Hillary voted for it, after she and the entire country were lied to by Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, so Hillary was lied to? From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998: [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Bill Clinton, 1998: The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue… Read more »
Except for that minor part about Bill Clinton didn’t invade Iraq because he knew the intelligence wasn’t there to support it. And even if your premise were correct, that Bill Clinton was wrong about Iraq doesn’t exculpate Bush, who outright lied about it.
Bovine excrement, Krychek. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Dick Gephardt (D-MT), Nov. 2, 2003: I asked very direct questions of the… Read more »
“Except for that minor part about Bill Clinton didn’t invade Iraq because he knew the intelligence wasn’t there to support it.” Krychek ??? Bombings? They are like invasions without boots! Especially when a clinton needs a distraction re: inapropriate “executive” behavior.! “The Clinton administration’s fixation on weapons and its desire for regime change were clearly on display at a February 1998 town hall, where Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to sell the public on bombing Iraq. Albright was repeatedly interrupted by antiwar activists, and pressed about why the US was so keen on attacking Iraq when there were many… Read more »
Krychek, a little lesson in logic: You said: Go ahead and harp on Benghazi; nobody else cares. All it takes is one counterexample to refute that statement, so here it is: Patricia Smith. And now for a lesson in humanity: The families of those four people who needlessly died because of Hillary’s incompetence and malfeasance certainly care. People who want to know the truth but have to deal with a lying press, a lying candidate, and lying sycophants such as yourself certainly care. There are a lot of people who care, Krychek. Your pig-ignorance does not negate their existence. Four… Read more »
“Nobody else” was hyperbole; you can always find someone who believes just about anything. And when I said nobody else cares, I meant about Hillary’s involvement, not the deaths themselves. Lots of people, including me, care about the deaths. The deaths were tragic and the families deserve our sympathy. Using them for political purposes, as you’re doing, is disgraceful. And the fact that it happened while she was secretary doesn’t mean it’s her fault in the sense that you’re trying to make it her fault. I imagine there were plenty of incompetent federal bureaucrats during the Truman administration but that… Read more »
Oh, so you’re allowed to use hyperbole, but no one else. Got it. You just don’t get it, do you? The fact that Hillary is avoiding responsibility is disgraceful. The fact that Hillary lied about the whole sordid affair is disgraceful. The fact that Hillary called Patricia Smith a liar is reprehensible. Don’t give me this cock and bull about being disgraceful when it is your candidate who was derelict in her duties and then tried to cover it up. Since when is it “politicizing” the issue when someone points out Hillary’s gross negligence? Are we not allowed to demand… Read more »
Krychek, it would seem that, like Hillary, you’re having memory issues. If you’re like this in a comment section, I’d hate to see you under oath. Here’s the exchange: Me: Krychek, I find your line of argument highly amusing, given that you’re the one who clings to the belief that…Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever to run for President… You: “Most qualified candidate ever to run for president” (which I did not say) and “the best qualified we’ve seen in years” are not exactly the same thing, and neither of those statements is incompatible with being the best of… Read more »
“Most qualified candidate” was not hyperbole; that one was intended to be taken at face value. And I didn’t imply that the Middle East was stable before Bush got there; what I said was that Bush made it orders of magnitude worse.
Krychek, you’re confused, which isn’t surprising given your memory issues. “Most qualified candidate ever” was hyperbole. It seems that “A” dad and I have to spell out everything for you.
He’s the one that brought instability to the entire Middle East with his ill-advised invasion of Iraq…
“I did not have verbal relations with that sentence, Mr. fp!”
You expect dissembling (which is nothing more than a euphemism for lying) from your politicians, so it’s no wonder you do it yourself.
So I guess the real question is: Are you a Clinton?
Why do you assume she’ll learn from them? Her husband never learned his lessons. Even some fellow democrats were upset that he was a frequent flyer of the Lolita Express with his pedophile buddy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026133742
Because as a practical matter, Christianity commands a certain amount of social and political influence, and I’d prefer that the non-troglodyte wing of Christianity be the wing that does.
yes, it is about what your leaders are trying to push…
murders are happening everywhere, but if your leaders are against it and pushing hard against random murders etc then it counts for something…
on those issues, Russia is far more in line with the bible than God’s America…
Excerpt from NY Daily News, http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/11/op-ed-case-against-hillary-clinton/ Surely the most egregious triangulation was the one in which a State Department committee agreed to allow the sale of 20% of U.S. strategic uranium reserves held by a company called Uranium One (owned by a big Clinton donor, Frank Giustra) to the Russian company Rosatom, which has close Kremlin ties. It is hard to rationalize that action under any circumstance. As the New York Times reported, “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way… Read more »
When I listen to Putin, I see a man who values the traditional Christian values of his nation’s church, stand up for the interests of his own people, takes constructive action of reign in the Islamic free-booters that our our govt created in Iraq/Syria and decries the moral collapse of the West. I wish Putin was Trump’s running mate.
Of course, he’s praised Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, and the Communist Chinese massacre at Tienanmen Square…so perhaps they just see him as someone who isn’t going to have a lot of issues with them doing whatever they want to do.
Rob Steele
7 years ago
“I don’t want to play…”
Sounds juvenile ripped out of context like that.
One need not accept “the false premise that we have to manage God’s judgement” in order to prefer one judgement over the other.
Seems to me all the voting to prefer one judgement over the other has just gotten us more of the judgement not preferred. Keep doing the same thing, I am sure someday you will get different results.
That was my question when I listened. I can see “not voting” perhaps equaling “not managing judgment” (though some see it as welcoming judgment or not using our opportunities wisely to make things better as we can in the midst of judgment), but to vote for another candidate? I also would like to know when this judgment pragmatically began? Just this election? Why did they (those that agree with the premise of this video) help manage God’s judgment before and not now by voting for one of the key candidates? I’ve read and read here for months and months trying… Read more »
And, after all, God gave David the king a choice is judgments to befall Israel due to the king’s own sin.
In this (still just barely) Republic, the people are technically the king. And, apparently, we have a choice in how our national judgment is to be delivered.
So I say neither, and he shoots. Problem solved. Because stealing is still wicked, stealing in order to facilitate whatever he wants the money for will probably wind up in people getting killed, and bank robberies themselves often wind up getting real people killed.
Well, now I do. Please excuse previous density on my part. :-)
Ginny Yeager
7 years ago
It’s fair (biblical) to say that not voting is not a sin. God doesn’t require us to be democratic politically. Repentence and prayer are far and away the most important.
But it’s also biblical to say that voting for a sinner is not a sin. I can pray for repentence for the nation, while voting for someone who doesn’t have full-fledged cultic pedophiles advising them.
Curious what your thoughts are on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cwTAQpYhkug
RT
7 years ago
I will repent and then stand in the gap with my one vote for the unborn. One candidate believes in killing babies until delivery. One candidate has said this is wrong. Perhaps the greatest evil of our day is abortion. I will fight with prayer, repentance, and with a vote that will not be wasted on a write-in candidate while helping HRC to add to one of our nation’s greatest sins.
God will act if we place a ruler to rule over us that is arrogant, has no fear of God, prides himself in bribing, etc? God has told us that justice and the fear of God can’t be seperated.
It seems you are trusting a prince to keep his word with nothing to evidence that he will.
doug sayers
7 years ago
Not sure why, but in listening to your “confident” analysis I am reminded of the joke Ravi Z often tells about Holmes and Watson under a starry sky. (Where Watson is caught overthinking the possible meanings of the awesome sky and overlooked the fact that they could see the stars because their tent had been stolen.) Most of us still have it very good; if God really brings it to America we will be doing much more actual pleading and much less analyzing. After numbering the people David got to pick between 3 very severe punishments. I would tend to… Read more »
“On the candidate I voted for, the issue is not finding a candidate with a
pure heart. I know that McCain is every bit as bad as you say, and no
pretending. I could vote for a libertarian candidate who was not
personally pro-life, but who would cut radically off all abortion
funding. And if through some weird circumstances, Obama picked a
pro-life veep candidate, and Obama was having serious heart trouble, I
could see myself voting for him over against a pair of RINOs.”
Stranger things have happened, and at this point there is literally no result that would surprise me, but that’s not how the numbers appear to be adding up at the moment. At the moment she’s four points ahead nationally, and he has never been ahead in the polls during the entire campaign. And the fluctuations in the numbers over the past couple of months have mostly been from his numbers going up and down; her numbers have mostly held steady. But, one way or another, it will soon be over. I just about had to buy an extra wastebasket to… Read more »
Right now, the RealClear Politics average has Clinton up by 1.6%. I came up with 299 by throwing in the states that favor Clinton by less than 3%. I did this because, though I believe the pollsters are trying to get it right, most of them are likely Democrats, and I think that impacts them no matter how hard they attempt to be objective; and because I believe there are a lot of shy Trump supporters.
I’m not sure why they send those things out in the mail; I throw them all away without looking at them.
If anything, I think the polls are more likely to overestimate conservatives. The only people the pollsters are able to talk to are people with land lines, who are mostly older, and therefore more conservative. Younger, more liberal voters have cell phones that pollsters have trouble reaching. That was the case in both 2008 and 2012; the pre-election polls over-estimated conservatives and that was the likely reason. There are safeties, checks and balances built into the system, but they can only do so much And I’m not sure that the pollsters being Democrats (assuming you’re right that they are) would… Read more »
We’re obviously reading different things. I’m not willing to spend enough time to read enough stuff to have much confidence in my conclusion, but my statement about bias was based on the possibility of sampling error, and my understanding is that pollsters are currently and broadly calling cell phones. When I’ve been called, they do ask about age and other factors so my assumption is that demographics are accounted for. These people are paid big bucks, I have a hard time believing that the folks spending the money would be satisfied with an answer like “we can only do so… Read more »
Leslie Lea
7 years ago
I am really quite weary of the whole campaign boiling down to one issue. Abortion. Since 1978 this has been the only criteria for conservative Christians. No one seems to have the analytical smarts to look at the whole picture. Even James Dobson said that in 1992. So instead of looking at the big picture and figuring out how to take the small steps to get what you want, it has been all or nothing. Many a good statesman has been passed over because of this narrow vision. We would have been far better off to have looked at this… Read more »
Hey, I like that: Chrustian. Sort of a crusty old Christian, set in his ways – and as long as those ways are biblical, I’d claim that name. I have tried to coin the term Christain for those who take the name of Christ, but are a stain on His name, but so far it hasn’t caught on. Maybe yours will do better!
Evasion? No, I did not address your issue/statement because it was utterly ridiculous. In effect you are saying that if Christians had voted for more pro abortion candidates in the past we would have less abortions. By that (lack of) logic if more conservatives would have voted for Democrats in the past we would have less liberals.
No, that wouldn’t be the logic. Because for your logic to hold, you’d have to start with the assumption that voting for Republicans = fewer abortions. And that’s never, ever been true.
LL’, you don’t have an issue. The current “abortion on demand” situation the USA faces, was caused by kooky liberals who lied to the Supreme Court, thus creating “law” by the judiciary, rather than the legislature. Since the legislative process was circumvented to create current abortion policy, it will be hard for legislative process to correct it.
HRC is the fault of the self religious left, no one else.
