Latest activity

DaisyDay · 2025-12-05T11:08:55-0600

Ellesmere said:
View attachment 374019

Given that America currently has the modern equivalent to a Caligula in the White House what did you expect!

As for the ancient Romans, they were never given the opportunity to elect their Emperor - Americans can't claim that excuse!

COMPARISONS

1) WEALTH - PRIVILEGE - NARCISSISM = both were NARCISSISTS born into lives of wealth and privilege, self-absorbed combined with a sense personal entitlement that would influence every decision

2( OMNISCIENT - complete knowledge of everything
- neither seeks nor recognizes the validity of expert advice based on the unshakeable faith that their sense of reasoning to be far superior

3) PUBLIC FINANCES - both viewed their access to the nation's treasury as another means of fulfilling their personal indulgences
-
4) LEADERSHIP - both assumed the role of authoritarian leaders without delegating authority
- Caligula declared himself a "living god," while Trump created a cult of personality as a populist hero with claims he would "drain the swamp" in Washington

5) LOYALTY - both demanded absolute loyalty but those having served purpose became expendable - loyalty took precedence over expertise which contributed to a nation in constant chaos beset with often contradictory pronouncing and incompetent officials tasked with enacting them

6) NEPOTISM - during the 1st Trump Administration the President's daughter and son-in-law occupied positions of authority in the White Horse
Caligula threatened to replace the Roman Senate with his horse as consul (adviser)

7) CRITICISM - both attempted to project strength of leadership but their fragile egos resulted in their over--reaction to criticism
- Caligula executed his critics while Trump resorted to Twitter, personal attacks and petty feuds directed at politicians, journalists, judges, comedians, even teenagers

8) REALITY - both operated under the assumption that their strength of personality extended to bending reality to reflect their egos- Caligula declared himself a "god" to be worshipped while Trump assumed the role of a self-described "very stable genius"

9) RULE OF LAWS - both considered themselves above the rule of law
- for Caligula the law was whatever he said it was at any given time
- Trump felt unconstrained by laws, publicly condemning judges who ruled against him
- for Trump the Department of Justice was viewed as an extension of himself
- he also advocated changes in Constitution to overturn 2020
- Trump has made repeated references to serving a 3rd term as President despite 22 Amendment

10) LEGACY - both brought respect for their office into disrepute, emptied the treasury, incurred massive debts, eroded respect for law, created deep divisions and left long term institutional damage

Login to view embedded media

When I was young and first learned about Caligula, I wondered how such a thing could happen, why the senators and citizens allowed it. Now I'm living through it.

RocksInMyHead · 2025-12-05T11:02:19-0600

comana said:
New, new information states otherwise. It doesn’t make any logical sense anyways. As they are drifting in wreckage in open water, you think their next thought, while the US Navy has a target on their backs, is to radio for reinforcements to continue on their mission? Or, more likely, they went into survival mode and had not a thought for the illicit cargo littered about them.

Honestly, I wouldn't surprise me if they tried to grab some of the cargo floating around them. The human brain doesn't always think logically, and "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], the boss is going to kill me if we lose this cargo!" is a plausible line of thinking in such a situation. Somewhat like the classic saying about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. That said, without a functional boat, there's still no chance of them actually going anywhere with it, so whether or not they were trying to collect the cargo isn't relevant to the question of whether two shipwrecked guys constituted a valid military target.

CLEEB · 2025-12-05T11:00:39-0600

Re

eleos1954 said:
It's about one's relationship with Christ ... not ANY earthly things ... and that is not "replacement theology"

Replacement theology is the belief that the church took the place of the nation of Israel in GODS favor. My contention is there never was a replacement and that the church has always been in GODS favor.

CLEEB · 2025-12-05T10:57:56-0600

CLEEB said:
Confusion

CLEEB · 2025-12-05T10:57:31-0600

C

BobRyan said:
Interesting detail...

