Latest activity

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2025

Delvianna said:
Please say that louder for the ones in the back that are saying illegals receive no free health care.

Because services from (community health centers, migrant health centers, and free clinics) are federally funded.

So while there is an argument about ACA funding for illegals, what difference does it make if our tax dollars are funding them anyway? Whether it's through ACA funding or something else with another title?

The claim is that Democrats want to extend eligibility of programs to undocumented immigrants. That is a lie.

If you ask me if I think that a person, regardless of who they are, deserves something as basic as healthcare, especially life-saving healthcare. Then of course I do.

Democrats may not want to extend these programs to undocumented immigrants.

My personal view is that healthcare is a basic human right, and in the wealthiest country in the world that right should exist for everyone; not just citizens and legal residents, but even undocumented immigrants. If a person is here illegally, they should receive life-saving treatment; and the legality of their status can be addressed later, and through proper procedure they can either remain here legally or be deported back to their country of origin.

That is humane, just, and lawful.

The opposite of what is going on right now and how things are in America. Where the conditions are inhumane, unjust, and unlawful.

-CryptoLutheran

fhansen · Nov 4, 2025

timf said:
If one considers ethics to an an agreed upon set of rules for conduct such as the code of Hammurabi and other ancient laws, one might consider "morality" as going beyond conduct to motives for behavior such as the danger of "coveting". One might even ask if philosophies such as Stoicism were influenced by Jewish law.

There are elements of ethics in Jewish law as well as proscriptions for activities to remind them of the God they were supposed to remember. However, one can find elements of morality beyond don't steal because you might be punished to don't steal because it is wrong to hurt someone else.

One might even say that God used Israel to introduce morality such that people would start doing less harm to others. One might then see in Christianity and advance in that the idea of even doing good for others is introduced.

Interesting possibilities.

Morality, the law, was given to the Jews primarily so that, through their experience, the world could definitively come to know that sin exists, and that we all participate, failing to live up to a righteousness that “ought to be”. It explains why we live in a messed up world with all its division, competition, destruction, and harm, with its lack of love, IOW. It demonstrates that something is missing. With that bit of knowledge now, man can be all the more primed and ready to accept God’s next step “in the fullness of time”, the advent of His Son who provides the answer to the problem of sin and death. Man needs God, first of all, before he can be as he was created to be, before he can love as he was created to love. That's what's missing.

Fervent · Nov 4, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
Sure, ok.

They influence my behaviour, and that have kept me out of trouble and helped me live a life of satisfaction. Isn't that a guide of some sort?

Perhaps a social guide, but unless you believe that popularity makes a proposition moral then that fails to amount to a moral guide. it simply means you are sensitive to social consensus.

iluvatar5150 · Nov 4, 2025

Oompa Loompa said:
I am not even going to watch the interview because I already know it was cut and edited to make Trump look just as bad as they did, trying to prop Kamala Harris up to make her look good.

Oh, you know that, huh? We have the full transcript as well as the two edited videos. Which parts were cut out to make Trump look bad?

Here's the tv edit:

President Donald Trump: The 2025 60 Minutes Interview

Watch as President Trump discusses testing nuclear weapons, U.S.-China relations, Israel, the government shutdown, immigration, tariffs, and whether he'll try to stay in the White House beyond 2028.

www.cbsnews.com

Here's the extended online edit:

President Donald Trump's extended 60 Minutes interview

Norah O'Donnell sat down with President Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago to discuss U.S.-China relations, Venezuela, Israel, the government shutdown, immigration, the National Guard and more. Editor's note: The video above is an extended version of the interview that was broadcast on 60 Minutes on...

www.cbsnews.com

Here's the full transcript:

Read the full transcript of Norah O'Donnell's interview with President Trump here.

www.cbsnews.com

Here's Axios describing some of what was cut from the different versions, including the question about his pardon of Changpeng Zhao that didn't make it into either one:

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/03/trump-60-minutes-editing-criticism-binance

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2025

Tuur said:
And there it is.

So as the Republicans have been burning this country to the ground under Trump's anarchic regime; the Democrats finally put up a meager token of resistance by refusing to sign onto the CR, which would once again hurt the American people, and rather than the Republicans negotiating they took their toys and went home. But we're supposed to blame the Democrats?

It's like I'm supposed to apologize to the guy holding me hostage, and then thank him after he shoots me in the leg as a "warning".

-CryptoLutheran

essentialsaltes · Nov 4, 2025

Fantine said:
To be fair, in a rare moment of lucidity, Trump wants to charge $100K for visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

And we certainly don't hear much about the failure that was DOGE anymore.

essentialsaltes · Nov 4, 2025

iluvatar5150 said:
This is a pretty significant misread of things.

