New Posts

DaisyDay · 2025-09-18T19:00:48-0500

Tuur said:
What, though, in the cited portion did you find creepy? I'm quite sure both the naturalized US citizens I have in mind wouldn't find it creepy.

"American citizenship is the most sacred citizenship in the world ..."
Citizenship is not a religion or a sacrament.

Chesterton · 2025-09-18T18:59:55-0500

Bradskii said:
I'm aware of the full context of what he originally said. I've read the whole conversation. The video clip was him trying to double down on that. Effectively saying that an airline would employ a less qualified person, a less able pilot purely on the basis of their colour.

That is abject nonsense and we all know that.

What DEI does in this case is to give more people the opportunity to qualify. It increases the number of people who try to become pilots. And basic common sense will tell you that that will raise standards. Any given airline is going to take the best of any given group.

Basic common sense will tell you that if someone wants to be a pilot, and has what it takes, there's no need for DEI.

Chesterton · 2025-09-18T18:57:39-0500

Bradskii said:
When I say 'us and them' I mean you and me. People like you and me. Those of us who don't support violence or celebrate it. Those of us who don't shoot people or break into the Capitol or excuse those who do.

You are I are irrelevant, up to the point where "them" forces us to take up arms. At that point, you need to pick a side.

Bradskii said:
Me too. Trabaja in la casa blanca.

You neglected to capitalize the first letters of casa and blanca. That doesn't narrow it down much. There's probably millions of white houses in America.

Plus, have you ever seen me insult your Prime Minister? You foreigners are so uncouth and boorish. smh

Carl Emerson · 2025-09-18T18:57:25-0500

Xeno.of.athens said:
It has been a cause for some to go into schism for many many centuries. Why would it be otherwise now?

So much for the hope of unity...

When two or three are gathered in My Name, He is there.

caffeinated.hermit · 2025-09-18T18:54:44-0500

BeckyJ said:
@caffeinated.hermit I saw your reply before I guess it was deleted.
I understand what you're saying, it can be hypocritical. But if those who set the precedent aren't showed how wrong they are, it will only get worse from them eventually.
It's like a parent who doesn't discipline their child and the child thinks they can keep moving the goalpost and gets worse.
Hope that makes since, lol.

The thing is though... the people we disagree with aren't children, they're adults, like us. And if we hated conservative / Christian opinions getting us into trouble, or clear-thinking options on transgenderism being labeled "hate speech", shouldn't we extend some degree of grace to opinions that may be offensive to us? Or risk turning into a mirror image of what we're allegedly fighting?

partinobodycular · 2025-09-18T18:54:43-0500

Bradskii said:
If you can't see that 'Don't shoot people with whom you disagree' is a reasonable boundary then I'm at a loss...

Come on @Bradskii, you're better than that. That's like asking why I can't see that 'thou shalt not kill' is a reasonable boundary, even if I advocate for the right to kill in self defense. Of course thou shalt not kill is a reasonable boundary, but there are still circumstances in which people have the right to kill. One truth doesn't negate the other.

All that I'm contending is that the abused have the right to oppose their abuser. Certainly you don't find that to be unreasonable... do you?

Bradskii said:
We're all controlled by rules and regulations and laws. But we accept that as necessary in order to live in a world where people can't do everything that they want. It's a social contract to which we all agree. Well, almost all. The government says I can't drive my car at 200kph but I can drive it where I want. My wife is expert at some things, like finances, so she controls the money and tells me if we can afford to build a deck. But I'll tell her how big it can be and how it's going to be built. That's not the scenario I was talking about - wherea man (generally) controls all aspects of his wife's life. She can't make any decisions at all. She's not allowed.

Yes, we're all controlled by rules and regulations, and for the most part we accept that control with little dissension. But once you accept the premise that the abused have the right to oppose their abuser, then black and white suddenly becomes grey, and you're forced to accept the fact that while some wives will never confront their abusive husbands others will go above and beyond what society might deem to be appropriate. What seemed at first blush to be a reasonable stance to take, will unfortunately, and unavoidably have deleterious effects.

It's a dichotomy that we simply have to accept when we accept that life isn't perfect, and absolutes aren't absolute. Things will happen that we don't want to happen. Like allowing people to drink or own guns, you do so with the knowledge that innocent people are going to die. You don't want them to die, but you know that they will. It's the same with political violence. You're not advocating for it, but you're accepting it as a consequence of something that you do want. The right of the people to protest against their government.

So yeah, I don't have a problem with political violence, because I know from whence it comes.

sjastro · 2025-09-18T18:49:07-0500

Another point that should be made @stevevw is ignorant of simple geometry.
When he sees scans of the upper and lower vase and notes the perpendicularity is 0.003" and 0.005" respectively, his eyes light up and reaches the conclusion this is an example of extraordinary engineering.

What he doesn't know is the magnitude of perpendicularity p depends on the measurement length L as explained in the diagram.

