Sidelight Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, redjambo said: Amazingly, I agree with you on something, Alfa. I don't think that selfishness and greed permeate all that we do, but they do lead to many of the problems that society and this planet are experiencing. Lack of empathy is another aspect which is too abundant these days. Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 8 hours ago, Mark M said: Leaving the nuclear treaty is utter madness. Much worse than Paris treaty pullout which was a flawed agreement imo. I could go down the Russia collusion narrative and say it's a Macivelean (spelling) ploy for both sides to play the strongmen but I suspect it's more Bolt neocon bs. Will look to find out more. Utter joke. And one of the best principles Obama had which he should have pursued more. Tbh 'leaving' isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's not the final goal. Russias apparently been breaking it for years and with China etc not included it's counter productive for future negotiations for a single party to be restricted. A clean break of the treaty opens the door for a more modern and expansive treaty for a modern world to be negotiated that includes China, India, Pakistan etc also who weren't signatories to the original and hadn't no incentive to join. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Ibrahim Tall said: Tbh 'leaving' isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's not the final goal. Russias apparently been breaking it for years and with China etc not included it's counter productive for future negotiations for a single party to be restricted. A clean break of the treaty opens the door for a more modern and expansive treaty for a modern world to be negotiated that includes China, India, Pakistan etc also who weren't signatories to the original and hadn't no incentive to join. Perhaps it would have been the wiser decision to negotiate this new treaty before unilaterally ripping up the old one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Ibrahim Tall said: Tbh 'leaving' isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's not the final goal. Russias apparently been breaking it for years and with China etc not included it's counter productive for future negotiations for a single party to be restricted. A clean break of the treaty opens the door for a more modern and expansive treaty for a modern world to be negotiated that includes China, India, Pakistan etc also who weren't signatories to the original and hadn't no incentive to join. No argument with what you say a treaty that is being ignored by at least some of the participaants is worthless. My concern is the timing, and the American individuals involved, Bolton to be nice is a hawk, or else he is a warmonger. Trump is so diverse that it is difficult for me to accept any decision he makes. I watched him a couple of days ago describing the U.K. as a foe, as he did with Germany and other European countries, he even described Canada in such a manner. His attac ks on NATO are well publicised and it is another entity from which he has considered withdrawl. I just wish his father had considered withdrawl seventy three years ago. What many find perplexing is that he never describes Russia as a foe, China gets some trade issues criticised but he likes their President, and of course he loves Kim. The talking heads on MSM feel that the Eurpopeans are the ones with most to fear from the INF withdrawl, the weapons involved are what would be used to invade them, if the U.S. did withdraw from NATO they would be at considerable risk. I find it strange that so many of Trumps decisions seem to benefit Russia and to some extent China, who are strong supporters of North Korea. A pessimist could actually start thinking is there some sort of group who figure they could divide the world into three different powers , and so doing reduce the world to a three power system with mutual agreements on trade, peace, and of course immigration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 11 hours ago, Mark M said: Ulysses seems to enjoy the word salad jibe and that's fine. I wouldn't say "enjoy". I'd say "feel the inclination to use". When I see something that looks less like word salad and more like thoughtful analysis I feel that inclination less. Courtesy? I'll reserve judgement. Honesty? Nope, not buying that. You twisted the headline in the story about that Honduran woman to suit your own political agenda. You should try not doing that next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Ibrahim Tall said: A clean break of the treaty opens the door for a more modern and expansive treaty for a modern world to be negotiated that includes China, India, Pakistan etc also who weren't signatories to the original and hadn't no incentive to join. A clean break of the treaty also opens the door for wilful expansion by both the United States and Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 2 hours ago, redjambo said: Perhaps it would have been the wiser decision to negotiate this new treaty before unilaterally ripping up the old one? Because America would be negotiating from a position of weakness, Russia has already ignored the existing treaty and developed new missiles while China would be removing its own missiles in exchange for hypothetical future American ones that it currently can’t produce under the existing treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, Ulysses said: A clean break of the treaty also opens the door for wilful expansion by both the United States