Vambram said:

Then, you don’t understand what happened. The military is legally following legal orders to destroy boats carrying illegal drugs designed to poison and kill people. Why is that difficult to understand?

Click to expand...

As I said, if the orders are legal then get ready for people to start using the legal reasoning in other applications. Legal reasoning is not made in isolation, it applies in other areas.

Hopefully in the Six years since you wrote this God granted you His grace and mercy of a marriage partner. For those of us without the Gift of Celibacy, Matthew 19:10-12; I Corinthians 7:6-8, it is called a CURSE of SINgleness, as we fight our natural desire, I Corinthians 7:2,9; Hebrews 13:4, losing hopelessly to our flesh. Wondering if this was what Paul spoke of I Timothy 4:3?
I myself bemoan turning 60 yesterday and have decided i am too rotten for the blood of Christ to redeem, I Corinthians 3:16-17. For how could a loving Father leave His adopted son in this mire after all the Omly Begotten Son has done, Romans 8:31-32?

rjs330 said:

I dont think so because the other party also is talking about the military actions. Which again is what this thread is about. Not some random citizen.

Click to expand...

Feel free to report the post for being off topic, but I will continue to post whatever I feel is relevant.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

It looks like a saw mark. From what type of saw... impossible to tell without the right and proper context.

Click to expand...

Ok so we at least agree its a saw mark. Thats the question. From what type of saw. Its not about context. Lets say we will never know the context like a cold case murder. We are just looking at the forensics and witness marks at the scene.

We have to work out for ourselves what most like made the marks. We can reverse engineer what could have made the marks. We do experiments to see what marks different methods leave.

But what do the marks look like at face value. Whats the first impression you get in looking at the sharp straight fine lips and lines. Especially that they curve and bend and remain the same.

Say it aint so said:

""The rise of President Trump marked a shift in conservative politics, with his stance against free trade and globalism aligning closely with positions held by Senator Bernie Sanders and American labor unions.""

Protectionism of certain job sectors is the whole point of tariffs. Always has by every admin. They have been used like a scapulae knife, and not the hammer pulled from the tool box as a redress to every problem. I seriously doubt the National Farmers Union agree with Trump's position. Sanders talks of "targeted tariffs" which is not what Trump is doing. The Trump stance and the Sanders stance are not aligned at all.

Click to expand...

Trump has instituted both across-the board tariffs. Trump also implemented several kinds of targeted tariffs.

ACROSS THE BOARD TARIFFS
This is a flat amount to all goods from a country or for all countries as a default. I believe that we now have a 10% rate (or is it 15%). This type of tax is before the courts and arguably requires Congressional approval (so this type could be reversed and then put in the Spring 2026 BBB). This type of tariff is in effect a tax on imported goods. Some of the cost can be absorbed by the seller and/or by one of the companies on the supply chain. In the end, prices go up. This is a policy of 100 years ago and has several effects: increase of cost to the consumer, and a decrease in the amount of imports. Also, there is pressure for the producer to reduce his cost to produce , sometimes by reducing quality. Of course, this tax also can reduce the amount of the deficit or debt.

My BOTTOM line on this type of tax is that it is inflationary and very, very poor economic policy.
========================================
FIRST TYPE OF TARGETED TARIFF - PROTECTIONISM
Examples are steel and autos. This type of tax has been supported by Democrats and unions for decades. The effect is to protect US jobs and to reduce the amount of the tariffed good imported. They work but sometimes have side effects. For example, steel tariffs in Trump1 saved a couple of thousand steel jobs. However, manufacturing jobs that used steel to make the product saw a loss of ten times that amount. To be clear, this may be OK, especially if the industry is very important to the US for national security. Arguably, we NEED to have a strong steel industry in the US.

My BOTTOM line on this type of tax is that is inflationary, but that may be OK. My only thought is that we need to consider the side effects.
============
SECOND TYPE OF TARGETED TARIFF - TRUMP WANTS TO PUNISH THE COUNTRY
1) Brazil is a good example. We have a 50% tax on Brazil because they convicted a criminal friend of his.
Canada is another example of this. He didn't like the leader so he inflicted big tariffs. He didn't like an ad in their paper so he stopped negotiating. Trump does this a lot and this is the worst kind of tariff.
2) Switzerland is a different kind of example. We will have a 39% tax on them because they don't buy enough goods from us. This is simply Trump's ignorance with regard to economics. I buy from Amazon. Perhaps, I should buy less because they don't buy enough from me???
3) China is a third kind. China has policies that are harmful to the US and Trump uses tariffs to get them to change. India buying Russin oil is another example. In the past, Mexico didn't cooperate enough in catching drug smugglers. Spain doesn't spend enough on Defense. Japan effectively doesn't allow imports of US autos.

My BOTTOM line on this type of tariff is that it is what it is; Trump's bullying. To be fair, this often works. BTW, there is Democratic support for tariffs and sanctions on China, even though the cost to consumer may be large.

stevevw said:

I thought I did. What was wrong with the examples I just linked in the last few posts. Including to others if you missed it. Go and check the rest and then tell men they are not good examples. While your at it explain this mark. Just one mark. What does it look like to you. Be honest.

View attachment 372041

View attachment 372039

Click to expand...

It looks like a saw mark. From what type of saw... impossible to tell without the right and proper context.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Show me the cross-section that shows that the stone was cut with a circular saw, instead of a piece of stone that could just be claimed to have been cut with a circular saw.

Click to expand...

I thought I did. What was wrong with the examples I just linked in the last few posts. Including to others if you missed it. Go and check the rest and then tell men they are not good examples. While your at it explain this mark. Just one mark. What does it look like to you. Be honest.

These are destinct saw cuts clearly defined in basalt found East of the Great Pyramid.

Apple Sky said:

There is no mathematical formula for circumference in scripture; however, a passage in 1 Kings 7:23 describes a circular basin with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits.

Click to expand...

And is a sea made of cast metal sitting on top of 12 oxen and standing near the temple. Ok then.

Dan1988 said:

I'm not saying anything of the sort, and it's obvious to me that your difficulty in understanding the doctrine of predestination to salvation, stems from your failure to distinguish our view and Gods view.

We have a very narrow view of time and space, but God sees the whole of time, from the begging to the end in present moment. We can only see now and we can remember some of what happened in the past.

So, we cannot pretend to be a a level playing field with God. He knows everything at once, He sees everything at once, He ordained all things that come to pass and the list goes on endlessly. So it's futile to compare our knowledge and understanding to God, yet most Christians d it without giving it a second taught, then they wonder why their theology is so messed up.

God's ways are infinitely higher than ours, His ways are past finding out, so attempting to figure out why God does what he does, ,is a futile exercise. Our part is to trust and obey Him, and let Him rule the universe as He always has., I used to wreck my head, trying to make sense of everything God does. I had no peace until I surrendered and let Him run the show.

Click to expand...

Ok so here’s exactly what you said.

Dan1988 said:

Sorry but I stopped watching after about a minute, because of the false interpretation of the first verse. You failed to take into consideration the first part of the verse, which states "All that the Father has give to Me,, shall come to Me".

The narrator, ignores the first part of the verse and tries to say there's a problem with the word "come". Ha says, it has a present tense meaning in the Greek.
That instantly blew his theory out of the water, because the father didn't just decide to give Jesus the elect in that moment. No the deal was done before the world was created, so I didn't need to waste anymore time listening to false interpretations.

You should never pluck out single words out of their intended context and apply some unrelated meaning to them. That is to abuse Gods Word.

Click to expand...

So you did in fact say that the word “comes” in John 6:37 isn’t in the present tense because God chose the elect before creation which is implying that people come to Christ either at birth or before creation. And I showed on screen copied and pasted directly from Biblehub.com the definition of the Greek word Erchomahai that is translated to the word “comes” at 1 minute 8 seconds into the video. And even after I pointed that out in this reply to you, you still didn’t have the humility to admit it.

BNR32FAN said:

Oh and you obviously didn’t pay attention because that’s not what I said at all. I said the word “comes” not the word come and I highlighted it red letters in the text on the screen. I also showed the lexicon definition of Greek word Erchomai that is translated to “comes” at 1 minute 8 seconds into the video.

Click to expand...

There is also what is under the East Wing, namely the White House bunker and Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Is this being renovate, demolished or preserved? Will the president have access should there be an actual emergency?