The perpendicularity p is the displacement of the vertical line perpendicular to the horizontal surface as is defined by the formula
p = L.tan(θ).
If L is small then p is small and since the perpendicularity has only been calculated for the top and bottom of the vase, it's not surprising the perpendicularity is small.
If it was possible to measure the perpendicularly over the length of the vase would result in a much larger value. The large cylindricity value as shown in my previous post prevents this as the axis is bent and the central axes at the top and bottom of the vase are not coaxial.

This leads to an interesting point if the individuals concerned are 'professionals' they would know calculating perpendicularity over short distances will artificially lower the value, or may be this was done deliberately as an act of deception.

Bro.T · 2025-09-18T18:45:52-0500

Let take a look at those who choose to be with the lord and obey him. Let’s go into Isaiah 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

God intended for the weekly Sabbath (this word means rest in Hebrew) to be a refreshing blessing for mankind. God knew that human beings would need periodic rest and change from work. But the purpose for keeping God's Sabbath goes far beyond simply resting on that day.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-09-18T18:44:48-0500

Tropical Wilds said:
But you were all excited about science when you you were quoting John Q Nobody MS, lol. Now when links are furnished from ACTUAL medical sources that show you’re wrong, suddenly you don’t care.

View attachment 370254

Well, if you still choose to come at me with that nonsense I will stay comfortably where I am at until you leave. But I am not going anywhere.

Marilyn C · 2025-09-18T18:42:49-0500

Douggg said:
Hi Marilyn,

I agree we won't have long to see. The Gog/Magog attack on Israel will be by a coalition of Muslim nations and Russia. The destruction of those armies by the God of Israel will discredit Islam's god Allah/and Muhammad, and basically end Islam.

The Assyrian of Micah 5:5 could be referring to the leader of the Muslim nations. I think also that maybe Damascus will be destroyed that day.

Hi Douggg,

Note from God`s word that those Muslim nations that go with the Russian Federation are - Persia, (Iran) Libya and Ethiopia. (Ez. 38: 5) Those 3 extra nations are ONLY SHIA part of Islam. And that is ONLY 10% while the Sunni part are 90%. So we see that Islam will still be outnumbering the EU - 350 million and 2 billion Islam.

Bro.T · 2025-09-18T18:42:21-0500

Mercy Shown said:
Romans 3:23–25 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.”

Some interpret this to mean Christ only died for past sins. But that misses Paul’s point. Paul highlights two things at once: (1) God’s justice required a payment even for sins before the cross, and (2) Christ’s sacrifice provides justification “for all who believe” (v.22), which is a present and ongoing reality. The reference to “sins committed beforehand” does not restrict the scope of the atonement but demonstrates that the cross reached backward as well as forward. If Jesus’ death only covered past sins, then believers would stand condemned the moment they sinned again. Yet Paul immediately stresses that justification is by faith apart from works of the law (v.28), meaning it rests on Christ’s once-for-all atonement (cf. Hebrews 10:12, 14). Therefore, Romans 3:23–25 is not narrowing Christ’s death to past sins but showing that His sacrifice is sufficient for all sins—past, present, and future.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the animal sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The point that is not understood is that we all have sin, but until Jesus came, there was no way of getting out from under your sins. So God institute a Priesthood and laws that went with the priesthood to control the sinning, and so the Lord use animal Sacrificial laws, even though it could not remove sins.

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments.

Bro.T · 2025-09-18T18:40:08-0500

FredVB said:
The commandments in the law which God gave show what sin is, and sin is separating any from God. God's grace is needed and with Christ sent from God and the way of atonement provided through his all he did for it the way of deliverance is provided, with faith that is with our repentance that has it possible through Christ. This is not removing us from commandments but from judgment with the law. The sins they show are such for us to turn from in coming to God to willingly live in God's will for us.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the animal sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The point that is not understood is that we all have sin, but until Jesus came, there was no way of getting out from under your sins. So God institute a Priesthood and laws that went with the priesthood to control the sinning, and so the Lord use animal Sacrificial laws, even though it could not remove sins.

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments.

Chesterton · 2025-09-18T18:39:40-0500

FreeinChrist said:
According to God, yes it is immoral.

Of course.

Philip_B · 2025-09-18T18:37:46-0500

Benaiah468 said:
In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conducted a study on anti-Semitism in one hundred countries and entities. The top ten countries, in each of which over 80 per cent of the population holds anti-Semitic views, all belong to the Arab and Muslim world. The "West Bank" and Gaza topped the list with 93 per cent. Despite this fact, Sanders believes that good relations between the United States and Israel should depend on Israel improving its relations with the "Palestinians".

For some reason, people continue to use the term 'anti-Semitic' by which they mean anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist or anti-Israel.

Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Arabs, Arameans, Canaanites (Ammonites, Edomites, Israelites, Moabites, Phoenicians, and Philistines) and Habesha peoples. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics. First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen school of history, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem
Semitic people - Wikipedia

Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples - Wikipedia

The point being that many of the people in this conflict are Semitic people, so it is just as useful to accuse Netanyahu of being anti-Semitic in his endeavour to obliterate Gaza to create a playground for the rich and famous, as it is to accuse HAMAS or the Palestinian people of being anti-Semitic.