and Russia. While true, does it really matter? We’re all dead in the event of nuclear conflict either way, whether it’s from an aircraft, submarine or ICBM we’ll all still be evaporated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 24 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said: While true, does it really matter? We’re all dead in the event of nuclear conflict either way, whether it’s from an aircraft, submarine or ICBM we’ll all still be evaporated. To quote another poster, Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 The USA has been violating that treaty for years too. New land-based weapons are banned. So they "upgraded" the older ones. They upgraded the targeting system. They upgraded the warheads. They upgraded the flight control system. They upgraded the launchers. It's like taking an old broom, fitting a new head on it then fitting a new handle and claiming it's the same broom. Ripping up the treaty will fire the starting pistol on a brand new arms race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark M Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Ulysses said: I wouldn't say "enjoy". I'd say "feel the inclination to use". When I see something that looks less like word salad and more like thoughtful analysis I feel that inclination less. Courtesy? I'll reserve judgement. Honesty? Nope, not buying that. You twisted the headline in the story about that Honduran woman to suit your own political agenda. You should try not doing that next time. The same point remains with the accurate quote. The BBC leads with a headline that is purely emotive yet from a place that has no regard for basic norms or principles of law. It's blatantly manipulative and irresponsible journalism. That is what I call 'twisting' for an agenda, Moreover, I acknowledged I unwittingly changed the quote. You are saying that acknowledgement is a lie too. This appears to make me a serial liar. I have no great desire let alone ability to change your mind so it's best that we leave it at that. I'd suggest you do your best to ignore my lie salads and I'll continue to do the same for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark M Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, redjambo said: Yup. There are some things you shouldn't mess with, no matter if you perceive them to be flawed or not - the idea of security is sometimes as strong as security itself. If by Bolt, you mean John Bolton, yup, it's almost guaranteed that he's behind this. We need strong doves in this world, not hawks. Out of interest, why are you of the opinion that Paris was a flawed agreement? Shouldn't we all have to make sacrifices for the good of the planet, even if those sacrifices hurt? Bannon makes the point China doesn't have to make the same commitments given their projected growth. The uneven playing field seems to be the soundest argument re economic nationalism (which I think on the whole is limited and short term) so I'm assuming this point holds up here too. That said, this is my gloss of it and I am not aware as to whether its entirely accurate. On climate change as a whole I can't see how we are not screwed a long time ago with worldwide growth inevitably being fuelled by fossil fuels. And I am in no way arrogant enough to disagree with the scientific consensus on that trend. Cheers for the Bolton correction. Edited October 21, 2018 by Mark M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 25 minutes ago, Mark M said: I acknowledge I changed the quote. Thanks for the admission. Let's move along, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, alfajambo said: Yes, I agree not the best situation for whatever reason. However, let’s not pretend that it didn’t happen under other administrations. I thought now that an executive order had been signed to minimise the occurrence of separation. Where do you stop? What about the 70 million American babies killed prematurely and other countries too. Anyone who had a heart... "Not the best situation." And the concentration camps being set up for immigrants not the best situation either? At what point do you actually morally condemn something? And there's no need to "pretend" it didn't happen under other administrations. It didn't, outside of a very small number of cases. The policy is a result of a "zero tolerance" memo sent by the Department of Justice in April, which was reported on here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/top-homeland-security-officials-urge-criminal-prosecution-of-parents-who-cross-border-with-children/2018/04/26/a0bdcee0-4964-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html) well before the stories about the actual detentions broke. Yes, the administration has claimed there was no change in policy. They are lying, and the proof is in the official documents that are public record. An executive order has now said that entire families must be detained together, which still involves keeping children in jail (again, often for *seeking asylum* which is a legal activity under US and international law), and 250 children still remain separated from their families, in part because the US already deported their parents without them and the US now claims it has no way to find them. The change in policy was not a result of executive order but as a result of a court order due to lawsuits against the administration. I must note the "whataboutery" of your last question, but in response, we know how to reduce the abortion rate. It involves sex education and easily available birth control. The abortion rate in