Valletta said:

Elon Musk Confirms That He Offered to Return Astronauts Sooner But Was Turned Down by Biden Admin 'For Political Reasons' (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance

In a revealing interview, Elon Musk alleges that his proposal to expedite the return of astronauts was rejected by the Biden administration, citing political motivations. This statement raises significant questions about governmental decision-making in space exploration.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

How sad for those astronauts.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should change the Threat title to

“After reviewing all the facts regarding SpaceX's reliability, the Biden administration made the right decision in declining Musk's offer.”

Just curious, does anyone know if the additional maintenance, additional upkeep, additional custodial services, additional utilities etc for the 90,000 sq ft building will also be paid by private donors, or will taxpayers be left holding that bag for years to come?

RocksInMyHead said:

For government communications, yes. There's typically a retention period for all official communications.

Click to expand...

MAGA (Make Attorneys Get Attorneys) strikes again.

-- A2SG, fortunately, Trump has hired a lot of them recently....

Here's an objective, rational take (hard to come by, these days) on the construction of the ballroom.

Dan1988 said:

None of your private opinions are based on Biblical truth. You believe that Devils are members of Christs Body, but you haven't shown a single verse to support your theory.

Click to expand...

That's not a very nice thing to say. In Jesus Time, the "main stream church" was the Pharisees. They had taken over the City of David, and Solomons Temple. They "professed to know God", claiming to be part of God's Church AKA, "Abraham's Children". Jesus Himself said they were "children of the devil". Lots of people chose to listen to them, rather than God's Word and as a result, they were deceived into joining with them with their man made shrines of worship, and their man made high days and man made judgments and Alms and prayers to be seen of men. True believers did not join with them, but to deny such a church exists, filled with "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, is a rejection of the Christ Himself. That is, the Jesus "of the bible".

Where does the tradition that all humans live for eternity come from? As I and others have tried to show from scriptures and discussions, it's a religious philosophy wrought in man, not God. Jude explains how this evil infects God's church.

Jude 1: 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Law and Prophests) 4 For there "are certain men crept in unawares", who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

10 But these speak evil "of those things which they know not": but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12 These are spots "in your feasts of charity", when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Paul speaks about this very thing as well.

2nd Corinthians 11: 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, "they may be found even as we". 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, "transforming themselves" into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; "for Satan himself" is transformed into an angel of light. (Wolf in sheep's clothing) 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed "as the ministers of righteousness"; whose end shall be according to their works.

And what is the doctrine that was promoted by satan in his very first recorded sermon? "Thou shall surely not die". You can find this Truth in the Holy Bible.

Dan1988 said:

I can't imagine the Lord allowing Demons to be a part of His Body. It would help if you identify the scriptures which support your theory.

Click to expand...

They are not part of the Body. You must make up stuff about others to satisfy a fleshy lust, as if I said or even implied that the devil is part of the Body of Christ. But Jesus, when asked about these times, HE didn't warn about Islam or Atheists. Please try and listen to the Jesus "of the bible" and here who HE warned about.

Matt. 24: 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed" that no man "deceive you". 5 For "many" shall come "in my name", saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and "shall deceive" many.

As you can see, Jesus' greatest fear for His People, was not Atheism or Islam or Buddha. His Greatest fear for His People was that they would be deceived by the "Many" who come in Christ's Name.

He warns again in Matt. 7:22 of "Many" self proclaimed "Christians", who work iniquity while claiming to be a member of the Body of Christ, calling HIM Lord, Lord.

The Law and Prophets prophesy and warn of this very thing over and over and over and over. But these men, "who professed to know God" wouldn't listen.

I advocate that men listen to HIM, not the popular religions of this world God placed us in, whose philosophies you are promoting.

Dan1988 said:

My Bible tells me that the Lord has no fellowship with Demons, so I must disagree with you again.

Click to expand...

And yet you are promoting the popular but false teaching that humans live forever. All I have advocated for is that a person consider "ALL" that is written, knowing that God's word doesn't contradict itself. And for that you judge me as believing the devil is part of the Body of Christ.

Perhaps you might step back a little and clean up your own house first, before making such judgments about others.

Something to think about.

Dan1988 said:

Everything I read from you,, reveals that your theology is unbiblical and strange. You claim to believe Gods Word, but you have been denying everything He said.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel the need to slander me in such a way. But Jesus did warn me that if I followed Him, it wouldn't be the drunkards and atheists that will ridicule and slander me, but men of my own household who call Jesus Lord, Lord.