ASK AI this in any browser:

"what are the top 3 Christian denominations holding to sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and having a single set of administrators with one single set of official doctrines and having no autonomous subgroups included in the total membership"

<<I am excluding autonomous subgroups because by definition , autonomy does not preserve unity in doctrine so does not represent a single set of church teaching as being held by all the gro

durangodawood · 2025-12-05T10:56:47-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
That was just and example, there's obviously other options than just plain chicken and carrots.

Left to their own devices, a lot of kids will take fast food even over those other deep food traditions you mention.

Most adults wont pick the berders if they have experience with those food traditions. So I still dont buy the entertainment value of crappy food as the root cause here. Its what you were brought up with - or cultivated as adult that matters. The entertainment value follows from that.

Say it aint so · 2025-12-05T10:51:38-0600

Vambram said:
Clearly, we have very strong disagreements about your conclusions.

Be precise. What is it you disagree with? And what support to you offer to conclude there is reason to disagree with what I said.

Hentenza · 2025-12-05T10:50:40-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
God speaking:

No. This is your interpretation of scripture.

DaisyDay · 2025-12-05T10:49:44-0600

Servus said:
And I think when it comes to certain people, most of the uproar is more out hatred of Hegseth and Trump, rather than actual concern.

Projection.

Hentenza · 2025-12-05T10:48:43-0600

BobRyan said:
Heb 10:5-11 says that the laws of animal sacrifice and offering were taken away at the cross by the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

The NT does not say "it is ok to take God's name in vain since that is Exodus 20:7 part of the 10 commandments, part of the Law of Moses, and so is to be ignored now".

I think we all agree on that one.

In Matt 19 Jesus said "Keep the Commandments" and was then asked "which ones?". His answer was to give example directly from the Law of Moses most His examples came from the TEN.

Eph 6:1-2 says that "honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise. That is only true in the unit of TEN.

James 2 says "to break one is to break them all" and then James gives examples from the Law of Moses including commands not in the TEN.

Except that Jesus fulfilled the 4th commandment in Him so our rest is no longer on one day but on our Lord and Savior.

RDKirk · 2025-12-05T10:44:59-0600

Servus said:
Speeding towards the US, is not the same as speeding to the US. I also said anyone who thinks we're talking about drug carrying speed boats making a nonstop trip from Venezuela to the US aren't putting much thought into logistics.

You should be more carful when making critiques on wording.

Back when I was teaching intelligence analysts, if one came to me with that theory, I'd say, "Sounds plausible. Come back when you've located one of the points that any of these transshipment activities are taking place." That is, when they've spotted one of the same type of boats moored somewhere along the way.

Hentenza · 2025-12-05T10:42:27-0600

RDKirk said:
If we presume that this attack was conducted long range using drones, that rule requires the US Navy to have had rescue capability within the area. And that's how the law works. Carrying out an attack with no concept of how the shipwrecked would be rescued is against the law covering naval conflict.

Yep. I agree.

MarcusGregor · 2025-12-05T10:42:20-0600

comana said:
New, new information states otherwise. It doesn’t make any logical sense anyways. As they are drifting in wreckage in open water, you think their next thought, while the US Navy has a target on their backs, is to radio for reinforcements to continue on their mission? Or, more likely, they went into survival mode and had not a thought for the illicit cargo littered about them.

Illicit cargo for which there is no evidence that has been shown. Has any of this cargo been confiscated? What evidence has been presented that these were even "drug boats" or that the people on them were "narco-terrorists?" None of that has been presented as far as I know.

What we do know is that the 2 survivors who were allowed to survive (for some reason) claim they are just fisherman and no attempt to further prosecute or capture those people has been made.

Hentenza · 2025-12-05T10:41:00-0600

Studyman said:
I simply pointed out to you what the God, who inspired the Holy Scriptures that Paul said were trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.", had written.

Yes. The scriptures are indeed trustworthy. However, interpretations of scripture are a different story. One has to be very careful not to read a preferred doctrine into them.