L’, I am not God, but I do know that everyone is serving His purpose, whether they realize it or not. I suppose we could even say that about BHO. Jeremiah 27 2 This is what the Lord said to me: “Make a yoke out of straps and crossbars and put it on your neck. 3 Then send word to the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon through the envoys who have come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah king of Judah. 4 Give them a message for their masters and say, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty, the God… Read more »
“I am really quite weary of the whole campaign boiling down to one issue. Abortion.”…..” So we are stuck with two unfortunate candidates and the fault is entirely that of the Chrustian religious right.” LL, abortion as it is now, is largely the fault of kooky, lying liberals, not Christians. That HRC is a nominated presidential candidate is again, the fault of kooky lying liberals. (especially CNN and the DNC.) That DJT is a nominated presidential candidate is a grass roots reaction to decades of damage, that kooky lying liberals have done. (even if the “grass” is crab grass!) ;… Read more »
More to the point is this election has exposed an ugly hypocrisy in a certain kind of christian thinking. The support of the adulterous, amoral pagan Trump for one small example.
This quotation from you: “More to the point is this election has exposed an ugly hypocrisy in a certain kind of christian thinking. The support of the adulterous,
amoral pagan Trump for one small example.”
Both your right to tell women what to do with her own body and your right to tell a human who he or she may or may not love/have sex with was steamrolled over. I think sticking it to somebody is an appropriate emotional response. Go for it.
If by “minister ” we mean priest, servant and minister are not the same. Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar were God’s servants, but they were not His priests.
We should note, however, that some states had approved abortion on demand before Roe v. Wade. Reagan signed abortion into law into California in the late 1960s.
It’s not abortion on demand. There are clear limits set. Israel has abortion on demand. Do conservative Christians ever point that out or that Tel Aviv is the gayest city in the world or that Jerusalem has gay pride parades?
Abortion as the definitive liberal/conservative dividing issue wasn’t even true when Roe v. Wade was decided. Reagan had already signed approval of abortion into law in California. Before Roe v. Wade the Southern Baptist Convention was calling for abortion to be MORE legal than it already was, and some of their press was vocally supportive of the ruling. Christianity Today spoke of it as an open debate among evangelicals, with the only agreement being that it was permissible under at least some circumstances. I’ve seen a theory, not certain that I believe it, that abortion became the “go to” conservative… Read more »
“It has been far more of an election concern than a practical concern.” J’, you and I manage to have plenty of legitimate conversations on this blog. One thing that happens here is that people poke holes in other peoples’ gross overstatements. Your last line, above, is one that you may come to agree is a gross overstatement. “Zillions” of local churches in the USA, operate chrisis pregnancy centers in a Godly effort to preserve God created life. It would be hard for these ministries to be more “practical” and every day than they are. Any chance you would re-consider… Read more »
You’ve misread me. I was speaking of the actions of politicians, of Republican presidents and Congresses and Courts, not the actions of churches. I believe that a large number of Christians are honestly pro-life, and that a small minority of them have done great practical work in that area. But as far as politicians go, it has been an issue that has taken far more of their time and effort during elections than while serving terms. And the Supreme Court has had a 5-7 member majority nominated by self-declared “pro-life” Republicans for a several decades now. And Trump has been… Read more »
J’, “the emerging Religious Right coalition” is what you were speaking of, and it’s “Christian votes”. Again, the “religious right” is a great straw-man. Everybody thinks there is one, nobody thinks they themselves are in it! ; – ) Then again, “practically” speaking, since “abortion rights” were entrenched, via a fraudulent Supreme Court law suit, the right to an abortion is mis-percieved by many as an established Consititutional right. “Politicians” aka, legislators can’t legislate against it, and conservative lawyers can’t litigate against it, because a true conservative lawyer would not fabricate a fraudulent case to counter Roe v. Wade. As… Read more »
What you are saying destroys any claim that we should elect Trump due to his (supposed) abortion position.
Yeah, a pro-life abortion amendment isn’t getting anywhere, you and I both know. This issue needs to be attacked at root causes (both”spiritual” and “material”, though I don’t like the division). Even if political realities did force that upon us, it would probably be where our energies should be directed anyway.
How (on the abortion issue)? What do you expect Pence to do about abortion? American women/girls want abortions and always have. What do you want to happen?
What is happening now. PP is being de-funded due to their criminal sale of HUMAN body parts.
No one wants innocent people killed, chopped and sold for parts.
And why haven’t they done that and why don’t these millions of pro-lifers surround every clinic on killing dfays? The Germans will have a field day on Judgement Day when they hear all of our excuses.
Good thing the Germans will not be on the judgment seat! Then again, neither will you and I.
Our only hope is to have the one right advocate to appeal for us.
In the mean time, having some German chocolate right now might not be a bad idea.????????????☕️
Earlier in this string I said: “zillions of churches” support crisis pregnancy centers. So lots of “servants”, “ministers ” and “bond slaves” do minister against abortion, in a positive fashion, by supporting the babies and families. Some others protest as well. There may well be proposed life amendments that have not taken off yet or are in the works. What is your response to your first sentence? Oh! Stan, you probalby ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies). When the “Germans” stand before their maker, I doubt that “throwing stones” at… Read more »
Reagan made abortion legal in CA in 1967. Americans, including Republicans, conservatives and conservative Christians want abortions to be legal just in case. Trump says the issue would just go back to the states…His supposedly pro-life stance is just a false hope. When the GOP had Congress and the executive had power they did nothing about abortion because they know.
The fraudulent “constitutional” aspect of this issue deletes the usual legislative options. Congress seems to be succeeding in de-funding Planned parenthood as a result of the CMP investigation and expose’
J’, let’s not over-dignify some issues. Jilly started this item off right, …..as a joke! ; – ) “Hillary Clinton distorts the facts when she accuses Donald Trump of “heaping praise” on North Korea strongman Kim Jong Un. Trump has called Kim a “maniac” and a “madman” who is “sick enough to use” nuclear weapons. The Clinton campaign said she was referring to Trump’s comments at a rally in January in Iowa, where Trump said Kim deserved “credit” for how he took over the country at such a young age. But in that speech Trump also called Kim a “maniac”… Read more »
Yes, he said those things about Kim, but they almost seemed like caveats to the things that really got him excited. Compare the common thread in all these statements: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world.” “I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution;… Read more »
J’, you and I are not “executives” so far as I can tell, and yet, the Presidency is an executive position.
I grew up in a military family, so I may have had more exposure to executive language that would not play well with tea and crumpets.
Just a thought, “cop speak” is also more cut, dried and rough than the typical day to day citizen language.
While I am not a huge fan of DJT, his actual executive experience may be more valuable than you think, and less “authoritarian” than it may sound to your ears.
Jesus and Peter are executives though, no? But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. It’s not just that Trump acts like a “heathen” and admires the… Read more »
“Jesus and Peter are executives though, no?” Ummm, no. Matthew 23 5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one… Read more »
What does Trump being crass have to do with Trump openly praising the violent exertion of power, and openly critiquing those who fail to violently exert their power the way the dictators he admires do? And your Biblical quote perfectly compliments mine, of course. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by it, because any interpretation I can imagine would be in line with my own point…that we shouldn’t be admiring these traits in anyone, least of all ourselves and our own leaders. We get into way too many conversations where your replies to me don’t have any visible… Read more »
Trump is not praising violent exertion of power, but he does speak about power in an un-varnished and cynical fashion, that is ultimately percieved as more frank than HRC, especially considering that DNC consultants were being paid by HRC to foment actual violence at Trump events. Our verses apply to both candidates and to each other. You only seem to be appling them to DJT. In the light of the Word and US law, HRC will prove to be criminal in ways that DJT will not. What ever your issues may be with DJT, how is HRC any better? Is… Read more »
He clearly praised China’s violent exertion of power and mocked and criticized Gorbachev for failing to do the same. It’s right there. I’m a bit dumbfounded at the ability to unsee things you don’t want to see. Trump has shown that he has one value when it comes to interpersonal (or international) relationships. Winning. Or at least the perception of winning. When he’s discussing China or the USSR or North Korea or Iraq or Assad, his statements make it clear that his big focus is on, “Did they win? Are they winners?” He doesn’t show clear awareness that there are… Read more »
J’, a church can develop odious moral values without HRC or DJT!
I don’t think anyone is holding out either of them a christian examples.
“Violent exertion of power” is a thing most governments do, that’s why they have militaries. How power is projected is always the question. It’s not that I “unsee” such things. It’s more like I see them more than you might. (?)
Not all Christians are misogynists. And if the major candidates were Sarah Palin versus Bill Clinton, I bet you’d see plenty of evangelicals voting for a woman.
In fairness, though, I don’t think that a belief in traditional gender roles necessarily implies misogyny. How would you account for women who hold that belief?
And I would say that traditional gender roles, as you probably understand them, are themselves misogynistic. We would have no trouble acknowledging that the “traditional racial roles” held by racial segregationists were racist, no matter what they’re called.
I don’t think traditional gender roles should be forced on the unwilling. But neither do I think that men and women are absolutely interchangeable in their skills, strengths, and preferences. A division of labor that recognizes different strengths and weaknesses is not necessarily imposing Stepford Wife status on a woman. I think you would have to know more than you do about my understanding of traditional gender roles. I do not believe that women’s brains have a particular quality that makes them better at baking pies than doing surgery. I don’t believe that possession of a double X disqualifies women… Read more »
“I believe that it is a bit offensive for people to assume that women who
have chosen to adopt a traditional gender role have been victimized.”
The position “women who differ from my view of their place in the world are suffering from a form of mental incompetency” sounds more misogynistic than many things I have encountered lately.
Jesus was a misogynist, he should have had at least 6 women and his 12 main disciples representing all races to fit your SJW demands…
of course the would but it is not ideal…
Jesus accepted the cultural realities that a female apostle would not have been listened to, but there is ample Biblical precedent for women leading men: Deborah, Esther, Huldah the prophetess. I suppose it all depends on which set of passages you want to cherry pick.
thanks for putting words/ideas into Jesus’s mouth…
In fact your first line completely contradicts your second one!!
Our generation sounds exactly like the one in Isaiah 3:12
but since you put ideas and claimed to know what Jesus was thinking let me do the same.
I do not think Deborah, Esther or Huldah would be very impressed by the men of this generation!!
One of the problems with the Bible is that it is wide open to interpretation. Christians cannot agree as to what it says about baptism, dispensationalism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism and the role of women in the church. Many churches thought it taught slavery and racial segregation until they decided it didn’t. You’ve got Christians who look at Jesus’ teachings on the poor and conclude we need a big government safety net, and others like Doug who tell us that government safety nets are evil. Which is one reason — there are lots of others — I’m not inclined to use… Read more »
Or he chose not to address them. Where are his statements on slavery, on appropriate tax rates, on public education, on democracy, for that matter on Roman rule? Some of what he said has cultural implications, but he mostly left major cultural issues alone.
me thinks Jesus – you know being all powerful etc- did not have to submit to cultural realities, you limit Jesus and put him down so much.
Also your second line contradicts your first one….
I think Christians are divided on that, with only a few believing that women should never hold public office. Some Christians believe that the prohibition of women holding authority over men applies only to the church and the home. I think that our host did not have a problem with Palin’s candidacy.
in term of creation I don’t believe men were designed to submit to women….
besides Palin at least claimed to believe in God etc ( better her than a murder advocate)
Clinton… lol
Christians who vote for her… not sure
Economic protectionism. Involvement in foreign conflicts. Growth of entitlement programs. Utter moral failure. I can really see very little difference in these two candidates. Loud crony capitalism and foreign interventionism vs quiet crony capitalism and interventionism. The two major candidates have never been more similar.
I beg to differ. There hasn’t been greater difference between the two major candidates since Reagan.
UnreconstructedRebel
7 years ago
America is under divine judgement and it demands an act of national repentance. Nothing could better demonstrate our repentance for the crimes of necon liberal democracy over the past generation than voting for Trump.
So see? How can we lose by voting Trump? If it demonstrates repentance, we win! If Trump keeps even some of his pro-life commitments (repeal Obamacare, Hyde Amendment, Helms Amendment, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, defund PP, no taxpayer funded abortion), we win, and and since some know that Trump is God’s judgment then it wouldn’t make us complicit in managing God’s judgment–we would be putting our stamp of approval on it–hooray, we win! “1. A Trump administration would manifestly be a judgment from God, and judgments from God are good. Not pleasant, but they are always good.” Doug Wilson,… Read more »
Ridiculous. Glad you and your white nativist ilk are so heavily marginalized. You always talk a big game and then impotently sit around in the shadows grousing. Jive. And your cretinous candidate is about to be shown for the Loser he is.
Say, I’ve been a little out of contact for the past week or so. Could you give me an update on what became of that “cretinous candidate” that us white nativists were supporting?
Matt
7 years ago
All this divine judgement stuff just sounds like weaponized confirmation bias. How does one distinguish between being under judgement and not being under judgement? Which metrics are relevant and which aren’t?
UnreconstructedRebel
7 years ago
What makes Wilson’s electoral aloofness dysfunctional is that there are some fairly obvious scenarios that will likely play out in the event of a Clinton victory. These could range from a protracted legal battle over a contested election to a protracted impeachment process for her manifest crimes. That’s the good news; other alternatives are much darker. This country is polarized between progressives and traditionalists, between globalists and nationalists, and so riven by inter-ethnic acrimony that one severe crisis could spark a rebellion that will lead to full civil war. On top of that, Clinton is likely continue the lunatic neo-con… Read more »
agree. the group of people that started the ‘never Trump’ nonsense are some of the more duplicitous politicians around, the liberal Mitt Romney being at the top of the list.
If you really think full civil war could come out of the current political controversies, I’d like to hear a plausible scenario. I don’t believe one exists.
The political controversies of the current year are just icing on top of a financial and cultural situation that is unstable and not repairable by the current governmental structure. In other words, it has to come apart without some unforeseen outside influence — the current election choice is between “probably sooner” and “probably later”.
Most of what I’d say to you I said to unreconstructed above. I’d be interested to hear any thoughts you had in response to what I said there. The only thing I’d add specifically in response to what you said is that I don’t see how this election is likely to affect the sooner or later question. Do you?
Others have far more detailed and considered views on a civil war scenario, but basically, say the Hilde-beast steals the election through obvious fraud. The half of the country that’s hates her guts isn’t going to accept it. Maybe it triggers a military coup, maybe a march on DC by armed militia, maybe some States announce they will convene secession conventions. In any of these, the DC govt will be tempted to counter with force, and then the war is on.
I have no trouble imagining a societal collapse, but I think we’re too far gone and too sorry for anything like a civil war to happen. The tough guy talk of armed militia types is a joke when they couldn’t survive for a week without the electric grid, supermarkets, gas stations, etc. And even if a few of them could, 98% of American households couldn’t, and those 98% would give their full support to any government that was threatened by anyone that would disturb their helpless consumer lifestyles. We can tolerate an armed militia in the middle of nowhere desert… Read more »
Well, I agree that the majority of American people are indolent, feckless, cowardly and will capitulate to any power that allows them to continue their pursey lifestyle. However, there still remains a remnant of patriots and the strong prey on the weak. A few hundred Normans subjugated England under William I.
A determined, armed minority will subjugate, enslave and/or slaughter a complacent, weak minority, the only question is which minority group it will be – govt minions, true patriots or alien invaders.
Wow! What an elitist. Thanks for judging all of us. Your conjecture is so childish. The Constitution still works here and will continue to. Even though most of us are indolent, feckless and cowardly doesn’t mean that we don’t do our best to vote for whoever we think will represent us best. I’m tempted to call you a deplo….but I won’t.
The Constitution works? That’s great news; I can’t wait for you to inform everyone so that the States can over-turn gross abuses of federal power like abortion, “gay marriage’ and school integration.
Yep. As long as people vote it still works. The Constitution says nothing about moral issues so other means are found to interpret it. I don’t agree with its abortion and same-sex decisions but most Americans do. Integration? The South started it by needing Africans to do the work that white boys couldn’t or wouldn’t do.
Laws regulating or proscribing activities like abortion or “gay marriage” or public education were strictly State matters because there was no power granted to the federal govt under the Const to legislate in these areas. Because the Const was slowly shredded from 1865 – 1965 and is now treated as a scrap of paper, the federal govt just does whatever they want to because there are no longer any States Rights to constrain them.
Your understanding of the Constitution is pegging out the Stupid-meter.
Hard to take a SCV guy seriously but I’ll try. Roe only recognized what was already happening. Reagan had legalized abortion in 1967 and CO perhaps a year earlier. American women/girls have always had abortions and always will. They’d had millions before Roe. Even if Roe is over turned the issue will go back to the states as Trump has said. And I doubt if very much would change. BTW, Lost Causers are pretty much blind about the Constituion. The rest of us are pretty much OK with it.
Have a look around at the impact of integrated “schools” on the lives and opportunities for black teenagers compared to what they may have been in the 1950’s. To help you locate them more efficiently, look for the boys in your local prison and the girls at your local homeless shelter or crack house. Dingbat!
Has it occurred to you that there are true patriots who love this country while, at the same time, find your views morally repulsive? That there are conservatives of the deepest dye who believe your racial views make God want to throw up? When you conflate abortion with racial integration, as if having black children sit next to white children in a first grade classroom constitutes the same depth of moral evil as killing an unborn child, who can take seriously your claim to be a Christian patriot? In fact, I wonder why you oppose abortion at all. Given the… Read more »
“Has it occurred to you that there are true patriots who love this country while, at the same time, find your views morally repulsive? That there are conservatives of the deepest dye who believe your racial views make God want to throw up” No, I haven’t considered that possibility because I don’t believe such people exist, or if they do, it would be like spotting Bigfoot. Apparently it’s never occurred to you that both integration and abortion originate from the same source, i.e., the bloated power of the federal govt, hi-jacked by liberals to implement a radical social agenda. Here’s… Read more »
When I see the guys who were heavily alt-right, anti-Black, and anti-immigrant making up all these fanciful arguments for why Christians need to support Trump, it’s rather amusing. Someone like you who opposes the 14th Amendment, who said he would have joined the KKK, whose plan for addressing crime is “to keep young black males on a short leash/chain gang”, who supported his great-grandparents’ slavery of Africans because they were “backward, barbarian peoples”, and who claims that White slaveowners didn’t have sex with Black slaves because “most normal white men do not find black women desirable – they tend to… Read more »
I’m not Alt-Right and not anti-Black, but other than basic factual errors, your comment is still asinine. There is no dichotomy between supporting Trump and embracing traditional, Christian views on ethno-nationlism.
BTW, let me just add that you seem to be a rather gutless little weasel who likes to raid other peoples comment history but keep your own under wraps. Just as well, I’m pretty sure I have a good idea what sort of officially sanctioned p.c. shibboleths we’d find expressed there.
“what is the traditional Christian view on ethno-nationalism?” – it is that mankind is to be partitioned according to ethnicities, with each ethnic group inhabiting it’s own territory. It was established in Gen 9 and 10, affirmed in Acts 17 and shown to be eternal in Rev 21 and 22.
I’ve now concluded that you are the stupidest person I have encountered on the internet in quite some time. Which part of Genesis, Acts and Revelation do you think ARE relevant to Christianity? Please do me a favor and don’t waste any more of my time with your fatuous, vapid, imbecilic remarks.
I hope this belief leads you to a conviction that white Europeans had no business creating colonies on territory which God had clearly designated for Native American use. Nor had they had right to build colonies in the Congo (on a continent God had apparently set aside for blacks) simply to aid them in plundering the diamond mines. And definitely the English seriously violated the divine will in taking over India all the better to sell its natural resources to the highest bidder. After all, God did not mean the races to mix, even if the whites retained their sense… Read more »
So, in your analysis, God created the continent of N America as a grand reservation for nature-spirit worshipping savages in perpetuity? I’m sure God was much more glorified by primitive nomads and subsistence hunter/farmers roaming between the Atlantic and Pacific, constantly fighting petty tribal wars than he is by a powerful (once) Christian nation that provides unparalleled opportunities for hundreds of millions in a great civilization. Throughout history, God seems to have a habit of entrusting the care and rule of lands to those whom He deems are best capable of executing it with good stewardship and upholding justice. That’s… Read more »
I would never argue, in general, that people of one race or ethnic group must stay in their native lands forever. I believe that it was right for Christians to send missionaries to bring the gospel to other peoples. I believe that setting up schools and hospitals was good. I am less sure that a desire to obtain another nation’s or continent’s natural resources is a reason to colonize people against their will, even if my own ethnic group could make much better use of those resources and needs them desperately. One might think that the U.S. could more efficiently… Read more »
God decreed, in Gen 9 & 10, that mankind should be partitioned according to ethnic groups (nations) inhabiting a clearly defined territory. When man refused to disperse and instead congregated at Babel, God confounded their language to enforce ethnic separation with the added complication of linguistic division. Ethno-nationalism is thus God’s political blueprint for mankind. This pattern is upheld throughout the OT, and is affirmed under the new covenant in Acts 17 and is prophesied as the template through the millenium and even into the eternal state in Rev. If someone doesn’t accept ethno-nationlism, their quarrel is with God. God… Read more »
I want to be sure I have this clear. God intended the races to live apart. But God is okay with a superior race invading the territory of a lesser race in order to teach them better ways, even if the lesser race is happy as it is. But then what happens to the races living apart? The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and Incans led to widespread miscegenation. Ditto the French colonization of what is now Quebec. Was this unfortunate collateral damage? Or should the lords and masters rule over the lesser races without marrying them? Finally, if a… Read more »
I don’t think further discussion is going to clarify anything for you because you ultimately elevate your own pre-conceived, contemporary fashionable opinions over biblical guidance. “…even if the lesser race is happy as it is” – you reckon the neighboring tribes being enslaves and offered up as human sacrifice by the Aztecs were happy, do you? What about the various African tribes who were slaughtered and/or cannibalized by their neighbors. I’m sure everbody was one big happy family until Whitey showed up and spoiled the fun. As far as miscegenation goes, the Spanish failed to bring enough women from their… Read more »
Someone needs to make a blockbuster movie on Cortez and the Aztecs – and Cortez’s role as liberator of the nations being systematically victimized by the necrophilic culture of the Aztecs.