Dan Perez · 2025-09-18T18:35:52-0500

And why does Rom 11:26 that. and so. all of. Israeli will be saved ???????

In Romans 11:28 says :

# 1 AS CONCERNING //. KATA , IS. A PREPOSTION

# 2 THE. // HO , is a DEFINITE ARTICLE

# 3 GOSPEL. // EUANGELION. , in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the Singular , in. the Plural

# 4. THEY ARE. //. was added

# 5 ENEMIES. // ECHTHROS. , is in. the Nominative Case , in. the Plural

# 6 FOR // DIA. , PREPOSIATION

# 7. YOUR // HYMAS , PERSONAL POSSESSEIVE PRONOUN. , in the ACCUSATIVE Case , in the Plural

# 8. SAKE //. DIA , is a Conjuncation

# 9. BUT //. DE. , is a Conjuncaion

# 10. AS TOUCHING. // KATO , is a PREPOSTION

# 11 THE // HO , is a Definite Auricle. in. the ACCUSAIVE Case , in the Singular

# 12 ELECTION. // ekloge in. the Accusative Case , in. the Singular

# 13. THEY ARE , was added

# 14 BELOVED // AGOPETOS , in. the NOMINATIVE CASE , in. the Plural

# 15 FOR // DIA , is a Proposition

# 16 THE //. HO , in. ACCUSATIVE CASE , is plural

# 17. FATHERS. // PATER , in. the Accusative Case

# 18 SAKES // DIA. is a Preposition

dan p

caffeinated.hermit · 2025-09-18T18:26:31-0500

Isn't everything better with caffeine?

Oompa Loompa · 2025-09-18T18:22:16-0500

Valletta said:
Democrats have blocked more nominees than ever before as they have struggled to find ways to oppose Trump and the GOP-dominated Congress, and as their voters have pushed them to fight Republicans at every turn. It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations.

Senate confirms 48 of Trump's nominees at once after changing the chamber's rules

The Senate has confirmed 48 of President Donald Trump’s nominees at once, voting for the first time under new rules to begin clearing a backlog of executive branch positions that had been delayed by Democrats. Frustrated by the stalling tactics, Senate Republicans moved last week to make it...

www.yahoo.com

By not allowing even some quick confirmations the Democrats made their obstructionism as obvious as could be. Thus I feel the Republicans took the correct step.

Slowly but surely, nature is healing.

rambot · 2025-09-18T18:22:07-0500

Servus said:
Not really when you keep posting about black people in the negative.

This is all a poor quality distraction.

Just say plausible deniability next time.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-09-18T18:17:18-0500

durangodawood said:
I had no idea. A proper villain!

From the looks of it, the way they operate seems to be not unlike the Hells Angels.

"we're a decentralized group of autonomous chapters" is usually just a legal hedge so that if one chapter does something really bad, the whole group doesn't go down with the ship.

eclipsenow · 2025-09-18T18:17:09-0500

Making America Gaudy Again!

Goodbye heritage. Hello BBB - Big Beautiful Ballroom - at least in Trump's NPD eyes.

The Barbarian · 2025-09-18T18:11:19-0500

Michie said:
At 55 years old, I’m just young enough to have missed the 1960s. That makes Charlie Kirk’s the first high-profile political assassination of my lifetime.

Melissa Hortman, Speaker of the Minnesota House, assassinated by a right wing terrorist, along with her husband. She was an actual office holder, shot down for her political beliefs. Yes, a democrat and woman a liberal or at least a moderate. But shouldn't she count?

Michie said:
Much commentary is being written about what has been lost with Charlie’s assassination. He was a conservative in the classical liberal mode. He wanted to debate you. He believed in American ideals and wanted to inspire the next generation to fight for them—peacefully, democratically. What does it say about the state of our nation that a man like that was cut down?

Learning more about him, he seems to have been a rather nasty person. His rant against Olympic athlete Simone Biles verged on the unhinged.

Charlie Kirk Brands Simone Biles 'Shame to the Country' a...

"If you're not ready for the big time, we've got thousands of young gymnasts that would love to take your place," the conservative activist said of Biles, th...

www.newsweek.com

But no one deserves to be shot down like that.

Bradskii · 2025-09-18T18:10:50-0500

Akita Suggagaki said:
Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence,

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence after Kimmel suspension - BBC News

"Maybe their licence should be taken away," Trump said of broadcasters that he argued covered him unfairly.

www.bbc.com

Everyone ok with this?

I'm not even sure that the question needs to be asked.

durangodawood · 2025-09-18T18:08:44-0500

Oompa Loompa said:
Obviously. Almost a third of them identify as left or left leaning. Only 7% on the entire right.

And it works for you.

I mean, in a thread about who calls who Nazis, where the target of the thread didnt even do it, the VPs "American Hitler" language rates a big yawn?

I'm detecting a lot of politics and not much principle.

New Posts

New Posts

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence,​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence,