Freth said:

I agree. We should be holy and without blame before Him in love, which is why I quoted it and underlined it to emphasize that point.

Ephesians 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.​

The adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself is unto salvation. What is salvation? Being saved by Jesus from this sinful world with the hope of eternal life. So yes, He has chosen us in Him to be holy and without blame; to be saved, to receive eternal life; which is exactly why I quoted John 3:16-17.

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

Paul:

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.​

I'll go back and edit my conclusion in that post so there is no confusion.

Click to expand...

No the verse does not say predestined us to adoption to salvation. The verse says predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus.

It is not predestination to adoption to sons by The Father or The Holy Spirit, but by Jesus. That is what the predestination is about that believers would be adopted as sons by Jesus and not The Father or The Holy Spirit.

having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Have you noticed that there is a rising tension and even conflict in a wide range of nations across the world that is homing in on religious belief and specifically Christian.

That religious belief should become an issue for elections. That belonging to the church is a problem politically. That more and more people are specifically mentioning and using religion and specifically Christianity in the context of it being a problem to exist in modern society.

Is this because perhaps Christian belief is being contrasted to world ideologies and dark forces that fundementally hate Christ. Or is this a natural progression of politics or how the world has evolved into identity politics. Or maybe a bit of both.

Or maybe the politics has become personal and thus has to include beliefs. Maybe its always been about beliefs and how the world should be ordered under the various human made ideas. As opposed to God. Its just that now its coming out as a spiritual battle that was always going to happen. People are actually expressing their hate for Christians. When they express hate for opposing beliefs they are actually meaning Christians and Christ.

This is part of the problem. That in a postmodernist culture where everything is rationalised into reality by feelings and subjective experiences that we can no longer declare the truths of the bible. Even objective sciences are being reimagined as just another naarrative rather than objective fact.

We seen this transformation happen in the last generation and even more recently. It was only 20 odd years ago that sex was a biological fact that we all agreed and gender was linked to sex but there was also a gender identity which was a seperate thing and socially constructed based on the biological reality.

Then we seen the change that came along with a bunch of other reimaginings that sex was a social construction and gender the reality.

Just because we are Christians doesn't mean we can defy Gods biological reality. This is a modern day ideological belief and there is no basis. A man cannot become a women nor a women a man.

The problem is that some with good intentions interpret Christianity as totally detached from Gods creation reality. Love becomes love and all accepting and there is no room for sin, judgement and punishment because its confrontational and exclusive and perceieved as hurting people.

But its not. It is true love that we tell the truth to save souls even if that may seem uncomfortable. Christ church stands independent and different to the world. It is a light in the darkness of the world.

If the church is the same as the world then where is that light on the hill. The church is bowing to the world rather than standing seperate and different to the world. Or being pleasing and conforming to the world. Pleasing humans an not God.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

The ACA is not without its flaws, and some of the commitments made by President Obama during its enactment were arguably optimistic. Nevertheless, it remains the prevailing healthcare option.

Since its passage, congressional Republicans have attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times, yet they have not presented a viable alternative. Over the past 14 years, GOP politicians have consistently highlighted the shortcomings of the ACA; however, no substantive proposals have been offered as a replacement. This pattern suggests a tendency to criticize the system without demonstrating a genuine interest in constructive reform or proposing workable alternatives.

Your argument appears focused primarily on critiquing President Obama's statements from 15 years ago, as well as rising health insurance premiums, rather than offering a good-faith alternative to the ACA. It gives the impression that opposition is driven more by partisanship than by a commitment to seeking effective solutions for American healthcare.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, the GOP's only attempt to reform the health care system was the Heritage Foundation plan from 1989. They tried to introduce a bill proposing that back in 1993, but it failed. Their only objection to the plan came when President Obama decided to implement it. Their problem doesn't seem to be with the plan itself, despite their protestations, but with who implemented it.

I don't think they have any other ideas, they certainly can't seem to come up with any. I suspect the main reason for that is the massive amount of money generated by the for-profit health insurance industry, and how much of that is donated to various political campaigns.