the US has fallen most strongly during Democratic administrations and at the end of the Obama administration was lower than any time since Roe v. Wade. (source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade) Conservatives oppose this claiming it degrades the moral decency of society, and I used to take them at their word that they actually believed that. Then they went and voted en masse for a man who bragged on video about sexually assaulting women, making me utterly lose any respect for that position. Yes, we live in a fallen world. But we have clear instructions on how to respond. Matthew 25:42-45. Edited October 21, 2018 by Ugly American Edited for clarity, hopefully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 8 hours ago, Mark M said: The same point remains with the accurate quote. The BBC leads with a headline that is purely emotive yet from a place that has no regard for basic norms or principles of law. It's blatantly manipulative and irresponsible journalism. That is what I call 'twisting' for an agenda, Moreover, I acknowledged I unwittingly changed the quote. You are saying that acknowledgement is a lie too. This appears to make me a serial liar. I have no great desire let alone ability to change your mind so it's best that we leave it at that. I'd suggest you do your best to ignore my lie salads and I'll continue to do the same for you. Being called a serial liar by Uly is a mark of distinction. He does it all the time with little or no justification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Right now the Senate election is likely to result in a slight gain (one, maybe two seats) for the Republicans - about the result you'd expect from a good Democrat performance while bearing in mind the number of seats the Democrats are defending. Polls suggest that the Democrats are most likely to score between 215 and 225 seats in the House - with 218 needed for a majority. That blue wave seems to be receding on the back of an improving economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 6 hours ago, Ulysses said: Right now the Senate election is likely to result in a slight gain (one, maybe two seats) for the Republicans - about the result you'd expect from a good Democrat performance while bearing in mind the number of seats the Democrats are defending. Polls suggest that the Democrats are most likely to score between 215 and 225 seats in the House - with 218 needed for a majority. That blue wave seems to be receding on the back of an improving economy. What's your source on that? Strictly on polls, the fivethirtyeight.com model moved a little in the Dems direction recently, with Dem control of the House moving from 4/5 chance to 6/7 and Dem control of the Senate moving from 1/5 to 2/9. Minor moves, but not really a receding. I maintain that this election will be one of the most difficult to poll accurately in a decade. No one has any certainty at all of what the electorate will look like. Democrats also have demonstrated a completely unprecedented 2-1 advantage in funds raised from individual donors (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-democrats-unprecedented-fundraising-edge-is-scary-for-republicans-and-for-our-model/) that basically has trend watchers throwing up their hands. Further, one of the better (although by no means perfect) predictors of midterm success has been special elections -- Democrats have greatly overperformed expectations there. Beyond that, the enormously important Governors races are looking good for the Democrats, with Abrams having moved into a tie in Georgia and Gillum having opened up a lead in Florida. Alaska just got thrown wide open with the independent incumbent suspending his campaign and endorsing the Democrat Begich. But all that could easily be wrong. It's basically down to three things, from what I can tell: 1: Do the Millennials actually show up this time? 2: Just how many historically Republican voters have left the party in disgust, either to not vote or to vote for Democrats? 3: How well will voter suppression tactics work this time? You answer those three questions, you can pick the election. But tea leaves are about as accurate as polls in trying to figure that out right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 One more thing on this (because I'm procrastinating going to bed after the toddler woke up writhing with digestion pain). One of the biggest complaints "rank and file" Dems like me have had for decades is how dumb the national party has been with its money, throwing giant amounts of it into highly ineffective TV ads that say nothing and annoy people rather than doing on-the-ground party building. It kind of *looks* like that's improving, with huge fundraising totals and not nearly as many ads going up, and a whole lot more news about voter registration drives and canvassing and local infrastructure building and such. But again, this all happens at a very local level and is very hard for reporters, pollsters, or pundits to see. It's hard to know what's spin and what's real until election night. It's possible there's an actual effective, engaged, risk-taking Democratic party emerging from the ashes. It's also possible the same risk-averse, scared consultocracy that's strangled the party is just pretending to be reborn. It's guesswork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 On 22/10/2018 at 04:38, Francis Albert said: Being called a serial liar by Uly is a mark of distinction. He does it all the time with little or no justification. 28.937 flotations of absence at the last count. This equates to the mass measured at the centre of a ring donut in a vacuum situation. Yes, I have checked with my Astro friends along the corridor. That's not too bad compared to my efforts I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 On 21/10/2018 at 21:08, Ugly American said: Yes, we live in a fallen world. But we have clear instructions on how to respond. Matthew 25:42-45. A discussion concerning the Bible and concerns surrounding immigration, perhaps should keep apart the responsibilities of the individual and that of a nation state. And this with respect to having a good understanding of biblical truth and not just supplying a verse or two, quoted out of context. This comment is a generalisation and certainly not a critique of your biblical exegesis. However, Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 25 and other NT commands to love our neighbour (Luke 10:27) is focusing on the individual and not government authorities who have a responsibility to protect their people. Absolutely Christians should care for the least but Matthew 25 is not teaching that truth. And supposing that it was, it is a misdirect to assume that America or any country should accept every and any individual. Should the Honduras Militia or Drug Thugs be made welcome and invited in at the border? Are you a communist, far leftist, centre left? I don’t know. It is very difficult to really understand an individual’s political ideology and heart within the context and microcosm of this digital page. Your view on Immigration is not clear in my mind. Your abortion comments? God, surely views willy nilly abortion as an act of sinful disobedience. However, should government have the power to prevent an individual’s free choice in this matter? I am not so sure. Be assured, I will not be voting for the fall of America and the promotion of a One World Government which will be here soon enough. I wish you well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 43 minutes ago, alfajambo said: A discussion concerning the Bible and concerns surrounding immigration, perhaps should keep apart the responsibilities of the individual and that of a nation state. And this with respect to having a good understanding of biblical truth and not just supplying a verse or two, quoted out of context. This comment is a generalisation and certainly not a critique of your biblical exegesis. However, Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 25 and other NT commands to love our neighbour (Luke 10:27) is focusing on the individual and not government authorities who have a responsibility to protect their people. Absolutely Christians should care for the least but Matthew 25 is not teaching that truth. And supposing that it was, it is a misdirect to assume that America or any country should accept every and any individual. Should the Honduras Militia or Drug Thugs be made welcome and invited in at the border? Are you a communist, far leftist, centre left? I don’t know. It is very difficult to really understand an individual’s political ideology and heart within the context and microcosm of this digital page. Your view on Immigration is not clear in my mind. Your abortion comments? God, surely views willy nilly abortion as an act of sinful disobedience. However, should government have the power to prevent an individual’s free choice in this matter? I am not so sure. Be assured, I will not be voting for the fall of America and the promotion of a One World Government which will be here soon enough. I wish you well. Uh oh, you've opened a can of whoop @$$. Condescending rebuttal heading your way tout de suite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, alfajambo said: A discussion concerning the Bible and concerns surrounding immigration, perhaps should keep apart the responsibilities of the individual and that of a nation state. And this with respect to having a good understanding of biblical truth and not just supplying a verse or two, quoted out of context. This comment is a generalisation and certainly not a critique of your biblical exegesis. However, Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 25 and other NT commands to love our neighbour (Luke 10:27) is focusing on the individual and not government authorities who have a responsibility to protect their people. Absolutely Christians should care for the least but Matthew 25 is not teaching that truth. And supposing that it was, it is a misdirect to assume that America or any country should accept every and any individual. Should the Honduras Militia or Drug Thugs be made welcome and invited in at the border? Are you a communist, far leftist, centre left? I don’t know. It is very difficult to really understand an individual’s political ideology and heart within the context and microcosm of this digital page. Your view on Immigration is not clear in my mind. Your abortion comments? God, surely views willy nilly abortion as an act of sinful disobedience. However, should government have the power to prevent an individual’s free choice in this matter? I am not so sure. Be assured, I will not be voting for the fall of America and the promotion of a One World Government which will be here soon enough. I wish you well. Perhaps Matthew isn't the correct passage for state action (the nation state did not exist when the scriptures were written, naturally) but the repeated-to-the-point-of-cliche commandment in the OT to welcome aliens and not to persecute them, combined with Jeremiah's exasperated pleas with and condemnations of the government of Jerusalem for not