New Posts

RDKirk · 2025-12-06T10:42:47-0600

Always in His Presence said:
But they were not "clinging to flotsam - floating in a life boat - or in freezing waters" - they got back into the boat and it was determined their actions were effectively re-engaging. It was completely legal to fire again according to the Commander and JAG officer making the decision.

The only person claiming that is Tom Cotton. Everyone else who has seen the video (and doesn't have his own okole to cover) says differently.

This is the problem facing the military people involved at the time: The LOAC required them to have rescue facilities, a plan of some kind, available to pick up survivors. Even if they had not killed the survivors, the fact that they carried out an attack without a means to rescue survivors is already a violation of the LOAC. Leaving them eventually to drown would already be a violation of the LOAC.

Essentially, their very plan of attack had already put them in violation of the LOAC...they planned to commit a crime. Everything after that was covering their own okoles.

David Hunter · 2025-12-06T10:41:43-0600

I'm back with another Sermon on the Mount Series, and this time we'll look at what Jesus says about knowing a tree by its fruit! And... the most scariest words He spoke...
Login to view embedded media

dogs4thewin · 2025-12-06T10:41:40-0600

comana said:
You trust those you know well to safely handle their firearm, but do you extend that same trust to just anyone who can legally open carry?

The fact of the matter is that people who can be trusted with guns can be trusted and those who cannot cannot I am not stupid enough to think that everyone with guns. I DO happen to oppose open carry ONLY on the grounds that the person loses the element of surprise if someone goes somewhere with bad intendents and they SEE someone has a gun that will go one of two ways either they will shoot the person OR they would go away because they know someone would shoot back.

I mean there are plenty of people who cannot trusted with guns who do not give darn that it is illegal. There are also people like ME who KNOW they should not carry would LOVE to carry but do not because they know better.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-06T10:41:09-0600

Always in His Presence said:
You don't consider following the law good?

I don't think you thought this through very well. This means the Obamacare mandates are good, because the Supreme Court declared them legal. Or a billion other examples could be given. The legal power to do something does not mean that every use of that power is good. Might does not make Right.

Always in His Presence said:
Did I comment on them personally, or the fact that we have a President following the law? (my own words).

Right, you have no idea whether the actual action was positive or negative. You're satisfied that Trump did it, and it was legal. Ergo good.

Always in His Presence said:
What makes you think it is not already politicized?

Because the way Congress, by law, planned these independent organizations to be set up helped to avoid political bias by having members hold terms that spanned presidential terms.

Always in His Presence said:
If the Supreme Court rules that the president has the power to do something - then the president has the power. Not according to political party, but according to the law..

As should be obvious to a child, not all uses of power are necessarily good, regardless of their legality.

Landon Caeli · 2025-12-06T10:40:58-0600

NxNW said:
The intention on Jan6 was to kill multiple officials.

Not by all.

RamiC · 2025-12-06T10:37:35-0600

CLEEB said:
If there were only two churches that is still one to many. How Jesus and the Apostles described the church is nothing like what it is in the world today. You tell me, which one of these churches is the true one, the Pentecost church ?

Please define "church" for the purposes of your point here. You see at the origin point of the church, the first Pentecost, there is only the one group of people present to become the first Christians and experience that. Things have changed since that moment, but there appears to be no instruction that time must be frozen right there so that all future believers are only ever at that very gathering.

Granted it would have been a thing to be there, the most exiting open gathering in history, but what do you suggest someone does if they want to be at church on Sunday morning in 2025? Is it that they should stay alone, because they must pick one, from some different options? Is it that they should compromise and select only the one most similar to the first one ever? Since adapted DeLoreans with flux-capacitators are not in real life to take us back to the beginning....

bbbbbbb · 2025-12-06T10:36:27-0600

Hentenza said:
In other words you cannot find a post crucifixion verse that teaches that the 4th commandment is required of the Christian or a verse that shows that the sabbath was kept before Moses.

Your misuse and weaponization of Jesus words to accuse me of not being a believer shows the extent to where you will go when presented with an argument that you can’t defend so instead of concluding that you are indeed wrong you resort to ad hom attacks. How typical. You have lost all credibility.

I agree. This base and groundless attack serves the only purpose to end any possibility of reasonable discussion.

wing2000 · 2025-12-06T10:29:34-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
And sponge off the welfare system for decades while bringing their "war-torn" pirate community and producing more generations of welfare sucking leaches. Now, tell me how Somalian heritage has benefitted the United States? Because you just provided nothing but that they are just another mouth to feed.

In other words, they are "fleeing their war-torn country" to relocate their "war-torn country" to America where they can reap the benifits of a welfare state and send it back to said "war-torn country" so their families can come and bring more of their "war-torn country" back to America while they replicate said "war-torn country." This cycle continues. So please try again.