-- A2SG, as the sage Cyndi Lauper once noted, money changes everything....

Richard T said:

Since a Few D.O.'s treat patients similarily with adjustments,

Click to expand...

What are DO’s?

BCP1928 said:

So what was the deal? Those technicians were not just illegal immigrants sneaking in to work. They were here to help build a plant for Americans to work in. Their employer thought they were legal, their government though they were legal and they thought they were legal and when they had finished the plant they intended to go home. They were actually doing us a favor so we shackle them like criminals?

Click to expand...

Look you can question tactics or procedures all you want. I've actually got no issues with that. I dont agree with some of their procedures. But I don't have any issues with them enforcing the laws. Should they have been shackled? Maybe not. I don't know why they were. Should handcuffs been good enough. Maybe so. I'm not going to argue whether or they should have or should have not be shackled or if handcuffed should.have been enough.

DaisyDay said:

So you didn't bother to read the link I provided you in post #69 that you quoted and replied to

Click to expand...

Yes I did read it. It doesn't answer the questions I posed. How many were deported that were here illegally? How many were deported due to their visas being expired, How many were deported who had visas that didn't allow them to work?

DaisyDay said:

It's unclear how/if those with "business visas" were violating those visas. Unfortunately, the government often issues statements that don't comport with reality as shown by videos, subsequent statements, etc.

Click to expand...

So you don't know.

DaisyDay said:

Americans also do NOT feel that way. A LOT of them. Your question is unanswerable as the premise is flawed and not applicable.

Click to expand...

Yes and its probably all the liberals. Why do you want illegals here so badly? Why dont you want them to go home and come legally?

DaisyDay said:

Now that they do understand, even you have admitted that support has waned, so maybe don't claim that unmodified "Americans" support whatever you believe when unmodified "Americans" also do not.

Click to expand...

So? At the time of the election the majority of Americans DID want it done. Americans, 50% now still want it. So yes Ameticans support it. And in fact over 50% STILL support it. When you take all the variables the majority still support it. Its still the minority that don't want it. You are still in the minority.

DaisyDay said:

Okay, then it is a meaningful appeal to emotion.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly what you, the mainstream media and a lot of social.media are doing. Appealing to emotion. I support the law and rhe reasons for the laws in place. You support emotional appeals.

DaisyDay said:

This is in dispute.

Click to expand...

Not according to the story you posted. He wasnt a citizen, natural born OR naturalized.

Dikaioumenoi said:

It's not an issue of my understanding. The issue is you're wanting to force me to argue something I haven't argued. Let's make this very simple.

You have said that the drawing of the Father (in John 6:44) can fail, correct?

The drawing of the Father (in John 6:44) makes salvation possible, correct? It enables one to come to Christ.

How is it possible, then, for one to come to Christ, if the Father's act of enabling them, can fail? You keep saying "God provides the ability to come." That contradicts your earlier argument that God's provision of that ability can fail.

We're not talking about whether or not the drawing is effectual in producing faith. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, my argument that it is has nothing to do with the meaning of ἑλκύω itself. We were talking about the meaning of ἑλκύω. You argued that ἑλκύω in John 6:44 can fail. Yet does not ἑλκύω refer to God's provision of the ability to come? How then is it possible to come, if God's attempt to provide the ability can fail?

I'm not arguing for my point of view right now; I'm critiquing the consistency of yours. I'm trying to show you ἑλκύω means a decisive movement from one position (inability) to another (ability). That does not mean that the movement in view is necessarily from unbelief to irresistible faith. The meaning of ἑλκύω is not the basis of that argument. That is a different argument. What I am focused on right now is trying to show you that your attempt to soften the definition of ἑλκύω does not aid your point of view, nor does it challenge mine.

Click to expand...

I see. You don’t even believe what you’re saying here yourself. No alternative makes any sense. It’s not His attempt to provide the possibility, BTW; He really does provide it.

Fervent said:

Not really "addressing" the point by engaging in whataboutism...it's just defending "your" guy by pointing to something someone else did.