Before anybody calls you racist, let’s point out that the Bible appears to list the Trojans as Hamites. So the derivation of the British pedigree through Brutus back to Aeneas, makes the Brits out to be Hamites. And who has hewn more wood or drawn more water for the world than the British Empire?
Well, we know the Amorites were Hamitic, and their art reportedly depicts them with light brown hair and blue or grey eyes. Rahab was an Amorite, and I suspect she may have contributed to the appearance of King David, who was “ruddy and well-liking”. I’ll try to find you a chapter and verse on the Trojans.
Thankfully this is not a christian nation and we need not be beholden to your superstitious idea of the need for spiritual repentance. Nor do we have to share your cynical pessimism and marginalized christian crackpottery. Your avenging angel is about to go back to the slime from whence he came where he can bask in his bankrupt legacy. You in turn can bask in yours as a christian hypocrite who shills for an amoral-pagan-narcissist. An adulterer. A compulsive liar. A multiple failed businessman with lips glued to Putin’s *ss. An incompetent. An sexual assaulter of wives and daughters. A… Read more »
To keep it simple, his ridiculous and grotesque mis-characterization of Donald Trump, the only man on the political scene in my lifetime with the guts and common sense to speak up on the real issues that people care about.
I don’t know him and he was over the top in some of his rhetoric but much of what he said about Trump is true. Trump’s rhetoric was also way over the top but I think he had a certain voting bloc in mind. I think he’ll govern more as a moderate as reality sets in. Remember, he lost the popular vote by about 800,000.
I think the only way he can do that is to appoint justices who will either overturn Roe and send the matter back to the states, or who will not rule against states’ legislative efforts to regulate third term abortions.
This explains the reason for the constant barrage of propaganda from the establishment media. It does not explain the sanctimonious, self-destructive, response from much of the church.
I have no problem with the idea that our country is under judgement, but a vote for someone other than Trump, is a vote for a judgement more harsh. It is a vote for greater calamity to come upon your children and grand children.
You think a vote for Trump is going to somehow make our judgement less harsh? Bwahahahaha, The judgement for innocent blood of 50 million infants is going to be less harsh because we voted a man who promises to curb illegal immigration and debt. Unless we repent all the voting to manage judgement will be met by laughs from the One who sits on the throne.
A few years ago, an opposite direction vehicle ahead of me, pulled out to pass a semi. The driver of that vehicle apparently didn’t care about an imminent head-on collision, and so continued to pass the semi. I slowed down and pulled off the road in order to avoid certain disaster. I wasn’t trying to manage God’s judgement; I was just using the faculties that God gave me in order to get out of the way.
Your analogy does not capture the situation we find ourselves in. Neither option gets you out of the way of the semi.
Are you a prophet?
No just observant.
So then you really don’t know that neither option would get you out of the way of the semi? Are you going to vote for Hillary to insure that judgment comes ASAP?
I could have altered the analogy to reflect that; but the point remains the same. The two candidates represent two different courses of action. Which course ameliorates the damage? Mr. Wilson is suggesting that we play a game of chicken. My children are with me in this “car,” just as they were in the circumstance I described above. I am not willing to play chicken now, any more than I was then.
They do not represent a different course of action. Long before state endorsed sodomy and baby slaughter our country pursued greed at the expense of the lives of untold millions. In our foreign policy we have exported our greed and imposed harsh dictators over the weak. We do this to protect american interests. We slaughtered women and children in our westward expansion. We enslaved minorities to protect our american interests. All of this is greed, I have been a member of conservative churches since the Lord called me to repentance. I sat under preaching where it was presented to me… Read more »
Either way it is the same course of action. That course of action is rebellion to God and His Word.
So in your opinion any vote is rebellion against God?
Hard to know where to begin here… I do agree with some of what you wrote, but the thing I am aiming at is Mr. Wilson’s argument about managing God’s judgement. What he is doing, in my opinion, is pleading for God’s judgement to be more severe. Yes, by all means, we ought to repent of our individual sins, and perhaps corporate repentance is appropriate also. But asking for a more severe judgement, in my opinion, is a reckless thing to do. God will give us the judgement that He gives, and the judgement that He gives is the judgement… Read more »
But, you’ve gotta admit, only one of the options involve Spirit Cooking in its dinner parties!
It doesn’t bother you even a little that Putin apparently wants Trump elected as much as you do?
Why should it?
First, because the most likely reason Putin prefers Trump is that Trump is a babe in the woods when it comes to foreign policy, and Putin figures (probably correctly) that he’ll be able to run circles around Trump. Second, because Russian ties to both Assange and Snowden strongly suggest that Putin is behind, or at least has a role in, attacks on our security agencies. Third, because what is known of Trump’s financial affairs strongly suggests he owes Russian banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which could make him beholden to Putin in the event of a dispute. Fourth, because… Read more »
So, you’re saying a communist wants a capitalist to beat a communist in the race?
If you’re claiming Clinton is a communist, you are mistaken. The whole basis for the Bernie Sanders campaign is that she’s too cozy with Wall Street. Her actual policy positions are slightly left of center, but only slightly, and not nearly enough for people who actually are leftists.
I agree. Clinton is to the right of even the most conservative mainstream Canadian political party.
If you think Trump is a capitalist, you’re also mistaken. He’s a crony capitalist, which being translated, means “not a capitalist.”
If you are functioning within a crony capitalist system, you need to be a crony capitalist in order to survive. Your failure to mention that Trump wants to do away with crony capitalism appears to reveal a spirit of partisanship.
lol
He does not want to do away with crony capitalism, he wants to do away with the aspects of crony capitalism that he has not directly benefited from.
“If you are functioning within a crony capitalist system, you need to be a crony capitalist in order to survive.”
Or you COULD go into an honest line of work, like a lot of people I know.
I wasn’t pleased when I heard the first rumblings of a Trump candidacy, but after the public response to his announcement I took a deeper look. I found someone much different than I had expected. You may be right, but I think there is more to him than your blunt assessment. Now that he won the election, it might be a good idea to replace your cynicism, with thoughtful charitable skepticism.
Alternately, what Russia does to her neighbors is none of our business, because there’s an ocean between here and there, and it’s high time that the US stopped trying to make everybody in the world like us, because they are not suited for it.
Hillary “What difference does it make that I was asleep when the 3 am crisis phone call came in” Clinton is highly unlikely to deal any better with Putin than she did with Benghazi.
Trump, at least, will probably want our countries on good enough terms that he can sell Putin an Atlantic City time-share condo.
“Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0
Ruh-roh, in spite of the “facts”, (at least according to Randman) Krycheck’s opinion is right, and the New York Times article finding no Putin / Trump links is wrong.
Trump is a “babe in the woods” re; foreign policy? ; – )
Please Krychek, now’s your chance to enumerate all of HRC’s awesome foreign policy “successes”! Go wild! ; – ) How was Libya a “success”?
Did you read the entire article, or just the headline? Because it’s a fairly misleading headline, but you have to read the whole article to figure that out. Go ahead and harp on Benghazi; nobody else cares. Most people understand that the Secretary can’t personally oversee security everywhere, and the people for whom that’s an issue weren’t likely to vote for her anyway. If you meant the fall of Libya itself, it was inevitable, and you can thank Bush the Lesser for sowing the seeds. He’s the one that brought instability to the entire Middle East with his ill-advised invasion… Read more »
Wow! The middle east was “stable” before Bush 43?
‘Chek, your opinion and “history” are not the same thing. ; – )
Your opinion and comedy are the same thing!
Where did I say the Middle East was stable before Bush 43? Show me where I said that. I don’t know when I have inter-acted with anyone with a worse reading comprehension than you. And by the way, I lived there for three years. The Middle East has probably never been “stable” as we think of it here in the West. What Bush did was to take a pre-existing problem and make it worse by orders of magnitude, which is the sense in which I meant that he “brought” instability to the Middle East. I never suggested there was none… Read more »
“He’s the one that brought instability to the entire Middle East with his ill-advised invasion of Iraq, ” ‘check, “brought instability to the entire Middle East” means you are saying he brought instability to the middle east, because it was “stalbe” before he brought it. That’s a wide open (ridiculous) statement. You need to be more careful what your write, rather than lying about my reading comprehension. Try listening to yourself or proof-reading yourself before you post. You will sound less silly that way! ; – ) But let’s give you the benefit of a doubt. “Presidents not yet born… Read more »
First, if there is more than one possible interpretations of what someone writes, don’t pick the one that only an idiot would believe. No thinking person would believe the Middle East was stable before Bush got there, so it’s highly unlikely that that was my intended meaning. Second, saying that somebody brought something doesn’t mean there wasn’t some of it already there. If I bring eggs from the store, that doesn’t mean I might not have still had a few in the refrigerator from the last shopping trip that I haven’t used up yet. And that’s the sense in which… Read more »
“No thinking person would believe the Middle East was stable before Bush got there, so it’s highly unlikely that that was my intended meaning.”
Actually ‘chek, no “thinking person” would write such a thing,
but you did.
If you are so smart, you can be more precise in your language, rather than making the absurd generalizations that you do.
Here is an example of a more precise statement:
‘chek, you and HRC are in no position to lecture anyone else about “logic”. ; – )
If I say “I brought cookies to the party,” that does not mean that cookies weren’t already there.
But since you’ve demonstrated you can’t read, I’ll dumb things down from now on.
I “can’t read”?
Nice job on the sarcasm tell ‘chek! ; – )
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141657128476/the-sarcasm-tell-with-an-absurd-absolute
Adad by all means keep ’em coming. It is like watching the Jerry Lewis boxing ring skit where he knocks HIMSELF out. Seriously.
Well, unlike liechek, apparently you concede that I can read!
Krychek: 0
Randi: 1
; – )
Krychek is “the one” that brings comic overstatements to our chats!
Well, you are the person who thought that “Bush brought instability to the middle east” meant that the middle east had previously been stable, which does look like a reading comprehension issue to me.
And my comment isn’t sarcasm tell anyway, because sarcasm tell requires that you have made a reasonable argument, which you have yet to do.
Krycheck: (of Bush)
“He’s THE ONE that brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East”
‘chek, work on your english first, logic after that.
(and it will be a while before you are ready for logic.)
You may have to work on honest self quotes before anything else. : -(
Didn’t say he was the only one, or that there wasn’t already instability there.
And as far as honest self-quotes, I’ve already said multiple times that you mis-read what I said, but despite that, you’re continuing to claim that I said something I didn’t. So you’re not in any real position to be lecturing anyone else about honesty.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”
Bill, is that you?
one
(wʌn )
Definitions
determiner
1.
a. single; lone; not two or more ⇒ one car
b. (as pronoun) ⇒ one is enough for now, ⇒ one at a time
c. (in combination) ⇒ one-eyed, ⇒ one-legged
English ‘chek! ; – )
You mis-spoke. I did not mis-read.
“He’s THE ONE that brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East”
Work on saying what you actually mean!