No, I won't humor your narrow and uninformed views any further. Go live your life blaming others.

lucypevensie · 2025-12-06T10:28:15-0600

postage stamps

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-06T10:27:08-0600

JohnB445 said:
however they want undeniable proof and facts. How do we give them that?

That's a good question. You don't even need to provide undeniable proof, but for a scientific discussion, you will need to provide some evidence as a starting point.

durangodawood · 2025-12-06T10:26:56-0600

essentialsaltes said:
The 'essay' itself is floating around and it really does bear no resemblance to a piece of academic writing, even a poor one.

Im almost afraid to read it. My faith in undergrad writing has already been shaken by certain experiences.

(I wonder if this deficiency has infected the advanced degree population by now?)

lucypevensie · 2025-12-06T10:26:11-0600

You tried living in Uruguay?

URURA

Michie · 2025-12-06T10:24:01-0600

Servus said:
Takes me back to:

Login to view embedded media

Scary. It would be interesting to see what those kids are up to today.

Hentenza · 2025-12-06T10:20:04-0600

Fervent said:
The issue is you're taking quotes out of context, so no amount of individual quotes can establish what you're attempting, especially since none of them claim that Scripture exhausts revelation or is wholly sufficient If they thought as much they wouldn't have written at all and would have simply sent Scripture quotes.

Show me how I am taking quotes out of context. Present evidence to that effect.

Fervent said:
Not quite, the councils came about because there were people using the Scriptures to push heretical positions and so the ECFs decided they needed an official statement for what puts one on the outside of orthodoxy. If they thought Scripture was sufficient there would have been no need for a council.

But councils used the scriptures as the litmus test to evaluate and interpret doctrines that were heretical. Their responsibility was one of interpretation of scripture.

Fervent said:
The issue is your interpretation of Scripture treats church tradition as a separate authority, rather than recognizing the Scripture exists within the tradition even though it is the normative element of that tradition.

I believe that tradition is dependent on scripture not at equal footing to scripture. Even if we take just the inspiration quality of scripture tradition does not raise to the same level.

Fervent said:
None of that is contrary to what I've been saying

It is. You deny the sui generis of scripture but this quote refutes that. Particularly in this portion: “these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.” Traditions change while scriptures do not.

Fervent said:
We haven't progressed to the evidence phase because you've jumped on various threads and provided no response to my primary contention which is about theopneustos in 2 Tim 3:16

“All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness

bible.com

It just means of Devine origin. God breathed (actual definition of theopneustos) out through human authors who used their own personalities and writing styles but were supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit to convey His message accurately, making it authoritative for teaching and guidance. It's God's direct speech through people, not just a human idea or construct like tradition, ensuring the text's divine source and truth.

How can your definition be any different? And if it was then why did you not post it but demanded that I post it first? I smell you playing games but correct me if am wrong.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-06T10:17:57-0600

Kash Patel ordered FBI detail to give girlfriend’s pal a lift home: sources

Patel’s girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, asked FBI agents on her security team at least two times, including once this spring, to drive her friend home, and agents objected to diverting from their assignment, said the sources, who were granted anonymity to discuss nonpublic matters. But Patel insisted they do as Wilkins requested and in one case called the leader of Wilkins’ security detail and yelled at him to do so.

FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson broadly disputed that such events took place.

“This is made up and did not happen,” Williamson said.

At Patel’s direction, the FBI provides a separate security detail for Wilkins, 27, a country music performer who lives part time in Nashville for her work. The FBI security detail, first reported by MS NOW, is made up of members of an elite SWAT team based in the area. It has spurred concerns about Patel abusing FBI resources to essentially drive his girlfriend around for various events and appointments. The FBI has never before provided a separate security detail for a director’s girlfriend. Spouses of past directors typically received episodic security protection, but only when they were traveling with their spouse and the director’s detail.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-06T10:14:36-0600

essentialsaltes said:
I'm just asserting the First Amendment. The conversation was settled 200+ years ago.

But maybe we can have a different conversation. Maybe you can join us and try strengthening the First Amendment rather than chipping away at it.

If you don't want government funded 'madrassas', then you have to eliminate government funding for private religious schools. If you don't want the Five Pillars of Islam on the wall, you have to take down the 10 Commandments.

Servus · 2025-12-06T10:13:39-0600

JohnB445 said:
I do take advice from AI, but I learned to not treat AI like it is perfect in its answers.

I asked AI about forgiveness, it said it's a good thing, but not good to forgive those who are not remorseful, and who are still malicious.

I would find it hard to forgive those people, and very hard to forgive someone who took pleasure in hurting me.

What does the Bible say, am I supposed to really forgive a murderer that killed my mom and dad if it happened? It did not happen just as an example, what if the murderer doesn't take any accountability has no remorse, and the murderer took pleasure in his crimes. Am I still supposed to forgive?

AI is pretty dumb at times and its answers should be challenged. I would have asked it "but isn't holding a grudge destructively unhealthy?". You shouldn't take its answers at face value unless you already know them to be correct. It still has a lot of learning and developing to do. AI itself will tell you as much.

CLEEB · 2025-12-06T10:10:18-0600

PloverWing said:
This is what I see when I click the down-arrow under her profile picture:

View attachment 374072

Are you sure this doesn't work for you?

OK, I tried that and got what you did. Thank you for your help.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-12-06T10:07:50-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Forget the autopen, now we have unelected bureaucrats determining who the president did and didn't pardon.

DOJ claims it has the power to decide who gets Trump’s sweeping 2020 pardon
The Justice Department is deciding who's covered by extremely vague pardons.

The pardon’s language is so vague and limitless that it could apply to thousands of people. And now Trump’s Justice Department says it’s up to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Pardon Attorney Ed Martin to decide who, and which possible crimes, Trump actually meant to cover.

There’s no modern precedent — and maybe no historical precedent, either — for a president to delegate his pardon power to subordinates on a pardon this vaguely worded.

Even past examples of blanket pardons, such as Andrew Johnson’s sweeping clemency after the Civil War, Jimmy Carter’s pardon for Vietnam-era draft dodgers and Joe Biden’s pardon for marijuana offenses relied on more explicit criteria.

The most comparable pardon, experts say, is Trump’s Inauguration Day pardon for the perpetrators of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol — a pardon so vague that it spawned legal battles across the country about whether Jan. 6 defendants could apply it to crimes that had nothing to do with the riot.

Trump’s latest blanket pardon applies to “all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors … in connection with the 2020 Presidential election.” And while Trump identifies 77 recipients, he emphasizes that the pardon is not limited to the initial list. Trump then charges Bondi and Martin to issue pardon certificates to “eligible applicants.”

Pardon experts say this unusual delegation of pardon power is exacerbated by the vague language of the pardon itself, essentially leaving decisions about who’s covered to the judgment of Trump’s subordinates.

Oh, it'll be interesting to see this go to the current SCOTUS, who loves letting federal agencies exercise their own discretion. /s

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-12-06T10:06:37-0600

stevevw said:
There you go then. All this jumping the gun stuff is typical of those who hate Trump and his admin. Lets just let all the facts come out.

What I find telling is that Trump haters are quite willing to crucify him and his admin at the drop of a hat making all sorts of crazy claims. Its their MO and its happened time and time again. They did it to Kirk and others. Attacked Musk and his business just because he was associated with Trump. Then they did it to Hegseth.

I don;t trust one word the legacy media and Trump haters say.

Why do you care so much if we like Trump? I don’t see what liking him has to do with holding this administration accountable to their actions. Do you believe Trump fans weren’t doing the same for Biden, Harris, Obama, Clinton?

BlessedDisciple · 2025-12-06T10:00:27-0600

The words are from O Come, O Come, Emmanuel.

The Liturgist · 2025-12-06T09:42:56-0600

CLEEB said:
What I read in the scriptures is that the number who will be saved is few. I read that Jesus said Christians are taught by GOD through Jesus the mediator. I read that Jesus had a GOD and it was his FATHER. I read that human beings are totally mortal and must put thrift of immortality on. I see that men cannot properly interpret scripture because only the Holy Spirit of the FATHER does that. I see there was to be a great deception. I look at this world with 2.2 billion people all claiming to be Christians and I do not believe that. Many think we chose GOD and Christ but scripture says they choose us. There is something very wrong in what is called Christianity.

Jesus Christ is God, the incarnate Logos, by whom all things were made, according to John 1:1, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit - three coeternal, coequal persons, ever one God, the holy, indivisible and life giving Trinity (Matthew 28:19, 1 John 5:7-9, etc).

Yttrium · 2025-12-06T09:34:08-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
I think immigrants should be asked, "If war broke out between the United States and your home country, which side would you support?" It the answer isn't immediately "The United States," they should leave.

Hey, that would get rid of all the people who aren't spontaneous conversationalists too. We all know what trouble they are.

New Posts

New Posts

Kash Patel ordered FBI detail to give girlfriend’s pal a lift home: sources​

DOJ claims it has the power to decide who gets Trump’s sweeping 2020 pardon​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Kash Patel ordered FBI detail to give girlfriend’s pal a lift home: sources

DOJ claims it has the power to decide who gets Trump’s sweeping 2020 pardon