doing just that, should be enough. If we set the Bible aside, though, it is a basic ethical premise that the state should not cause harm to innocents in its care. Capriciously doing so as a kind of collective punishment, on children no less, with instructions that came directly from the cabinet, in my mind demands the highest form of moral condemnation. Trump and Sessions are quite literally and intentionally trying to dissuade asylum seekers by stealing their children. This comes from the top -- we have the documents to prove it -- it's not some failure to reprimand out of control agents. To me morality is nothing if this can't be morally condemned in the strongest terms. As to the Honduran militia, considering the CIA has been training and funding death squads in Central America for decades, it's not exactly what I want in the country but one might call it chickens coming home to roost. I don't think that mothers with small children are likely part of that, though. As to myself, I dislike the simple left/right because while I have strong leftist tendencies, I am not a huge fan of Marx. Non-Marxist or post-Marxist socialist isn't the worst label to put on me. Economically, I believe in building democratized social enterprises through voluntary arrangements to create stronger and more equitable economy, and politically I'm a fan of Alinsky's IAF tradition of pragmatic radical community organizing. Of course Medicare For All, which would result in a substantially less radical health care system than the NHS, is currently considered a fringe left position in the US so being left of center doesn't take much. We will not have a One World Government. At worst we'll have a thieves den of authoritarians like Erdogan, Orban, Putin, and Trump who spend blood and treasure trying to knife each other in the back. But all these things come to an end eventually. All the best to you and despite our rather extensive political disagreements, I always appreciate your respectful responses. Edited October 23, 2018 by Ugly American Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 26 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said: Uh oh, you've opened a can of whoop @$$. Condescending rebuttal heading your way tout de suite. I keep that reserved for you, sweetheart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 I can understand the working man who feels that Trumps economic policy and some of his other policies benefit the middle class American. I can also understand to some extent the basic principles of his immigration policy, although I strongly disagree with some of the efforts used to achieve the success of the policy. It was somewhat difficult last night to hear him decry the chain immigration policy, which I take it is to keep families united, when his own wife was the benificiary of it by bringing in her parents. What I cannot understand are those of the christian faith , ardent churchgoers who follow so faithfully an individual, who calls on their god so often and has betrayed almost every tenet, commandment and rule laid down by that self same god. Many like a respondent here are motivated solely by his appontment of Supreme Court Justices who will if asked change the decision of Roe v Wade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 I can understand the working man who feels that Trumps economic policy and some of his other policies benefit the middle class American. I can also understand to some extent the basic principles of his immigration policy, although I strongly disagree with some of the efforts used to achieve the success of the policy. It was somewhat difficult last night to hear him decry the chain immigration policy, which I take it is to keep families united, when his own wife was the benificiary of it by bringing in her parents. What I cannot understand are those of the christian faith , ardent churchgoers who follow so faithfully an individual, who calls on their god so often and has betrayed almost every tenet, commandment and rule laid down by that self same god. Many like a respondent here are motivated solely by his appontment of Supreme Court Justices who will if asked change the decision of Roe v Wade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 3 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said: Uh oh, you've opened a can of whoop @$$. Condescending rebuttal heading your way tout de suite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 2 hours ago, bobsharp said: I can understand the working man who feels that Trumps economic policy and some of his other policies benefit the middle class American. I can also understand to some extent the basic principles of his immigration policy, although I strongly disagree with some of the efforts used to achieve the success of the policy. It was somewhat difficult last night to hear him decry the chain immigration policy, which I take it is to keep families united, when his own wife was the benificiary of it by bringing in her parents. What I cannot understand are those of the christian faith , ardent churchgoers who follow so faithfully an individual, who calls on their god so often and has betrayed almost every tenet, commandment and rule laid down by that self same god. Many like a respondent here are motivated solely by his appontment of Supreme Court Justices who will if asked change the decision of Roe v Wade. As an atheist I discovered long ago that Christians (especially those most vocal about their faith) and the qualities of virtue and decency don't necessarily go together. Same applies to