Click to expand...

Could you please point out to me exactly what I said that "defended" the practice of gerrymandering? Quotes would be preferable.

Oh, and just so you're clear, Newsom isn't "my guy." As I've told you before, I do not live in California. Though, it is a nice place to visit.

Fervent said:

The money is a part of it, with millions of dollars spent.

Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? Who paid for those ads?

Fervent said:

The ccontent is another, where the ballot summary did mention the intent the ads that were run did not.

Click to expand...

And that was a lie, somehow? Please point out the falsehood for me. I don't live in California, so I did not see the ads or the ballot summary.

Fervent said:

I disagree that they have the right to vote if they don't do their due diligence, because all they are doing is silencing people who actually understand what is going on. Children are also affected by elections, but they have no right to vote because they lack the understanding.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing rights that actually exist with rights you believe should (or should not) exist. The fact is, every adult US citizen, informed on any particular issue or not, has the legal right to vote. Your position seems to be that you don't believe they should have that right. You are, of course, entitled to hold that opinion, but the facts remain: in the US, the right to vote does not depend on how informed you are, nor is it limited by a lack of knowledge.

Fervent said:

Yeah, I tend to stick to local politics and mostly ignore national politics as much as I can since at that level it all just seems like petty gamesmanship with both sides being either inept or corrupt.

Click to expand...

That often happens at every level, but when the stakes are higher, the petty gamesmanship increases. But it can only change if people who refuse to accept it get involved and work to change things, both on the local and national levels.0

Fervent said:

I suppose you could put it that way, though it seems that our current system is far more favorable to oligarchy since it is all money anyway.

Click to expand...

But that seems to be the system you favor over our current one, is that not correct?

Fervent said:

Nope, morality that is subjective isn't morality. It's just opinions.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there isn't any other kind of morality. Just as an example, try and name even one single moral principle that is applicable to every person, including those who disagree with that moral principle.

Fervent said:

He gave the impression that the current maps were somehow unfair and needed correction.

Click to expand...

Impressions can often be misinterpreted. Exactly what did he say, and was that actual statement false?

Fervent said:

Outside of the ballot summary he made almost no mention of his intent to gerrymander the districts as a response to TX republicans. It was lying by omission.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall hearing him say that was his intent quite a bit, and I don't live in California. Are you sure you didn't just miss the times he mentioned it?

Fervent said:

Depends on how they went about it, as we will soon see whether demographic proxy fits the Supreme Courts ruling.

Click to expand...

We already know the SCOTUS has ruled that gerrymandering isn't illegal or unconstitutional. If there is a legal challenge to Newsom's ballot initiative, I guess we'll have to see how that turns out, but as it stands, without a reversal of the current SCOTUS ruling, gerrymandering isn't illegal or unconstitutional.

Fervent said:

And to call what Newsome did 'acting in a democratic way" is absolutely laughable, especially when what he did was blatant gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

I never said his plan wasn't to gerrymander. What I said was the way he went about it, asking the voters to decide if he should have the ability to do it within a specific time period, was more democratic than simply deciding to do it by fiat, under orders from an authoritarian president.

Keep in mind, per SCOTUS, gerrymandering isn't undemocratic. It's allowable under the law.

Fervent said:

'HEy, let's take away the minorities rights. As long as we vote on it, it's fine."

Click to expand...

Does Newsom's proposed redistricting plan take away anyone's right to vote, whether they're in a minority group or not? Or any other rights, for that matter? If you're going to make accusations, please be specific.

Fervent said:

You are defending gerrymandering, which you claim to be against.

Click to expand...

I have never done that. Not even one single time. And to prove that, I challenge you to find a single quote by me that defends the practice in any way, shape or form.

Keep in mind, just in case you're unclear on the idea, that simply acknowledging that something is legal is not a defense of that act.

Fervent said:

You may not be acting in a way that challenges your integrity because you lack the power, but a lack of power doesn't change the fact that you seem to be defending somehting you claim to be against in principle.