Oh look at that, more trouble at SpaceX:

A2SG said:

Sure. It just struck me how hard certain people are pushing the narrative that these protests are "about nothing," or are pointless, or are accomplishing nothing. Granted, Johnson is pushing a slightly different narrative, but it seems to me a lot of work is being done by republicans to completely reframe what the protests claim to be about.

Something to think about, I suppose.

-- A2SG, that's what this thread is intended for, right? To discuss the protests....

Click to expand...

Yea, I had the same thought when the Speaker went out of his way to characterize the No Kings protestors....one week prior to the protest.

wing2000 said:

Did they remove the Melania floor lamp before the wrecking ball?

But seriously, I wonder what steps, if any, they took to remove and preserve historic artifacts in the East Wing?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them were moved to Mar-a-Lago.

RamiC said:

I would appreciate anyone joining me in prayers that peace in Northern Ireland survives the headlines about this.

Click to expand...

Hardly "headlines". This is the first I hear of this bit of non-news.

rjs330 said:

People who.love America aren't consistently trying to change it and make it more like Europe.

Click to expand...

You might want to review American history. The nation has changed constantly since its founding, with 27 constitutional amendments so far. Laws have been revised regarding freedom, voting rights, racial integration in schools, and seating on public transportation and many , many other issues. The United States has experienced continual legal and social changes over time. And we will keep doing this as we move forward.

JosephZ said:

"New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."

Click to expand...

Did they remove the Melania floor lamp before the wrecking ball?

But seriously, I wonder what steps, if any, they took to remove and preserve historic artifacts in the East Wing?

stevevw said:

You do undertand this is not just about effort but what sort of marks each method leaves in the stone. That copper saws, sand, water and time leave a completely different mark to what we are seeing in the marks of the out of place examples.

Or do you think they look the same. If we cut a stone with the traditional method and say a circular saw would there be any difference in the marks left on the stones.

Click to expand...

Show me the cross-section that shows that the stone was cut with a circular saw, instead of a piece of stone that could just be claimed to have been cut with a circular saw.

iluvatar5150 said:

This is one of the better typos I've seen recently.

Click to expand...

yikes...going coffee after amending it.

Servus said:

I did some Google Earth satellite viewing of the White House today. And what I noticed is the huge Treasury building right next to the East Wing building. And the even larger multi story Eisenhower building right next to the West Wing. Both of which signicantly dwarf the White House.

So being right next to the really big Treasury building, the ballroom isn't all that big in comparison to it. And the East Wing was an annex connected via a long corridor to the actual White House. An additional basically separate structure. That was considerably newer than the actual White House.

Click to expand...

The White House is listed as a historic landmark. Below are the guidelines that Trump should be following:


Size, scale, and massing of the new addition

The size, scale, and massing of a new addition all pertain to the addition’s overall volume and three-dimensional qualities. Taken together, size, scale and massing are critical elements for ensuring that a new addition is subordinate to the historic building, thus preserving the historic character of a historic property. Typically, a compatible addition should be smaller than the historic building in both height and footprint. However, there are other considerations that may allow moving away from this basic concept.

Depending on its location, it may be possible that an addition slightly taller or slightly larger than the historic building may be acceptable, as long as it is visually subordinate to the historic building. In some cases, separating the addition from the historic building with a small hyphen can reduce the impact of an addition that is larger than the historic building. Another way of minimizing the impact of a new addition to an historic building is to offset it or step it back from the mass of the historic building.


"New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Pointing out that you have only claims and no evidence is not 'avoiding the evidence'. But the stone can easily be cut with a copper saw, sand, water, time and man power. Especially with the last two, anything is possible.

Click to expand...

You do undertand this is not just about effort but what sort of marks each method leaves in the stone. That copper saws, sand, water and time leave a completely different mark to what we are seeing in the marks of the out of place examples.

Or do you think they look the same. If we cut a stone with the traditional method and say a circular saw would there be any difference in the marks left on the stones.

I also disagree with your obvious unsupported claim that the hardest stones can be easily cut by a copper saw, sand and water. The destinguishing aspect is 'time'. It takes a long time because its not easy. So your claim is self refuting.

Time itself does not magically create circular saw cuts.