I know loads and loads of people who want the wealthy to pay more - few of them are poor or even struggling;
most are degreed, ✅
working professionals ✅
with household incomes north of $200k ✅

ViaCrucis · Nov 4, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
To clarify, it is accurate that illegal immigrants cannot enroll in federal healthcare programs, but they can be served by them in emergency circumstances.

Funds from Medicaid for example, can be used for illegal immigrants. Like if an illegal immigrant has a heart attack.

I'd like to think that any reasonable person would support life-saving medical treatment in an emergency for anyone, regardless of who the person is.

If someone believes that someone should be denied medical treatment for a heart attack (for example), then frankly they are a psychopath.

-CryptoLutheran

essentialsaltes · Nov 4, 2025

camille70 said:
Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino accused of violating restraining order by throwing tear gas in Little Village

MSN

Greg Bovino Immediately Flouts Chicago Court Order, Lawyers Say

MSN

Feds Drop Case Against Man Accused of Injuring Greg Bovino’s Groin

The man who federal agents accused of dealing Greg Bovino a groin injury from which the Border Patrol commander purportedly needed two weeks to recover will no longer face charges after prosecutors on Monday moved to drop their case against him.

Per a motion to dismiss the complaint, federal prosecutors will no longer pursue a charge of impeding a federal officer. Cole Sheridan, the protester, was initially charged with assaulting and impeding a federal officer over an Oct. 3 protest in which a Homeland Security Investigations agent accused the man of shoving Bovino. Prosecutors could still bring charges against Sheridan in another form.

Bovino has become a one-man flashpoint in Operation Midway Blitz, the administration’s escalation in Chicago, orchestrating showy stunts like a raid on a South Side apartment complex last month that involved Black Hawk helicopters. More recently, Bovino made a series of bizarre tactical hand gestures as he left a court hearing last week while surrounded by press.

Footage of the alleged altercation failed to support the assault claim, per reports from the hearing.

Bovino can't obey court orders and yet again DHS exaggerates incidents to threaten protestors with legal troubles.

Chesterton · Nov 4, 2025

Larniavc said:
Please don’t encourage people to break forum rules by ‘calling’ folks out.

You left out a sentence. It's perfectly fine to comment on the content of posts.

Belk · Nov 4, 2025

rjs330 said:
Because they are asking us to be involved in their lives and paying for their stuff. If they just paid for their own stuff they could buy what they want. But if you are saying you cant afford to eat, then take our money and buy junk with it, apparently you dont really need the food that badly.

They can buy nutritious food with our money and if they really want junk food then buy it with their own.

No they are not. They are asking for assistance from their government. That there are some so desperate to decide what constitutes "good choices" in order to justify the assistance is strange to me. If liberals demanded that SNAP recipients could not buy red meat because of its health effects and limited it to tofu they would be rightly castigated. I see this as no different.

Apple Sky · Nov 4, 2025

Strong in Him said:
He said "I cannot see France from my widow," and you replied "you can see it from Dover".
How does that answer his comment?

Why did he mention France ? I hadn't.

Fervent · Nov 4, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
Being good moral guides just means that they let me determine what I feel is moral (it feels good) or not (it feels bad). They have also been useful, as indicated by my addition.

So you're saying nothing at all when you say they are 'good moral guides" since all you're saying is that your feelings are your feelings.

Stopped_lurking said:
You're using 'good' as a synonym with moral when trying to point out the inconsistency, I meant it in the useful sense.

I'm using "good" in an ordinary sense, it's the "guides" portion I am saying is meaningless without a benchmark to be working toward.

iluvatar5150 · Nov 4, 2025

rjs330 said:
I don't think its just a lack of empathy. Its worse than that. Its envy, jealousy and greed. Yes, we certainly can say that there are greedy rich folks out there. But there are just as many greedy folksout there that are not rich. They are full of envy and are covetous of other people's stuff. Those that walk around demanding the rich pay their fair share are really demanding a piece of their property. Irs not their money, but they want it anyway.

And people like Mamdani feed into that greed. He feeds rhe jealousy.

This is a pretty significant misread of things.

I know loads and loads of people who want the wealthy to pay more - few of them are poor or even struggling; most are degreed, working professionals with household incomes north of $200k - and it almost never has anything to do with jealousy or greed. The overwhelming drive is a posture of communal responsibility and a feeling that we're letting the wealthy off the hook. It's essentially a matter of fairness and justice rather than greed. Your interpretation makes sense in a hyperindividualist world where everyone is self-made and an island, but that's not reality, nor is it the perspective from which these folks view the world.

While I don't always agree with the details espoused by folks in this movement, I think the gist is generally correct. I doubt you could find a single rich person in the country today whose wealth wasn't substantially dependent upon publicly-funded structures, institutions, and/or research and, without which, they would be paupers like the rest of us. Because of that, it's not unreasonable -nor is it necessarily a matter of jealousy- to expect them to kick some of that wealth back into the public coffers.

Belk · Nov 4, 2025

rjs330 said:
Nope, wouldnt say anything. But I probably wouldn't give them any more money. If they were hungry, I'd go buy them the food. And pots and pans so they could cook it.

That strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

fhansen · Nov 4, 2025

doubtingmerle said:
People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

Login to view embedded media &t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

An absolute or objective moraltiy means that it's anchored in more than human opinion, which is subject to change, but in something much bigger and external to ourselves, anchored in God the Creator. By knowing that goodness and justice and order and love lie at the very foundations of this universe, determined by a good God whose image we're actually made in, we can know that human life, too, is definitively ordered to that end.

lucypevensie · Nov 4, 2025

Lost soul

rambot · Nov 4, 2025

rjs330 said:
Becauae you are literally taking someone's property and giving it to someone else. How can you not understand that.

1) You fundamentally undersdtand the concept of taxes so I won't belabour that point.
2) What other tax dollars do you pay where you can MICROMANAGE how every dollar is spent? None

This isn't about "your property" (laughable phrase); once your money LEAVES your possesssion it's no longer "your property".

This is about wanting to exert control over other people; you can window dress it how you like but it's built on some shady logic.

rjs330 said:
Try that with your kids at school. Take their A and give it to another kid who got a D and then Give them both a C. See what they and their parents have to say about it.

This may be the most absurd comparison I've ever seen in a while.

Also, I teach behaviour. None of my kids have IQs over 80. They aren't the A kids.

essentialsaltes · Nov 4, 2025

Trump administration must restore grants for school counselors, judge rules

The Oct. 27 preliminary ruling by Kymberly K. Evanson, a U.S. District Court judge in Seattle, applies to only some grantees in the 16 Democratic-led states that challenged the Education Department’s decision, including California.

[Congress funded the program in 2022 after Uvalde.]

lucypevensie · Nov 4, 2025

Or was it a dinner table?

Apple Sky · Nov 4, 2025

Hentenza said:
Poetic and symbolic language that is not meant to be interpreted literally. Here God is likening the creation of the world to clay being stamped by a seal which denotes the formation of the earth by God’s hand. The garment folds refer to God creating landscapes.

Sorry - I don't agree with you here, God is is telling us the shape of the earth.

lucypevensie · Nov 4, 2025

Oh, that seems kinda yucky.

YUCKY

Fervent · Nov 4, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
It seems as moral as Nicomachean ethics to me. What is your point?

Just pointing out an inconsistency in your denial of real morality, since by claiming that your feelings have been good moral guides you indicate that there is a real benchmark for what constitutes moral. if they are simply arbitrary feelings, then there is no "good" to be had.

fhansen · Nov 4, 2025

9Rock9 said:
So, I want to explore political philosophy and how it relates to Christianity.

Ideally, our faith should inform our politics, but not the other way around. Yet, this unfortunately not the case in reality. I don't intend to turn this into a finger pointing game between the left and the right, I just want to explore options here.

Should the government enact policies that reflect Christian policies?

One could argue yes, since a Christian government could provide a moral foundation for an otherwise secular society and arguably improves everyone's lives. On the other hand, one can say that the government would just bastardize Christianity and use it as a weapon for social control.

What about libertarianism? The Bible says to help the poor and needy. Yet, does that mean we should petition the government to do it, or is charity a personal responsibility for us as Christians, and thus we should not outsource it to the state?

Should there be a government? There are verses that seem to advocate for submitting to earthly authorities. Then again, many of these earthly authorities have, and sometimes still do, put innocent people to death. It can also be argued that the government has a monopoly on force and violence.

What are your thoughts?

I'm personally undecided, but that's why I made this thread. I want to see what others think to help me find out where I stand.

Christians are most definitely called to change this world, towards justice, towards God's will, even while knowing that heaven will never be realized on this earth. A theocracy, IOW, is impossible here. But either way we're not to just isolate, to fail to work against those human mentalites and resulting systems and structures that cause war, genocide, starvation, victimization, abuse, mass abortion, etc.

durangodawood · Nov 4, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics/dick-cheney-death-obit

Dick Cheney, America’s most powerful modern vice president and chief architect of the “war on terror,” who helped lead the country into the ill-fated Iraq war on faulty assumptions, has died, according to a statement from his family. He was 84.

Your favorite kind of guy: one who offers "the left" things to both hate and, lately, love.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Trump administration must restore grants for school counselors, judge rules​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Trump administration must restore grants for school counselors, judge rules