Click to expand...

And there's the problem. You say I "seem to be" defending gerrymandering. Your perception is incorrect. And the fact that you actually seem to acknowledge my continued claims to disagree with it while ignoring them to continue your mischaracterization of me is very telling. Please knock it off.

Fervent said:

Perhaps if you stopped defending it, then I would accept it?

Click to expand...

I'd have to start first, and I'm not going to.

-- A2SG, but feel free to try and quote me defending the act of gerrymandering....it'll be fun to see what you come up with....

Servus said:

Their media keeps pushing the dead end narrative. It'll be the same thing with Epstein. It'll turn out to be nothing, and the left wing will keep saying things like "but they had thanksgiving together!".

Click to expand...

Yeah.

"This whole thing with Epstein is going to turn out to be a big nothing". I can't believe what Trump supporters are willing to stoop to.


Honestly,... like...I'm speechless with what people are prepared to reason away.

Servus said:

It looks like Trump's supposed campaign promise to release the entirety of the Epstein files is based on him saying this in an interview:

“Yeah, yeah, I would. … But I think — less so … because you don’t know — you don’t want to affect people’s lives if there’s phony stuff in there, because there’s a lot of phony stuff in that whole world.” - Donald Trump.

"But I think — less so" sure doesn't sound like a promise to release the whole enchilada. And not really a campaign promise as if he was behind a podium at a campaign rally and declared "I promise that I will declassify and release every bit of information contained in the Epstein files". Even though there are those on the left making it sound that way.

Seems like more of the usual hoaxy misinformation propaganda we've come to expect from the left-wing.

Click to expand...

...
Lol!
Of all the "left wing hoaxes" to spend ANY time on to make Trump look better, that is a weird one.

172.

Sometimes false prophets spoke to the people of Israel. False teachers will also sneak in and speak harmful lies to you. But these teachers don't really belong to the Master who paid a great price for them, and they will quickly destroy themselves.
2 Peter 2:1

BCP1928 said:

A corporate charter is a privilege granted by the state. It can be revoked.

Click to expand...

How does that effect them closing.

ThatRobGuy said:

Well, if it's a loaded question being asked, why not give a loaded answer? lol

If you want to be a major player in US politics, you gotta kiss someone's rear-end and promise favors in return for campaign donations.

Not sure why that's controversial to point out.


Oh...wait?... is this one of those times where we're supposed pretend that Trump is uniquely bad in some regard?

Whoops...I missed the queue. Sorry about that. I'll fall in line and be a good boy.

Allow me to bend a knee and worship at the alter of Philosophy 101 professors:
Orange man bad... He's orange and bad and a man who's also orange and a man who's bad and orange and bad...not to mention a man and bad who's also orange...not to mention racist transphobic and bad, please tax me at 40%.


Phew, that was close...

I almost fell into the grips of the KKK until someone set me on the right path and made me see the light, and convinced that Trump is the worst human in the history of humans who's uniquely bad in every way.

Click to expand...

The problem is, when you say that all politicians are corrupt you just encourage politicians to live down to their reputation.

Hans Blaster said:

None of the cranks you cite were known to me before these threads started.

Click to expand...

Its like your declaring to be the gatekeeper and unless the experts are known to you and pass your test they don't count. This is exactly my point of imposing an epistemics onto those who present alternative evidence.

Hans Blaster said:

(And none has any "authority" to appeal to.)

Click to expand...

There you go again imposing your personal authority over everyone else. So what happens when people disagree and say they do have authority. What then. Are you an expert and have 50 years experience in the very field that is required to know what they are talking about.

Hans Blaster said:

Dunn wrote a crank book on pyramid power, so he may be better known among monitors of crank Egyptology, but I'd never heard of him.

Click to expand...

Yes and his idea of the pyramids being able to generate energy has been verified. Have you even wrote anything on the Egyptian works. I doubt it.

Hans Blaster said:

I use my fingers to type as I can write without speaking it out loud.

Click to expand...

But its still your personal opinion thats coming onto the page without one bit of evidence. I find it ironic when at least these experts have written something and done the onvestigation.

Hans Blaster said:

Awareness is the first step.

Let me ask you a question. Why are there so many people making a big deal about "precision vases" with all of these "projects" and dozens and dozens of YT videos. The whole thing is a rather minor aspect of a single period in Egyptian history.

Click to expand...

You do realise this is a subjective opinion. People do disagree and see it as significant. You have from the start been antagonistic against anyone who suggest alternative and advanced knowledge.

The idea of advanced or alternative knowledge is a natural human interest. But of course if you have already relegated it to nothing due to your beliefs then its going to mean little to you. But don't project your beliefs onto others who hold a different one.

Hans Blaster said:

They pale in comparison to the development of writing and the early texts, the examinations of the lifestyle through material culture, the overall contents of grave goods, the development of pyramids. Compared to these, the brief period of precision vase manufacture is rather insignificant, so why are these amateurs so interested in it?

Click to expand...

Tell that to a stone mason or engineer to sees the works. You have not got the awareness of these industries so you don't know. But then you dismiss everything you don't know so I guess your beliefs and feelings trump everyone elses experiences.

If we found a sowing needle in that period of time it would be a big deal. It depends on how you look at it. Its that the level of tech and knowledge stands out. How it stands out is a matter of knowledge itself.

If you don't understand the value from the perspective of the expert in that field then your imposing your unqualified belief over them. Petrie and other experts recognised the advanced knowledge immediately. I trust their opinion over yours.

Hans Blaster said:

It hasn't. We've gone over that study before, it does not say what you think it does, nor what the pyramid power people want you to think that it does.

Click to expand...

Yes you keep saying this like its gospel. This is exactly the point I was making above about the words just fall out of your mouth and onto the page as though they are truth over everything else without one bit of evidence. You seem to think your words are like peer review without providing the peer review.

So this time provide the evidence. Show how its different to what I think. I provided several indpenedent articles that say otherwise. They clearly state that the pyramid can concentrate energy into the chambers and was specifically designed that way.

Hans Blaster said:

I have no use for religion. That I would wan't to create one is a vile falsehood.

Click to expand...

But you believe your words are gospel just by saying them. As though they hold truth over all else without any evidence. Thats the same as unverified religious beliefs lol.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't know if Dunn is a good man or not. It really depends on if he is a true believer or just a second rate con.

Click to expand...

This tells me you don't know him. That you have never read his material. Because if you did you would realise that he uses a scientific approach. He will abandon an idea if the science is not supported just as good scientists do. His language is exactly that. Even when others suggest unsupported ideas like aliens or gods he rejects it.

Which shows you made up you mind on Dunn without even knowling himand his work.

Hans Blaster said:

I give them their due moment,

Click to expand...

Thats one of the biggest ironies I have heard for some time.

Hans Blaster said:

but once they cross the threshold, I don't relent. I gave "Dr Max" and "Karoly" their chances, but no more for reasons given in earlier posts.

Click to expand...

Whose thresholds, you the gatekeeper. How do we know the gatekeeper is not the grifter.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't recall discussing saw cuts, or at least not recently.

Click to expand...

Really, you have not seen any discussion or images on this thread about saw cuts. If not then how can you even make any claims about anything if you have not even looked at big chunks of evidence.

Hans Blaster said:

Out of place examples of what?

Click to expand...

Out of place works, anything out of place as to its tech and knowledge. Where it should not have been there for that time. You could say the pyramids themselves are out of place for their time. They were the highest buildings in the world until the Eiffel tower was made in the 19th century.

But stuff like modern looking saw, planing and router cuts in hard stone. Precision vases in a time when the potters wheel was not even around. Evidence for chemical, and material tech in block moulding or changing the material nature of stones. Or the use of electromagnetism, acoustics ect in energy production or hydro tech ect.

Hans Blaster said:

It is ridiculous on the face of it. I know I've read some about it in the past, but it isn't worth sorting out so that I can explain how wrong it is to you only to have you ignore everything I say. My dismissiveness is proportional to your resistance to learning why these things are so silly.

Click to expand...

The problem is because you have never done this it begins to look like you just sayiong this without any substance. You have to understand from my perspective that I have two people or sometimes many people disagreeing with you. One is published and has the work and the other has never produced anything.

Hans Blaster said:

The sources you quote certainly believe is some of those laughable things even if they try to keep it from your view.

Click to expand...

Talk about grifters and conspiracy makers. They have specifically addressed this and stated in no uncertain terms that its not about anything whacko. You seem to be creating your own conspiracies without actually knowing what others are saying. Lumping them all into the stereotypes you are creating.

Hans Blaster said:

I bring it up because I want to understand who these people are and how stupid their foundations actually are. Last weekend I watched this video from Karoly's podcast, a discussion with David Miano and Adam Young

Click to expand...

You seem to think I cannot sort out fact from fiction. Another projection and to be honest quite a put down. But thats what is to be expected from skeptics who relegate everyone to this category. Which only shows that bias is at play and we cannot trust your opinion.

Hans Blaster said:

Login to view embedded media Miano is respectful of the measurement work they are doing, but firm that they are no where near making conclusions. (It's worth a watch.) Karoly tries to keep it "straight", while Young tries to imply a pre-4th dynasty construction of the Great Pyramid repeatedly.

Click to expand...

Yes I have watched this already. Which completely refutes you claim that these researchers are blindly claiming everything without getting alternative views. He does not refute the claims completely but offers alternative explanations.

If they were so fixated and deluded then why would they invite such alternative explanations and show everyone.

You seem to think that those who propose such alkternative and advanced knowledge must be completely unaware of the whackery out there. You have to remember that just suggesting alternative or advanced knowledge can be conflated but because it can be conflated doesn't make it all conflated.

What your doing is conflating any suggestion as automatically whacko. You cannot seem to seperate them out. Or accept that at the same time there is whacko idea there is genuine alternative and advanced tknowledge.

If you are to be fair and balanced then you should also hear from the actual experts in the specific fields as well and then make up your mind. Here is Chris King

Login to view embedded media

Hans Blaster said:

What if? It is al you have done.

Click to expand...

No I havn't. Thats the point. I am willing to accept the skeptics. Heck here I am with half a dozen people challenging me and the suggestion of advanced tech and knowledge. What if it was the other way around. How long would you last lol.

I am fully aware of the skeptics objections and I think so is all who propose alternative ideas. The difference is the skeptics are dismissing everything before its properly investigated which shows their position and belief was already set.

Hans Blaster said:

I look forward to that.

Click to expand...

I had a look and nothing in what you said gives me evidence for the specific claims being made. Can you cite something they said that was kooky and about aliens or Atlantis or pushing any conspiracy theories.

I bet you can't because your making the whole thing up by taring them by association to skeptics themselves.

Like Dunn, you keep saying he is whacko for proposing that the Giza pyramid had some form of ability to generate energy. You relegated it all automatically as Woo. But then when I tell you that at least some of his hypothesis was verfied by independent evidence you ignore it. You double down that everything he presents is woo.

I am not stupid despite skeptics on this thread claiming. Thats the default objection that anyone who even suggests such things is whacko. Thats blantant bias and it stands out like anything.

The kind of language used for these good people would be rejected in a formal setting and equal evidence is required and not some personal unqualified opinion. I mean unqualified in both qualifications in the field and presenting no actual formal published evidence.

But I am not stupid that I don't understand the difference that your trying to appeal too for me to understand like your the enlightened one lol. Trying to save me from the bad old whackos lol.

Like I said get specific and show how Dunn's hypothesis was wrong. Not what skeptics sites tell you, not unqualified opinion. Give a scientist level analysis of his hypothesis and break down how its wrong.

While your at it show me how the stone softening hypothesis and evidence is wrong. Show me how the obvious machine cuts are not machine cuts and give a detailed scientific analysis of the difference between the traditional signatures and the machined ones.