Except that in this context, “one” actually means “person” as in Bush was the person who brought instability to the Middle East. But let’s cut to the chase. Why would you persist in claiming a meaning I’ve now disavowed several times? Probably because you can’t defend against the fact that Bush did destabilize the Middle East, horrifically so, and had there been no American invasion of Iraq there would be no ISIS. There would also be far more Christians living there. So your only real strategy is to take attention off Bush’s catastrophic Middle East policy by focusing on misinterpreting… Read more »
My point has always been, You said: “He’s THE ONE that brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East” You meant: “Bush was the person who brought instability to the ENTIRE Middle East” At least you got some free schooling on a blog! Bonus schooling! Here is what “brought” means! ; – ) v.t. brought, 1. to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker. 2. to cause to come to or toward oneself; attract. 3. to cause to occur or exist: 4. to cause to come into a particular position, state, or… Read more »
I appears that what we’re witnessing here is Krychek losing his grip on reality. He says one thing, then denies having said it, then confirms he said that very thing.
Fascinating.
Same thing I said to “A” dad — you’re focusing on your misinterpretation of a single line in one of my comments to avoid having to deal with my larger point, which is that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was disastrous. You harp on four people who died at Benghazi while ignoring the thousands who would still be alive if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, many of them your fellow Christians. As catastrophes go, Bush’s invasion of Iraq will live in immortality. And because you have no defense to that point, you take a single line of mine out of context and… Read more »
Hello, McFlychek! Rather than clarifying what you supposedly meant (which we still don’t know, because all you did was reiterate what you said at first), you dodged, weaved, and basically did everything you could to keep from owning your blunder. All it would have taken is something similar to, “Bush brought more instability to an already unstable region…” But you couldn’t even do that. What good is your “larger point” if you can’t even get the definitions of simple words right? Aren’t you the one who said words have precise meanings? When “A” dad tells you exactly what those words… Read more »
I’ve clarified at least three times that “Bush brought more instability to an already unstable region” is what I said and meant the first time, and I’m not going to keep clarifying it just because you and “A” Dad continue to pretend not to be able to read. Instead, I will simply accept your concession that you have no defense to my larger point, which is that Bush brought more instability to an already unstable region. Whatever Secretary Clinton’s failings may have been, they pale in comparison to the tens of thousands of people in the Middle East who are… Read more »
*facepalm* Krychek, do you even read? Are you capable of comprehending what others are saying? Are you capable of comprehending what you even write? Do you even think when you write? You said: Bush brought more instability to an already stable region You might want to edit that, champ. But make sure you acknowledge the edit; if you try to be sneaky about it, I have a screenshot. But then you said this: Instead, I will simply accept your concession that you have no defense to my larger point, which is that Bush brought more instability to an already unstable… Read more »
OK, that last one was a typo and I’ve now fixed it. Thanks for calling it to my attention; I did mean “unstable” rather than “stable”.
Now, why are you still harping on that side issue instead of the main point? Yes, Hillary voted for it, after she and the entire country were lied to by Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, so Hillary was lied to? From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998: [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Bill Clinton, 1998: The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue… Read more »
Except for that minor part about Bill Clinton didn’t invade Iraq because he knew the intelligence wasn’t there to support it. And even if your premise were correct, that Bill Clinton was wrong about Iraq doesn’t exculpate Bush, who outright lied about it.
Bovine excrement, Krychek. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Dick Gephardt (D-MT), Nov. 2, 2003: I asked very direct questions of the… Read more »
“Except for that minor part about Bill Clinton didn’t invade Iraq because he knew the intelligence wasn’t there to support it.” Krychek ??? Bombings? They are like invasions without boots! Especially when a clinton needs a distraction re: inapropriate “executive” behavior.! “The Clinton administration’s fixation on weapons and its desire for regime change were clearly on display at a February 1998 town hall, where Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to sell the public on bombing Iraq. Albright was repeatedly interrupted by antiwar activists, and pressed about why the US was so keen on attacking Iraq when there were many… Read more »
Think you made some progress FP! ‘chek appears to have developed the ability to cop to a type-o! Who knows? Could proof reading be next? ; – )
Not sure why you guys are having this Bush vs. Hillary argument, they are all on the same team…
http://images.indianexpress.com/2016/09/michelle-bush-hug-main_759_dessinemoi-twitter.jpg
Bush vs. Hillary?
No.
Krychek comic hubris vs. “A” dad common sense.
; – )
Krychek, a little lesson in logic: You said: Go ahead and harp on Benghazi; nobody else cares. All it takes is one counterexample to refute that statement, so here it is: Patricia Smith. And now for a lesson in humanity: The families of those four people who needlessly died because of Hillary’s incompetence and malfeasance certainly care. People who want to know the truth but have to deal with a lying press, a lying candidate, and lying sycophants such as yourself certainly care. There are a lot of people who care, Krychek. Your pig-ignorance does not negate their existence. Four… Read more »
“Nobody else” was hyperbole; you can always find someone who believes just about anything. And when I said nobody else cares, I meant about Hillary’s involvement, not the deaths themselves. Lots of people, including me, care about the deaths. The deaths were tragic and the families deserve our sympathy. Using them for political purposes, as you’re doing, is disgraceful. And the fact that it happened while she was secretary doesn’t mean it’s her fault in the sense that you’re trying to make it her fault. I imagine there were plenty of incompetent federal bureaucrats during the Truman administration but that… Read more »
Oh, so you’re allowed to use hyperbole, but no one else. Got it. You just don’t get it, do you? The fact that Hillary is avoiding responsibility is disgraceful. The fact that Hillary lied about the whole sordid affair is disgraceful. The fact that Hillary called Patricia Smith a liar is reprehensible. Don’t give me this cock and bull about being disgraceful when it is your candidate who was derelict in her duties and then tried to cover it up. Since when is it “politicizing” the issue when someone points out Hillary’s gross negligence? Are we not allowed to demand… Read more »
Where did I say that no one else can use hyperbole?
Krychek, it would seem that, like Hillary, you’re having memory issues. If you’re like this in a comment section, I’d hate to see you under oath. Here’s the exchange: Me: Krychek, I find your line of argument highly amusing, given that you’re the one who clings to the belief that…Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever to run for President… You: “Most qualified candidate ever to run for president” (which I did not say) and “the best qualified we’ve seen in years” are not exactly the same thing, and neither of those statements is incompatible with being the best of… Read more »
“Most qualified candidate” was not hyperbole; that one was intended to be taken at face value. And I didn’t imply that the Middle East was stable before Bush got there; what I said was that Bush made it orders of magnitude worse.
Krychek, you’re confused, which isn’t surprising given your memory issues. “Most qualified candidate ever” was hyperbole. It seems that “A” dad and I have to spell out everything for you.
“I did not have verbal relations with that sentence, Mr. fp!”
You expect dissembling (which is nothing more than a euphemism for lying) from your politicians, so it’s no wonder you do it yourself.
So I guess the real question is: Are you a Clinton?
JP, it occurs to me that krychek comes here to train,
as he vies for a place in the “back peddaling olympics”!
; – )
Why do you assume she’ll learn from them? Her husband never learned his lessons. Even some fellow democrats were upset that he was a frequent flyer of the Lolita Express with his pedophile buddy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026133742
Why do you assume that she’s like her husband?
Because both have been thoroughly corrupt since the 1970s.
Every intelligence service in the world must have had its way with Hillary’s server, except maybe ours. The whore of Babylon has got nothing on her.
Actually, it elevates my opinion of both.
Putin has way more judeo christian values than Clinton…
Why do you insult Judeo Christian values so?
What do you care? You’re an athiest.
Because as a practical matter, Christianity commands a certain amount of social and political influence, and I’d prefer that the non-troglodyte wing of Christianity be the wing that does.
awww that is so cute!
Name them.
lets start with
not promoting islam, homosexuality , female domination, baby killing
All those things are happening in Russia. But agree with you on the promoting part.
yes, it is about what your leaders are trying to push…
murders are happening everywhere, but if your leaders are against it and pushing hard against random murders etc then it counts for something…
on those issues, Russia is far more in line with the bible than God’s America…
Excerpt from NY Daily News, http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/11/op-ed-case-against-hillary-clinton/ Surely the most egregious triangulation was the one in which a State Department committee agreed to allow the sale of 20% of U.S. strategic uranium reserves held by a company called Uranium One (owned by a big Clinton donor, Frank Giustra) to the Russian company Rosatom, which has close Kremlin ties. It is hard to rationalize that action under any circumstance. As the New York Times reported, “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way… Read more »
When I listen to Putin, I see a man who values the traditional Christian values of his nation’s church, stand up for the interests of his own people, takes constructive action of reign in the Islamic free-booters that our our govt created in Iraq/Syria and decries the moral collapse of the West. I wish Putin was Trump’s running mate.
Name those traditional Christian values. Trump and Putin are both autocrats.
I just got sent this by a Cambodian friend – Putin, Kim Jong-un, Hun Sen, and Robert Mugabe have all endorsed Trump.
KGB, Khmer Rouge, North Korean communism, and the biggest despot in Africa all in his corner.
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/hun-sen-endorses-trump-world-peace-120175/
Of course, he’s praised Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, and the Communist Chinese massacre at Tienanmen Square…so perhaps they just see him as someone who isn’t going to have a lot of issues with them doing whatever they want to do.
“I don’t want to play…”
Sounds juvenile ripped out of context like that.
One need not accept “the false premise that we have to manage God’s judgement” in order to prefer one judgement over the other.
“There’s only one way out of judgement.”
Amen.
Seems to me all the voting to prefer one judgement over the other has just gotten us more of the judgement not preferred. Keep doing the same thing, I am sure someday you will get different results.
Wait, wouldn’t doing something different constitute trying to manage God’s judgment?
That was my question when I listened. I can see “not voting” perhaps equaling “not managing judgment” (though some see it as welcoming judgment or not using our opportunities wisely to make things better as we can in the midst of judgment), but to vote for another candidate? I also would like to know when this judgment pragmatically began? Just this election? Why did they (those that agree with the premise of this video) help manage God’s judgment before and not now by voting for one of the key candidates? I’ve read and read here for months and months trying… Read more »
And, after all, God gave David the king a choice is judgments to befall Israel due to the king’s own sin.
In this (still just barely) Republic, the people are technically the king. And, apparently, we have a choice in how our national judgment is to be delivered.
I am not convinced that attempting to keep one of those gigantic hailstones from making a direct hit on my grandchildren is “managing God’s Judgment.”
If someone put a gun to your head and told you to either rob a bank or murder the one he owns the money too, what would you do?
Steal or murder?
Let him pull the trigger, of course.
Yeah, but the guy with the gun says you only have two choices and stealing isnt as bad as murder, so…
So I say neither, and he shoots. Problem solved. Because stealing is still wicked, stealing in order to facilitate whatever he wants the money for will probably wind up in people getting killed, and bank robberies themselves often wind up getting real people killed.
Thank you for demonstrating that there is more than two options and you trust God with your life instead of committing evil.
That’s what I was trying to do!
I hope you realize that was what I was trying to do as well.
Well, now I do. Please excuse previous density on my part. :-)
It’s fair (biblical) to say that not voting is not a sin. God doesn’t require us to be democratic politically. Repentence and prayer are far and away the most important.
But it’s also biblical to say that voting for a sinner is not a sin. I can pray for repentence for the nation, while voting for someone who doesn’t have full-fledged cultic pedophiles advising them.
Curious what your thoughts are on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=cwTAQpYhkug
I will repent and then stand in the gap with my one vote for the unborn. One candidate believes in killing babies until delivery. One candidate has said this is wrong. Perhaps the greatest evil of our day is abortion. I will fight with prayer, repentance, and with a vote that will not be wasted on a write-in candidate while helping HRC to add to one of our nation’s greatest sins.
God will act if we place a ruler to rule over us that is arrogant, has no fear of God, prides himself in bribing, etc? God has told us that justice and the fear of God can’t be seperated.
It seems you are trusting a prince to keep his word with nothing to evidence that he will.
Not sure why, but in listening to your “confident” analysis I am reminded of the joke Ravi Z often tells about Holmes and Watson under a starry sky. (Where Watson is caught overthinking the possible meanings of the awesome sky and overlooked the fact that they could see the stars because their tent had been stolen.) Most of us still have it very good; if God really brings it to America we will be doing much more actual pleading and much less analyzing. After numbering the people David got to pick between 3 very severe punishments. I would tend to… Read more »
“On the candidate I voted for, the issue is not finding a candidate with a
pure heart. I know that McCain is every bit as bad as you say, and no
pretending. I could vote for a libertarian candidate who was not
personally pro-life, but who would cut radically off all abortion
funding. And if through some weird circumstances, Obama picked a
pro-life veep candidate, and Obama was having serious heart trouble, I
could see myself voting for him over against a pair of RINOs.”
Doug Wilson, https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/like-a-muddied-spring.html
Okay, I’m ready to call the election… Trump/Pence will win with a minimum of 299 electoral votes; within a range of 299-355.
Stranger things have happened, and at this point there is literally no result that would surprise me, but that’s not how the numbers appear to be adding up at the moment. At the moment she’s four points ahead nationally, and he has never been ahead in the polls during the entire campaign. And the fluctuations in the numbers over the past couple of months have mostly been from his numbers going up and down; her numbers have mostly held steady. But, one way or another, it will soon be over. I just about had to buy an extra wastebasket to… Read more »
Right now, the RealClear Politics average has Clinton up by 1.6%. I came up with 299 by throwing in the states that favor Clinton by less than 3%. I did this because, though I believe the pollsters are trying to get it right, most of them are likely Democrats, and I think that impacts them no matter how hard they attempt to be objective; and because I believe there are a lot of shy Trump supporters.
I’m not sure why they send those things out in the mail; I throw them all away without looking at them.
If anything, I think the polls are more likely to overestimate conservatives. The only people the pollsters are able to talk to are people with land lines, who are mostly older, and therefore more conservative. Younger, more liberal voters have cell phones that pollsters have trouble reaching. That was the case in both 2008 and 2012; the pre-election polls over-estimated conservatives and that was the likely reason. There are safeties, checks and balances built into the system, but they can only do so much And I’m not sure that the pollsters being Democrats (assuming you’re right that they are) would… Read more »
We’re obviously reading different things. I’m not willing to spend enough time to read enough stuff to have much confidence in my conclusion, but my statement about bias was based on the possibility of sampling error, and my understanding is that pollsters are currently and broadly calling cell phones. When I’ve been called, they do ask about age and other factors so my assumption is that demographics are accounted for. These people are paid big bucks, I have a hard time believing that the folks spending the money would be satisfied with an answer like “we can only do so… Read more »
I am really quite weary of the whole campaign boiling down to one issue. Abortion. Since 1978 this has been the only criteria for conservative Christians. No one seems to have the analytical smarts to look at the whole picture. Even James Dobson said that in 1992. So instead of looking at the big picture and figuring out how to take the small steps to get what you want, it has been all or nothing. Many a good statesman has been passed over because of this narrow vision. We would have been far better off to have looked at this… Read more »
Hey, I like that: Chrustian. Sort of a crusty old Christian, set in his ways – and as long as those ways are biblical, I’d claim that name. I have tried to coin the term Christain for those who take the name of Christ, but are a stain on His name, but so far it hasn’t caught on. Maybe yours will do better!
Nice evasion of the issue
Evasion? No, I did not address your issue/statement because it was utterly ridiculous. In effect you are saying that if Christians had voted for more pro abortion candidates in the past we would have less abortions. By that (lack of) logic if more conservatives would have voted for Democrats in the past we would have less liberals.
No, that wouldn’t be the logic. Because for your logic to hold, you’d have to start with the assumption that voting for Republicans = fewer abortions. And that’s never, ever been true.
Butter chrust or Crisco chrust?
Nice evasion of the issue.
LL’, you don’t have an issue. The current “abortion on demand” situation the USA faces, was caused by kooky liberals who lied to the Supreme Court, thus creating “law” by the judiciary, rather than the legislature. Since the legislative process was circumvented to create current abortion policy, it will be hard for legislative process to correct it.
HRC is the fault of the self religious left, no one else.
And who is Trump the fault of?
L’, I am not God, but I do know that everyone is serving His purpose, whether they realize it or not. I suppose we could even say that about BHO. Jeremiah 27 2 This is what the Lord said to me: “Make a yoke out of straps and crossbars and put it on your neck. 3 Then send word to the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon through the envoys who have come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah king of Judah. 4 Give them a message for their masters and say, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty, the God… Read more »
Still evading the issue
“So we are stuck with two unfortunate candidates and the fault is entirely that of the Chrustian religious right.”
If your quote above is the “issue”, I have addressed it, no matter how much you insist that I have not.
It seems that you are making a typo the issue and that you are unwilling to address the issue I have put forth.
“I am really quite weary of the whole campaign boiling down to one issue. Abortion.”…..” So we are stuck with two unfortunate candidates and the fault is entirely that of the Chrustian religious right.” LL, abortion as it is now, is largely the fault of kooky, lying liberals, not Christians. That HRC is a nominated presidential candidate is again, the fault of kooky lying liberals. (especially CNN and the DNC.) That DJT is a nominated presidential candidate is a grass roots reaction to decades of damage, that kooky lying liberals have done. (even if the “grass” is crab grass!) ;… Read more »
More to the point is this election has exposed an ugly hypocrisy in a certain kind of christian thinking. The support of the adulterous, amoral pagan Trump for one small example.
So… are you suggesting that a faithful Christian must either refrain from voting or vote third party?
What makes you think I suggested that?
This quotation from you: “More to the point is this election has exposed an ugly hypocrisy in a certain kind of christian thinking. The support of the adulterous,
amoral pagan Trump for one small example.”
No, I said pretty directly what I think there. No need to read into it.
I took it to mean, that in your opinion, a Christian cannot support [vote] for Trump without hypocrisy. Apparently that’s not what you meant.
The election has also underlined the ugly hypocrisy of Darwinism and its’ denominator, social Darwinism.
The Donald is simply practicing Darwinism: ” ….inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. ”
The Donald does make a case for your evolution randi! ; – )
HRC on the other hand, does not make much of a case for anything, with the possible exception of a case for the prosecution! We’ll see.
You are misapplying darwinism. The limp hand-off to a pseudo-science that was discredited long ago is also irrelevant.
Well, let’s hope the FBI and DOJ don’t mis-apply the law to HRC! ; – )
That would be like “devolution” a concept first introduced by “DEVO”,
the New Wave Punk band!
The issue? You say conservative Christians should have compromised more on abortion. Would that have saved us from Uberfail?
Your christian entitlement to tell other people how they ought to live and deny them their rights was completely trampled on. Ouch.
That’s right. I’m The Man and I’m going to stick it to you.
Both your right to tell women what to do with her own body and your right to tell a human who he or she may or may not love/have sex with was steamrolled over. I think sticking it to somebody is an appropriate emotional response. Go for it.
I was trying to be funny. Failed. I should leave trolling to the experts.
I got it. Back at you.
I thought you were funny.
Obama is a minister of God as will be Trump or Clinton.
Servant, not minister, per above BHO comment.
(Aka Obama.)
Same Greek word. Same meaning.
If by “minister ” we mean priest, servant and minister are not the same. Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar were God’s servants, but they were not His priests.
We should note, however, that some states had approved abortion on demand before Roe v. Wade. Reagan signed abortion into law into California in the late 1960s.
Thanks Jilly! You are always legit! ; – )
It’s not abortion on demand. There are clear limits set. Israel has abortion on demand. Do conservative Christians ever point that out or that Tel Aviv is the gayest city in the world or that Jerusalem has gay pride parades?
Abortion as the definitive liberal/conservative dividing issue wasn’t even true when Roe v. Wade was decided. Reagan had already signed approval of abortion into law in California. Before Roe v. Wade the Southern Baptist Convention was calling for abortion to be MORE legal than it already was, and some of their press was vocally supportive of the ruling. Christianity Today spoke of it as an open debate among evangelicals, with the only agreement being that it was permissible under at least some circumstances. I’ve seen a theory, not certain that I believe it, that abortion became the “go to” conservative… Read more »
“It has been far more of an election concern than a practical concern.” J’, you and I manage to have plenty of legitimate conversations on this blog. One thing that happens here is that people poke holes in other peoples’ gross overstatements. Your last line, above, is one that you may come to agree is a gross overstatement. “Zillions” of local churches in the USA, operate chrisis pregnancy centers in a Godly effort to preserve God created life. It would be hard for these ministries to be more “practical” and every day than they are. Any chance you would re-consider… Read more »
You’ve misread me. I was speaking of the actions of politicians, of Republican presidents and Congresses and Courts, not the actions of churches. I believe that a large number of Christians are honestly pro-life, and that a small minority of them have done great practical work in that area. But as far as politicians go, it has been an issue that has taken far more of their time and effort during elections than while serving terms. And the Supreme Court has had a 5-7 member majority nominated by self-declared “pro-life” Republicans for a several decades now. And Trump has been… Read more »
J’, “the emerging Religious Right coalition” is what you were speaking of, and it’s “Christian votes”. Again, the “religious right” is a great straw-man. Everybody thinks there is one, nobody thinks they themselves are in it! ; – ) Then again, “practically” speaking, since “abortion rights” were entrenched, via a fraudulent Supreme Court law suit, the right to an abortion is mis-percieved by many as an established Consititutional right. “Politicians” aka, legislators can’t legislate against it, and conservative lawyers can’t litigate against it, because a true conservative lawyer would not fabricate a fraudulent case to counter Roe v. Wade. As… Read more »
What you are saying destroys any claim that we should elect Trump due to his (supposed) abortion position.
Yeah, a pro-life abortion amendment isn’t getting anywhere, you and I both know. This issue needs to be attacked at root causes (both”spiritual” and “material”, though I don’t like the division). Even if political realities did force that upon us, it would probably be where our energies should be directed anyway.
Trump comes with Mike Pence. As near as I can tell, Pence has been on the godly side of life for his entire political career.
HRC and Kaine would do more damage, would they not?
How (on the abortion issue)? What do you expect Pence to do about abortion? American women/girls want abortions and always have. What do you want to happen?
What is happening now. PP is being de-funded due to their criminal sale of HUMAN body parts.
No one wants innocent people killed, chopped and sold for parts.
True enough but I doubt it will be de-funded. They should have to raise their own funds like most other non-profits but with a Dem Senate I doubt it.
Go Pence?!?
And why haven’t they done that and why don’t these millions of pro-lifers surround every clinic on killing dfays? The Germans will have a field day on Judgement Day when they hear all of our excuses.
Good thing the Germans will not be on the judgment seat! Then again, neither will you and I.
Our only hope is to have the one right advocate to appeal for us.
In the mean time, having some German chocolate right now might not be a bad idea.????????????☕️
Can you respond to my first sentence?
Earlier in this string I said: “zillions of churches” support crisis pregnancy centers. So lots of “servants”, “ministers ” and “bond slaves” do minister against abortion, in a positive fashion, by supporting the babies and families. Some others protest as well. There may well be proposed life amendments that have not taken off yet or are in the works. What is your response to your first sentence? Oh! Stan, you probalby ought to familiarize yourself with the concept of Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies). When the “Germans” stand before their maker, I doubt that “throwing stones” at… Read more »
Exactly. Falwell started the Christian right because the IRS made him integrate his little white college.
Reagan made abortion legal in CA in 1967. Americans, including Republicans, conservatives and conservative Christians want abortions to be legal just in case. Trump says the issue would just go back to the states…His supposedly pro-life stance is just a false hope. When the GOP had Congress and the executive had power they did nothing about abortion because they know.
The fraudulent “constitutional” aspect of this issue deletes the usual legislative options. Congress seems to be succeeding in de-funding Planned parenthood as a result of the CMP investigation and expose’
I’m extremely pro-life. but the Hyde Amendment prohibits PP from getting Fed funds to do abortions.
So the Hyde amendment was a success?
Sounds like you negated your previous “they did nothing” statement! ????????????
Satan has endorsed Trump.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-trump-idUSKCN0YN35S
‘wonder how much plutonium the clinton foundation had to give North Korea to generate that “endorsement”. ; – )
Trump had given Kim Jung-un quite a bit of praise before. It’s more of just mutual strong-man admiration.
J’, let’s not over-dignify some issues. Jilly started this item off right, …..as a joke! ; – ) “Hillary Clinton distorts the facts when she accuses Donald Trump of “heaping praise” on North Korea strongman Kim Jong Un. Trump has called Kim a “maniac” and a “madman” who is “sick enough to use” nuclear weapons. The Clinton campaign said she was referring to Trump’s comments at a rally in January in Iowa, where Trump said Kim deserved “credit” for how he took over the country at such a young age. But in that speech Trump also called Kim a “maniac”… Read more »
Yes, he said those things about Kim, but they almost seemed like caveats to the things that really got him excited. Compare the common thread in all these statements: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world.” “I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution;… Read more »
J’, you and I are not “executives” so far as I can tell, and yet, the Presidency is an executive position.
I grew up in a military family, so I may have had more exposure to executive language that would not play well with tea and crumpets.
Just a thought, “cop speak” is also more cut, dried and rough than the typical day to day citizen language.
While I am not a huge fan of DJT, his actual executive experience may be more valuable than you think, and less “authoritarian” than it may sound to your ears.
Jesus and Peter are executives though, no? But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. It’s not just that Trump acts like a “heathen” and admires the… Read more »
“Jesus and Peter are executives though, no?” Ummm, no. Matthew 23 5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. 8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one… Read more »
What does Trump being crass have to do with Trump openly praising the violent exertion of power, and openly critiquing those who fail to violently exert their power the way the dictators he admires do? And your Biblical quote perfectly compliments mine, of course. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by it, because any interpretation I can imagine would be in line with my own point…that we shouldn’t be admiring these traits in anyone, least of all ourselves and our own leaders. We get into way too many conversations where your replies to me don’t have any visible… Read more »
Trump is not praising violent exertion of power, but he does speak about power in an un-varnished and cynical fashion, that is ultimately percieved as more frank than HRC, especially considering that DNC consultants were being paid by HRC to foment actual violence at Trump events. Our verses apply to both candidates and to each other. You only seem to be appling them to DJT. In the light of the Word and US law, HRC will prove to be criminal in ways that DJT will not. What ever your issues may be with DJT, how is HRC any better? Is… Read more »
He clearly praised China’s violent exertion of power and mocked and criticized Gorbachev for failing to do the same. It’s right there. I’m a bit dumbfounded at the ability to unsee things you don’t want to see. Trump has shown that he has one value when it comes to interpersonal (or international) relationships. Winning. Or at least the perception of winning. When he’s discussing China or the USSR or North Korea or Iraq or Assad, his statements make it clear that his big focus is on, “Did they win? Are they winners?” He doesn’t show clear awareness that there are… Read more »
J’, a church can develop odious moral values without HRC or DJT!
I don’t think anyone is holding out either of them a christian examples.
“Violent exertion of power” is a thing most governments do, that’s why they have militaries. How power is projected is always the question. It’s not that I “unsee” such things. It’s more like I see them more than you might. (?)
Ha! That’s funny, jilly. Why would Hillary endorse Trump?
still finding hard to believe that supposed Christians are not voting for trump…
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/04/bill-clinton-sexist-guys-wont-vote-for-hillary-just-because-she-is-a-woman/
never knew a christian worldview would be synonymous with a matriarchy…
Not all Christians are misogynists. And if the major candidates were Sarah Palin versus Bill Clinton, I bet you’d see plenty of evangelicals voting for a woman.
In fairness, though, I don’t think that a belief in traditional gender roles necessarily implies misogyny. How would you account for women who hold that belief?
That they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
And I would say that traditional gender roles, as you probably understand them, are themselves misogynistic. We would have no trouble acknowledging that the “traditional racial roles” held by racial segregationists were racist, no matter what they’re called.
We would also have no trouble recognizing a non sequitur.
I do note the source in the link above. Don’t shoot the message.
I don’t think traditional gender roles should be forced on the unwilling. But neither do I think that men and women are absolutely interchangeable in their skills, strengths, and preferences. A division of labor that recognizes different strengths and weaknesses is not necessarily imposing Stepford Wife status on a woman. I think you would have to know more than you do about my understanding of traditional gender roles. I do not believe that women’s brains have a particular quality that makes them better at baking pies than doing surgery. I don’t believe that possession of a double X disqualifies women… Read more »
“I believe that it is a bit offensive for people to assume that women who
have chosen to adopt a traditional gender role have been victimized.”
The position “women who differ from my view of their place in the world are suffering from a form of mental incompetency” sounds more misogynistic than many things I have encountered lately.
Jesus was a misogynist, he should have had at least 6 women and his 12 main disciples representing all races to fit your SJW demands…
of course the would but it is not ideal…
Jesus accepted the cultural realities that a female apostle would not have been listened to, but there is ample Biblical precedent for women leading men: Deborah, Esther, Huldah the prophetess. I suppose it all depends on which set of passages you want to cherry pick.
thanks for putting words/ideas into Jesus’s mouth…
In fact your first line completely contradicts your second one!!
Our generation sounds exactly like the one in Isaiah 3:12
but since you put ideas and claimed to know what Jesus was thinking let me do the same.
I do not think Deborah, Esther or Huldah would be very impressed by the men of this generation!!
Even cherry picking those women doesn’t get you where you want to go.
One of the problems with the Bible is that it is wide open to interpretation. Christians cannot agree as to what it says about baptism, dispensationalism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism and the role of women in the church. Many churches thought it taught slavery and racial segregation until they decided it didn’t. You’ve got Christians who look at Jesus’ teachings on the poor and conclude we need a big government safety net, and others like Doug who tell us that government safety nets are evil. Which is one reason — there are lots of others — I’m not inclined to use… Read more »
Right, because Jesus felt powerless to effect cultural change.
Or he chose not to address them. Where are his statements on slavery, on appropriate tax rates, on public education, on democracy, for that matter on Roman rule? Some of what he said has cultural implications, but he mostly left major cultural issues alone.
That’s like saying, if the Bible told us that Jesus owned slaves, that he chose not to address the issue of slavery.
me thinks Jesus – you know being all powerful etc- did not have to submit to cultural realities, you limit Jesus and put him down so much.
Also your second line contradicts your first one….
I think Christians are divided on that, with only a few believing that women should never hold public office. Some Christians believe that the prohibition of women holding authority over men applies only to the church and the home. I think that our host did not have a problem with Palin’s candidacy.
in term of creation I don’t believe men were designed to submit to women….
besides Palin at least claimed to believe in God etc ( better her than a murder advocate)
Clinton… lol
Christians who vote for her… not sure
Thanks for saying it out loud.
Economic protectionism. Involvement in foreign conflicts. Growth of entitlement programs. Utter moral failure. I can really see very little difference in these two candidates. Loud crony capitalism and foreign interventionism vs quiet crony capitalism and interventionism. The two major candidates have never been more similar.
I beg to differ. There hasn’t been greater difference between the two major candidates since Reagan.
America is under divine judgement and it demands an act of national repentance. Nothing could better demonstrate our repentance for the crimes of necon liberal democracy over the past generation than voting for Trump.
So see? How can we lose by voting Trump? If it demonstrates repentance, we win! If Trump keeps even some of his pro-life commitments (repeal Obamacare, Hyde Amendment, Helms Amendment, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, defund PP, no taxpayer funded abortion), we win, and and since some know that Trump is God’s judgment then it wouldn’t make us complicit in managing God’s judgment–we would be putting our stamp of approval on it–hooray, we win! “1. A Trump administration would manifestly be a judgment from God, and judgments from God are good. Not pleasant, but they are always good.” Doug Wilson,… Read more »
Ridiculous. Glad you and your white nativist ilk are so heavily marginalized. You always talk a big game and then impotently sit around in the shadows grousing. Jive. And your cretinous candidate is about to be shown for the Loser he is.
Say, I’ve been a little out of contact for the past week or so. Could you give me an update on what became of that “cretinous candidate” that us white nativists were supporting?
All this divine judgement stuff just sounds like weaponized confirmation bias. How does one distinguish between being under judgement and not being under judgement? Which metrics are relevant and which aren’t?
What makes Wilson’s electoral aloofness dysfunctional is that there are some fairly obvious scenarios that will likely play out in the event of a Clinton victory. These could range from a protracted legal battle over a contested election to a protracted impeachment process for her manifest crimes. That’s the good news; other alternatives are much darker. This country is polarized between progressives and traditionalists, between globalists and nationalists, and so riven by inter-ethnic acrimony that one severe crisis could spark a rebellion that will lead to full civil war. On top of that, Clinton is likely continue the lunatic neo-con… Read more »
agree. the group of people that started the ‘never Trump’ nonsense are some of the more duplicitous politicians around, the liberal Mitt Romney being at the top of the list.
If you really think full civil war could come out of the current political controversies, I’d like to hear a plausible scenario. I don’t believe one exists.
The political controversies of the current year are just icing on top of a financial and cultural situation that is unstable and not repairable by the current governmental structure. In other words, it has to come apart without some unforeseen outside influence — the current election choice is between “probably sooner” and “probably later”.
Most of what I’d say to you I said to unreconstructed above. I’d be interested to hear any thoughts you had in response to what I said there. The only thing I’d add specifically in response to what you said is that I don’t see how this election is likely to affect the sooner or later question. Do you?
Others have far more detailed and considered views on a civil war scenario, but basically, say the Hilde-beast steals the election through obvious fraud. The half of the country that’s hates her guts isn’t going to accept it. Maybe it triggers a military coup, maybe a march on DC by armed militia, maybe some States announce they will convene secession conventions. In any of these, the DC govt will be tempted to counter with force, and then the war is on.
I have no trouble imagining a societal collapse, but I think we’re too far gone and too sorry for anything like a civil war to happen. The tough guy talk of armed militia types is a joke when they couldn’t survive for a week without the electric grid, supermarkets, gas stations, etc. And even if a few of them could, 98% of American households couldn’t, and those 98% would give their full support to any government that was threatened by anyone that would disturb their helpless consumer lifestyles. We can tolerate an armed militia in the middle of nowhere desert… Read more »
Well, I agree that the majority of American people are indolent, feckless, cowardly and will capitulate to any power that allows them to continue their pursey lifestyle. However, there still remains a remnant of patriots and the strong prey on the weak. A few hundred Normans subjugated England under William I.
A determined, armed minority will subjugate, enslave and/or slaughter a complacent, weak minority, the only question is which minority group it will be – govt minions, true patriots or alien invaders.
Wow! What an elitist. Thanks for judging all of us. Your conjecture is so childish. The Constitution still works here and will continue to. Even though most of us are indolent, feckless and cowardly doesn’t mean that we don’t do our best to vote for whoever we think will represent us best. I’m tempted to call you a deplo….but I won’t.
The Constitution works? That’s great news; I can’t wait for you to inform everyone so that the States can over-turn gross abuses of federal power like abortion, “gay marriage’ and school integration.
Yep. As long as people vote it still works. The Constitution says nothing about moral issues so other means are found to interpret it. I don’t agree with its abortion and same-sex decisions but most Americans do. Integration? The South started it by needing Africans to do the work that white boys couldn’t or wouldn’t do.
Laws regulating or proscribing activities like abortion or “gay marriage” or public education were strictly State matters because there was no power granted to the federal govt under the Const to legislate in these areas. Because the Const was slowly shredded from 1865 – 1965 and is now treated as a scrap of paper, the federal govt just does whatever they want to because there are no longer any States Rights to constrain them.
Your understanding of the Constitution is pegging out the Stupid-meter.
Hard to take a SCV guy seriously but I’ll try. Roe only recognized what was already happening. Reagan had legalized abortion in 1967 and CO perhaps a year earlier. American women/girls have always had abortions and always will. They’d had millions before Roe. Even if Roe is over turned the issue will go back to the states as Trump has said. And I doubt if very much would change. BTW, Lost Causers are pretty much blind about the Constituion. The rest of us are pretty much OK with it.
Go. Away. Moron.
That’s nice.
School integration is a moral evil on the level of abortion? Who knew?
Have a look around at the impact of integrated “schools” on the lives and opportunities for black teenagers compared to what they may have been in the 1950’s. To help you locate them more efficiently, look for the boys in your local prison and the girls at your local homeless shelter or crack house. Dingbat!
Has it occurred to you that there are true patriots who love this country while, at the same time, find your views morally repulsive? That there are conservatives of the deepest dye who believe your racial views make God want to throw up? When you conflate abortion with racial integration, as if having black children sit next to white children in a first grade classroom constitutes the same depth of moral evil as killing an unborn child, who can take seriously your claim to be a Christian patriot? In fact, I wonder why you oppose abortion at all. Given the… Read more »
“Has it occurred to you that there are true patriots who love this country while, at the same time, find your views morally repulsive? That there are conservatives of the deepest dye who believe your racial views make God want to throw up” No, I haven’t considered that possibility because I don’t believe such people exist, or if they do, it would be like spotting Bigfoot. Apparently it’s never occurred to you that both integration and abortion originate from the same source, i.e., the bloated power of the federal govt, hi-jacked by liberals to implement a radical social agenda. Here’s… Read more »
When I see the guys who were heavily alt-right, anti-Black, and anti-immigrant making up all these fanciful arguments for why Christians need to support Trump, it’s rather amusing. Someone like you who opposes the 14th Amendment, who said he would have joined the KKK, whose plan for addressing crime is “to keep young black males on a short leash/chain gang”, who supported his great-grandparents’ slavery of Africans because they were “backward, barbarian peoples”, and who claims that White slaveowners didn’t have sex with Black slaves because “most normal white men do not find black women desirable – they tend to… Read more »
I’m not Alt-Right and not anti-Black, but other than basic factual errors, your comment is still asinine. There is no dichotomy between supporting Trump and embracing traditional, Christian views on ethno-nationlism.
BTW, let me just add that you seem to be a rather gutless little weasel who likes to raid other peoples comment history but keep your own under wraps. Just as well, I’m pretty sure I have a good idea what sort of officially sanctioned p.c. shibboleths we’d find expressed there.
Yep, you totally nailed that description.
What facts did he get wrong? And what is the traditional Christian view on ethno-nationalism?
“what is the traditional Christian view on ethno-nationalism?” – it is that mankind is to be partitioned according to ethnicities, with each ethnic group inhabiting it’s own territory. It was established in Gen 9 and 10, affirmed in Acts 17 and shown to be eternal in Rev 21 and 22.
Nothing ‘Christian’ about that. If it was true you and I would still be in northern Europe.
I’ve now concluded that you are the stupidest person I have encountered on the internet in quite some time. Which part of Genesis, Acts and Revelation do you think ARE relevant to Christianity? Please do me a favor and don’t waste any more of my time with your fatuous, vapid, imbecilic remarks.
Wow! Thanks for the complement and thanks for avoiding the issue.
I hope this belief leads you to a conviction that white Europeans had no business creating colonies on territory which God had clearly designated for Native American use. Nor had they had right to build colonies in the Congo (on a continent God had apparently set aside for blacks) simply to aid them in plundering the diamond mines. And definitely the English seriously violated the divine will in taking over India all the better to sell its natural resources to the highest bidder. After all, God did not mean the races to mix, even if the whites retained their sense… Read more »
So, in your analysis, God created the continent of N America as a grand reservation for nature-spirit worshipping savages in perpetuity? I’m sure God was much more glorified by primitive nomads and subsistence hunter/farmers roaming between the Atlantic and Pacific, constantly fighting petty tribal wars than he is by a powerful (once) Christian nation that provides unparalleled opportunities for hundreds of millions in a great civilization. Throughout history, God seems to have a habit of entrusting the care and rule of lands to those whom He deems are best capable of executing it with good stewardship and upholding justice. That’s… Read more »
I would never argue, in general, that people of one race or ethnic group must stay in their native lands forever. I believe that it was right for Christians to send missionaries to bring the gospel to other peoples. I believe that setting up schools and hospitals was good. I am less sure that a desire to obtain another nation’s or continent’s natural resources is a reason to colonize people against their will, even if my own ethnic group could make much better use of those resources and needs them desperately. One might think that the U.S. could more efficiently… Read more »
God decreed, in Gen 9 & 10, that mankind should be partitioned according to ethnic groups (nations) inhabiting a clearly defined territory. When man refused to disperse and instead congregated at Babel, God confounded their language to enforce ethnic separation with the added complication of linguistic division. Ethno-nationalism is thus God’s political blueprint for mankind. This pattern is upheld throughout the OT, and is affirmed under the new covenant in Acts 17 and is prophesied as the template through the millenium and even into the eternal state in Rev. If someone doesn’t accept ethno-nationlism, their quarrel is with God. God… Read more »
I want to be sure I have this clear. God intended the races to live apart. But God is okay with a superior race invading the territory of a lesser race in order to teach them better ways, even if the lesser race is happy as it is. But then what happens to the races living apart? The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and Incans led to widespread miscegenation. Ditto the French colonization of what is now Quebec. Was this unfortunate collateral damage? Or should the lords and masters rule over the lesser races without marrying them? Finally, if a… Read more »
I don’t think further discussion is going to clarify anything for you because you ultimately elevate your own pre-conceived, contemporary fashionable opinions over biblical guidance. “…even if the lesser race is happy as it is” – you reckon the neighboring tribes being enslaves and offered up as human sacrifice by the Aztecs were happy, do you? What about the various African tribes who were slaughtered and/or cannibalized by their neighbors. I’m sure everbody was one big happy family until Whitey showed up and spoiled the fun. As far as miscegenation goes, the Spanish failed to bring enough women from their… Read more »
Someone needs to make a blockbuster movie on Cortez and the Aztecs – and Cortez’s role as liberator of the nations being systematically victimized by the necrophilic culture of the Aztecs.
Before anybody calls you racist, let’s point out that the Bible appears to list the Trojans as Hamites. So the derivation of the British pedigree through Brutus back to Aeneas, makes the Brits out to be Hamites. And who has hewn more wood or drawn more water for the world than the British Empire?
Not sure I buy a Hamitic origin for Trojans – like their Greek cousins, they were from Japheth.
Well, we know the Amorites were Hamitic, and their art reportedly depicts them with light brown hair and blue or grey eyes. Rahab was an Amorite, and I suspect she may have contributed to the appearance of King David, who was “ruddy and well-liking”. I’ll try to find you a chapter and verse on the Trojans.
I thought they were supposed to like multiculturalism. Who knew?
Thankfully this is not a christian nation and we need not be beholden to your superstitious idea of the need for spiritual repentance. Nor do we have to share your cynical pessimism and marginalized christian crackpottery. Your avenging angel is about to go back to the slime from whence he came where he can bask in his bankrupt legacy. You in turn can bask in yours as a christian hypocrite who shills for an amoral-pagan-narcissist. An adulterer. A compulsive liar. A multiple failed businessman with lips glued to Putin’s *ss. An incompetent. An sexual assaulter of wives and daughters. A… Read more »
I’ve always wondered what it looks like when one of those crazy chimpanzees fling their feces at the wall in rage.
What did he say that was wrong?
To keep it simple, his ridiculous and grotesque mis-characterization of Donald Trump, the only man on the political scene in my lifetime with the guts and common sense to speak up on the real issues that people care about.
I don’t know him and he was over the top in some of his rhetoric but much of what he said about Trump is true. Trump’s rhetoric was also way over the top but I think he had a certain voting bloc in mind. I think he’ll govern more as a moderate as reality sets in. Remember, he lost the popular vote by about 800,000.
He lost the popular vote? So what?
Are you a Christian on not, Schmunk? If so, why upvote a nonsensical post that lambasts your religion?
There’s something odd about the way you and Jonathan “tag team” around here, too.
I sure am and even though he was somewhat over the top, most of what he said about Trump is true.
Trump wants to end partial birth abortion. Hillary doesn’t. That’s good enough for me to make Trump the better of two bad choices.
And how will he do that?
I think the only way he can do that is to appoint justices who will either overturn Roe and send the matter back to the states, or who will not rule against states’ legislative efforts to regulate third term abortions.
THE FINAL ARGUMENT: https://youtu.be/vST61W4bGm8
This explains the reason for the constant barrage of propaganda from the establishment media. It does not explain the sanctimonious, self-destructive, response from much of the church.
Who is the establishment media and exactly what is their propaganda? Be specific.