most if not all religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45958023 man arrested for groping a woman on a plane uses the defence that trump said it is ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: As an atheist I discovered long ago that Christians (especially those most vocal about their faith) and the qualities of virtue and decency don't necessarily go together. Same applies to most if not all religions. Perhaps. However, if a professing Christian habitually conducts themselves in such a way as you describe. Then surely the authenticity of their profession of faith is open to question. Christians are obviously not perfect. They are just ordinary people who realise the depravity and fallenness of their own human condition and believe that righteousness and forgiveness can only be found through repentance and faith in Christ. Edited October 23, 2018 by alfajambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Just now, alfajambo said: Perhaps. However, if a professing Christian habitually conducts themselves in such a way as you describe. Then surely the authenticity of their profession of faith is open to question. Christians are obviously not perfect. They are just ordinary people who realise the depravity and fallenness of their own human condition and realise that righteousness and forgiveness can only be found through repentance and faith in Christ. Your last sentence in all its arrogance, self righteousness and claim to exclusivity sums up why I am an atheist. If an afterlife is entirely populated by the sort of Christians who believe this nonsense count me out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 I shudder each time I see there's been new posts on this thread and can't stop asking myself "What has that ****ing arsehole said/done now?" And that's not really the way I'd like to feel about a world leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 19 hours ago, Ugly American said: What's your source on that? Strictly on polls, the fivethirtyeight.com model moved a little in the Dems direction recently, with Dem control of the House moving from 4/5 chance to 6/7 and Dem control of the Senate moving from 1/5 to 2/9. Minor moves, but not really a receding. RCP's collating and aggregating of polls, mainly concentrating on toss-ups. There's a lot of reading and a lot of sums, but I never mind either of those. The Democrats will not control the Senate after these elections. The House remains a possibility, but I think the trend between now and polling day is with the Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 4 hours ago, Ugly American said: I always appreciate your respectful responses. I think you've either got a wacky sense of humour or a faulty dictionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 46 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: Your last sentence in all its arrogance, self righteousness and claim to exclusivity sums up why I am an atheist. If an afterlife is entirely populated by the sort of Christians who believe this nonsense count me out. The definition of a Christian is simply a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus made some bold claims as recorded in the NT. In one such claim Jesus said this: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If a person chooses to believe the message presented by Jesus in what way does that choice make then arrogant and self-righteousness? His message may be one that you reject and that’s your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 53 minutes ago, Ulysses said: RCP's collating and aggregating of polls, mainly concentrating on toss-ups. There's a lot of reading and a lot of sums, but I never mind either of those. The Democrats will not control the Senate after these elections. The House remains a possibility, but I think the trend between now and polling day is with the Republicans. Just bumping this lest it get lost. UA might disagree with my assessment, but I think it's fair enough. What would it mean if the Republicans held control of the Senate and the Democrats had a majority in the House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Ulysses said: I think you've either got a wacky sense of humour or a faulty dictionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, Ulysses said: Just bumping this lest it get lost. UA might disagree with my assessment, but I think it's fair enough. What would it mean if the Republicans held control of the Senate and the Democrats had a majority in the House? Sufficient gridlock to provide a brake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, Ulysses said: Just bumping this lest it get lost. UA might disagree with my assessment, but I think it's fair enough. What would it mean if the Republicans held control of the Senate and the Democrats had a majority in the House? I think all assessments are fair at this point -- not to repeat myself too much but I think it's all up in the air. About as far as I'll go is that I see some decent signs of hope for Democrats, but I'm a long way short of confident on that. The Senate has the "advice and consent" power when it comes to appointments, including federal judges at all levels, not just SCOTUS. So if the GOP keeps the Senate, they can keep ramming nominees through the way they did Kavanaugh. The biggest change would be simply that Democrats, if they hold their numbers, would have an effective veto on all legislation, including budgets, tax cuts, everything. All spending bills have to originate in the House, which isn't that much of an