Show me how Christ King an expert in precision tooling and engineering is wrong in the above video. I bet you can't. Come on you make these claims. Back them up.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I am aware of the difference but I still support the hypothesis of alternative and advanced knowledge of the ancients and its not about Atlantis or aliens. Can you comprehend that people genuinely hold this position without being whackos.

Like how they can genuinely hold a belief in God without being Woo or deluded.

I mean in some ways we should expect alternative and advanced knowledge compared to what we think today. Considering we have at least 100,000 years of brain capacity pretty similar to today as far as cognition is concerned.

In some ways those insisting on todays worldview epistemics as being the only one are the conspiracy makers considering that the majority of people for the majority of our history have believed in alternative forms of knowledge including knowledge outside the box of scientfific naturalism that can be considered advanced.

Servus said:

Then why is it those presumably on the left, rather than the right, that keep complaining about it? Why do they keep saying most every issue and event is a "distraction from Epstein!"? Some on the left seem literally obsessed over it. The left is doing it, but it's supposedly the right. Just like the Schumer Shutdown and Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Complaining? Jeering is more like it.

Trump Organization sought to bring in nearly 200 workers on visas in 2025


President’s family business requested at least 184 foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, Virginia winery and two golf clubs


---


The Trump Organization sought to bring in at least 184 foreign workers in 2025 for temporary positions at Mar-a-Lago, two golf clubs and a Virginia winery through H-2A and H-2B visas, according to data from the Department of Labor.

The company’s visa requests have risen steadily in recent years, from 121 in 2021 to a record 184 in 2025.

During Trump’s five years in office, the Trump Organization filed to bring in at least 566 foreign workers.

I never heard of Qatar except when labeling middle-eastern maps in school geography and in the past year it's everywhere...

PloverWing said:

No. Stop. You can throw insults at liberal Christians if you insist (wouldn't be the first time), but do not accuse Reform Jews of being Satanists. You know how that kind of thing ended, last century.

Click to expand...

I've read rabbis trace their movement's foundation to Sabbateanism.

(Ataturk was a known Sabbatean of the Donmeh subset whose racial programme openly inspired Germany's, and American Sabbatean Stephen Wise worked 24/7 to subvert FDR's administration from any rescue attempts.

I'm half-convinced Hitler was one-a theory I first heard from Orthodox rabbis of the tradition that subjected them to cherem- and Israeli writers.

I do know how it ended last century. I really, really don't like Sabbateans. They're infested in goverments and cause trouble including very possibly the shoah.)

FWIW I'm not saying they're *knowingly* that. Plenty of people don't know how their religions were founded. Mormonism was founded by a freemason who probably didn't even believe it and Muhammad was a Zionist shill in the time of Sebeos the Armenian who went rogue. But Leftist religions do have Sabbatean tendencies and the sources I read connecting the Reform to Sabbatai were Jews who were experts on this sect.

Always in His Presence said:

They can? Show me where the State or Federal Government can tell a company they can't close their doors.

Really? Free Taco's! Where?

Click to expand...

A corporate charter is a privilege granted by the state. It can be revoked.

2 mos ago

U.S. sees highest large-company bankruptcies in 15 years with 446 filings


Several familiar American brands from the 1990s and 2000s are among those that have collapsed in 2025. Retailers such as Forever 21, Joann’s, Party City, and Claire’s, along with pharmacy chain Rite Aid, have all filed for bankruptcy this year.


‐-----

Today

US Corporate Bankruptcies Set to Hit 15-Year High Amid Credit Jitters, S&P Data Shows


Total bankruptcy filings reached 655 this year through October, compared with 687 for all of 2024. October alone accounted for 68 filings, following 76 in August — the highest monthly count since at least 2020.

BCP1928 said:

That certainly sounds like more fun. Some of us seem to have forgotten that the Gospel was supposed to be good news

Click to expand...

Carnal Christians sounds menacing...like calling them meat. But I suppose such names are good for looking down the end of our noses at people.