Studyman said:
No different than the Jesus "of the Bible" and Paul did when speaking to the promoters of this world's religions of their time.

Yes. And that would be an example of twisting scripture.

Studyman said:
You say that the GOD "you profess to know", never inspired the Words I showed to you. Who am I to argue with you concerning the God you profess to know. We all choose, and are servants to whom we "Yield ourself" servants to obey, according to Paul.

Here we agree in principle but from different perspectives, you for the law still being relevant and me for the law no longer being relevant. Please correct me if I understood you incorrectly about your argument.

Studyman said:
I was simply pointing out what the God, who inspired the Holy Scriptures, told the world who HIS LAWS were created for.

But the law’s purpose and practical use has changed from the old covenant to the new. And this change came about by Him fulfilling (completing) the law and nailing it to the cross.

Studyman said:
And I did so in hope that you might consider His Words.

But it's ultimately your choice.

My choice to do what exactly?

RDKirk · 2025-12-05T10:40:51-0600

Richard T said:
It is not a drug war that is for sure. Why? Because Venezuela is not the kingpin, it is more of a transit stop for drugs and a minor player compared to Mexico or Columbia. It is a cover story for getting regime change. Maduro is definitely a poor leader who also stole the election. I guess those are not good enough reasons? To me they are and I suppose I would support some military involvement as long as American leaders are not trying to game the nation with lucrative oil contracts and insider deals.

"Maduro is definitely a poor leader who also stole the election."

No, those are not good reasons for invading another country.

If those are good reasons by Republican standards, then someone should have invaded the US when Biden won.

MarcusGregor · 2025-12-05T10:38:39-0600

Landon Caeli said:
CNN media influencers are pushing the idea that Trump pardoned the Jan. 6 rioters, but this poor, young black fellow will receive punishment without pardon, and that it's not fair.

Should Brian Cole Jr. Recieve clemency? Or "the book"? That's the question, knowing now that he's black instead of white.

View attachment 374035

His lawyers should and probably will argue that he is included in Trump's pardon of J6 rioters unless that pardon names each and every individual, which I don't know the answer to. And even then they may still argue it because he was unknown at the time and should have been included.

It does beg the question as to whether Trump would have included him in his pardon if he had been known and why or why not.

wing2000 · 2025-12-05T10:38:01-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
Apparently I was not clear enough since even you cannot think of a single example of Somalian heritage and culture that brings value to the United States.

You go first. What value did your "heritabe and culture" bring to the United States?

comana · 2025-12-05T10:37:49-0600

Postvieww said:
New information and reporting says the drug smugglers climbed back into the boat and it was believed they were trying to salvage the drugs and communicate with others about that . Which makes them still a valid target. The goal was to sink the boat of drugs . If the first missile failed to accomplish that goal the second was warranted. It appears it was not about the cold blood murder narrative put out by liberal Trump hating propaganda. What ever this administration does some liberals will try to turn it into a crisis. I am just waiting to see how the Trump accounts for the future of our children will be turned into an evil thing.

New, new information states otherwise. It doesn’t make any logical sense anyways. As they are drifting in wreckage in open water, you think their next thought, while the US Navy has a target on their backs, is to radio for reinforcements to continue on their mission? Or, more likely, they went into survival mode and had not a thought for the illicit cargo littered about them.

RDKirk · 2025-12-05T10:37:37-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Survivors clinging to capsized boat didn’t radio for backup, admiral overseeing double-tap strike tells lawmakers
The two men killed as they floated holding onto their capsized boat in a secondary strike against a suspected drug vessel in early September did not appear to have radio or other communications devices, the top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers on Thursday, according to three sources with direct knowledge of his congressional briefings.

As far back as September, defense officials have been quietly pushing back on criticism that killing the two survivors amounted to a war crime by arguing, in part, that they were legitimate targets because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup — reinforcements that, if they had received it, could have theoretically allowed them to continue to traffic the drugs aboard their sinking ship.

Defense officials made that claim in at least one briefing in September for congressional staff, according to a source familiar with the session, and several media outlets cited officials repeating that justification in the last week.

But Thursday, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley acknowledged that the two survivors of the military’s initial strike were in no position to make a distress call in his briefings to lawmakers.

Ultimately, Bradley told lawmakers, he ordered a second strike to destroy the remains of the vessel, killing the two survivors, on the grounds that it appeared that part of the vessel remained afloat because it still held cocaine, according to one of the sources. The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs, the logic went.

"They're tactically buoyant and drifting at the craft's top speed, sir!"

Also, 'defense officials' lied to Congress and the American people.

The Law of Armed Conflict actually required the Navy to have surface vessels or some other means of rescuing survivors. If they had been obeying the law, they would have taken prisoners and made sure the remaining debris was sunk.

7thKeeper · 2025-12-05T10:36:07-0600

HARK! said:
Wrong again.

Denial doesn't change reality.

Please sir, stop talking to the mirror.

RDKirk · 2025-12-05T10:34:21-0600

Postvieww said:
New information and reporting says the drug smugglers climbed back into the boat and it was believed they were trying to salvage the drugs and communicate with others about that . Which makes them still a valid target. The goal was to sink the boat of drugs . If the first missile failed to accomplish that goal the second was warranted. It appears it was not about the cold blood murder narrative put out by liberal Trump hating propaganda. What ever this administration does some liberals will try to turn it into a crisis. I am just waiting to see how the Trump accounts for the future of our children will be turned into an evil thing.

That was Senator Cotton's view of the video they watched.

All the other Armed Services Committee members who saw the video had an opposite view, that the two persons were truly shipwrecked and sitting on the debris that was still able to float.

wing2000 · 2025-12-05T10:32:58-0600

comana said:
It’s not the concept of gilding that is tacky, it’s Trump’s use of it. Look at the Oval Office. Gold vomitted all over the interior with the only decor intention being add as much gold to every surface as possible.

...and now he wants to re-do Dulles Airport....(will he rename it too?)

Strong in Him · 2025-12-05T10:32:24-0600

Apple Sky said:
No they are not different stars, what you see is due to our perspective & whether you are are viewing them from the north or the south.

Look at post #2,200.

If they were "upside down" then the stars at the top of picture A would be at the bottom of picture B - but they're not.
Pic A has completely different stars to pic B.
Pic A has an Eagle, a Dolphin, a Whale and a Bull. Pic B has a Scorpion, a Peacock, a Dove and a Big Dog.
Picture A has a Northern Crown, picture B has a Southern Fish - surprise, surprise.

RDKirk · 2025-12-05T10:32:08-0600

Hentenza said:
You want me to do the research for you?

There you go.

Section 5.4.7 of the DOD Law of War Manualsays:
Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.

If we presume that this attack was conducted long range using drones, that rule requires the US Navy to have had rescue capability within the area. And that's how the law works. Carrying out an attack with no concept of how the shipwrecked would be rescued is against the law covering naval conflict.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-12-05T10:29:49-0600

Servus said:
Not my department nor my idea. Like I said a couple of weeks ago in this thread; anyone who doesn't like it, can tear up their check.

It seems you're not here to discuss facts or logic, but rather to defend President Trump—even when his policies defy simple arithmetic. Your focus appears to be criticizing those who oppose him, instead of engaging in a rational, intellectual debate.

There is no mathematical way to explain how $195 billion could be distributed as $2,000 to each American family earning less than $150,000. However, if you wish to defend such irrational policy repeatedly, you are free to do so—after all, it is a free country!

Latest activity

Latest activity

Survivors clinging to capsized boat didn’t radio for backup, admiral overseeing double-tap strike tells lawmakers​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Survivors clinging to capsized boat didn’t radio for backup, admiral overseeing double-tap strike tells lawmakers