advantage over the Senate but it's a small one. More to the point, they would finally control oversight committees with subpoena power, which at the very least mean they could drag cretins like Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross to answer for their nonsense. At the extremes, articles of impeachment, including Trump and Kavanaugh, must be passed out of the House first by a simple majority. However, to actually make anything stick would require 67 votes out of 100 in the Senate, which would mean somewhere between 16 and 20 Republicans. So they have to find something really damning before they bring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidelight Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 9 hours ago, Francis Albert said: Your last sentence in all its arrogance, self righteousness and claim to exclusivity sums up why I am an atheist. This may be of help to you FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Watched the famous philosopher last night Stephen Colbert. So profound, he posed the question, "if there is a god?" why did he let Donald Trump become President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 32 minutes ago, bobsharp said: Watched the famous philosopher last night Stephen Colbert. So profound, he posed the question, "if there is a god?" why did he let Donald Trump become President. I've seen some American Christians interviewed on TV. They say that God has chosen Donald Trump to be President (although how they would know that I have no idea). Similarly, when asked how they can stand by a President with such obvious morals flaws, their answer is that God has forgiven him, therefore they forgive him too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Vile man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Explosive devices intercepted en route to the Clinton and Obama hooses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 50 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said: I've seen some American Christians interviewed on TV. They say that God has chosen Donald Trump to be President (although how they would know that I have no idea). Similarly, when asked how they can stand by a President with such obvious morals flaws, their answer is that God has forgiven him, therefore they forgive him too. It's worth noting that Colbert himself is a devout practicing Catholic, albeit an at times rather irreverent one. It's the Evangelical movement specifically that has blindly lined up behind him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 1 minute ago, J.T.F.Robertson said: Explosive devices intercepted en route to the Clinton and Obama hooses. Seems the same kind that was sent to George Soros. This is why this "Soros puppet" chat is so dangerous. It's insulting enough to suggest that there's no other reason to fight this demagogue tooth and nail other than the things that come out of his own mouth, but it also drives people into this rage where they think it will all dissipate if they just knock out the right people. Billionaires and those with Secret Service details will be fine I'm sure but the whipping people into a frenzy like this gets people killed. Like Heather Heyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said: Explosive devices intercepted en route to the Clinton and Obama hooses. After one was sent to George Soros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T.F.Robertson Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ugly American said: Seems the same kind that was sent to George Soros. This is why this "Soros puppet" chat is so dangerous. It's insulting enough to suggest that there's no other reason to fight this demagogue tooth and nail other than the things that come out of his own mouth, but it also drives people into this rage where they think it will all dissipate if they just knock out the right people. Billionaires and those with Secret Service details will be fine I'm sure but the whipping people into a frenzy like this gets people killed. Like Heather Heyer. Isn't that the tactic of all aspiring demagogues. (rhetorical) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 17 minutes ago, Ugly American said: Seems the same kind that was sent to George Soros. This is why this "Soros puppet" chat is so dangerous. It's insulting enough to suggest that there's no other reason to fight this demagogue tooth and nail other than the things that come out of his own mouth, but it also drives people into this rage where they think it will all dissipate if they just knock out the right people. Billionaires and those with Secret Service details will be fine I'm sure but the whipping people into a frenzy like this gets people killed. Like Heather Heyer. Bold bit was terrible word salad on my part. Should have said "we need some reason to fight . . . other than the things that come out of his own mouth" or something. Got stuck between two idioms there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 CNN now evacuated too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watt-Zeefuik Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 This is sadly likely to be exactly accurate: Tweet embedding seems to have stopped working for me, so here's what it says: Quote Get ready for the following cycle: 1) the mailbombs were false flags to make conservatives look bad before midterms 2) the mailbombs were real, but they were sent by a Bernie supporter 3) the mailbombs were real, sent by a conservative, but the Democrats are more violent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.