Biblical Basis for War

[billvon 3,111]

Quote

Right, much easier to just fight among each other and lose our lives over some statue rather than attack the source of the problem. No wonder nobody trusts liberals/democrats to get anything done. . .

There's this strange attitude you see here that people can only do one thing, and if it's not your thing they are misguided, untrustworthy fools.

Fighting for gay rights? You are WRONG! You are WASTING YOUR TIME when you could be going after the federalist society! THEY are the big problem!

It's true, they are a big problem. Still, liberals fought that fight, and now gays have the right to marry, and have a lot more protections than they did 20 years ago. Heck, it's not even illegal to be gay any more.

And that's a good thing for gay people.

[motionscribe 0]

billvon

Quote

Right, much easier to just fight among each other and lose our lives over some statue rather than attack the source of the problem. No wonder nobody trusts liberals/democrats to get anything done. . .

There's this strange attitude you see here that people can only do one thing

And that's not what I'm talking about.

There has been no pushback or counter force against the Federalist Society as far as I can tell.

Bitch and moan all you want, but at least have your priorities straight. . .

[billvon 3,111]

>There has been no pushback or counter force against the Federalist Society as far as I can tell.

?? I've seen several mentions, although it's not a priority right now for democrats (the election is.)

======================
Save us from the Federalist Society
Tuesday's vote can be the first step in taking the country back.

BY TOM WADDELL

The Federalist Society is an ultra-conservative right-wing political organization. They are very successful at getting judges appointed to the Supreme Court whose decisions on key issues will be an almost forgone conclusion. It was responsible for getting at least seven activist conservative justices confirmed to the Supreme Court: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and, finally, Brett Kavanaugh. Five of those justices remain on the court today, and for the foreseeable future their decisions will determine what kind of society we live in much more than who wins elections.

Still, to turn it around, we have to go to the polls.

The Federalist Society claims it was founded on what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper Number 78, that the judiciary must exercise restraint to ensure a justice does not “substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature.” Despite what Hamilton wrote, the Federalist Society wants, and gets, justices who will “substitute their own pleasure” — i.e., their personal political and religious views — for a neutral, legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
======================

[motionscribe 0]

billvon

>There has been no pushback or counter force against the Federalist Society as far as I can tell.

?? I've seen several mentions, although it's not a priority right now for democrats (the election is.)

Exactly, they don't have their priorities straight.

They should've been dealing with this back in the 80s.

They simply have no strategy and are lost. They will soon be begging Oprah to get them out of this mess. . .

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

My initial point was how Democrats can win back those that have jumped ship, specifically in the midwest and eastern swing states. I was also expressing my disappointment in the republicans failure to unite the country, but you didn't address any of that, did you? See what I mean? You only want to address the provocative elements that offend you rather than digest the totality of the post.

Honestly, it's because you're not as clever as you think you are, and your insights aren't as accurate as you think they are.

If you think the rest of what you've written is good enough that people should overlook the deliberate provocation and hypocrisy you've thrown in, then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it's nowhere close.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

***
My initial point was how Democrats can win back those that have jumped ship, specifically in the midwest and eastern swing states. I was also expressing my disappointment in the republicans failure to unite the country, but you didn't address any of that, did you? See what I mean? You only want to address the provocative elements that offend you rather than digest the totality of the post.

Honestly, it's because you're not as clever as you think you are, and your insights aren't as accurate as you think they are.
I'm a bit groggy this morning, what insights are you referring to?

jakee

If you think the rest of what you've written is good enough that people should overlook the deliberate provocation and hypocrisy you've thrown in, then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it's nowhere close.

There's no doubt people have been provoked. But just so I'm clear, can you point out exactly what was so provocative? Is it something I said, or something Ron said? Is it provocative that I dind't bash Ron like you people do on daily basis?

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

******
My initial point was how Democrats can win back those that have jumped ship, specifically in the midwest and eastern swing states. I was also expressing my disappointment in the republicans failure to unite the country, but you didn't address any of that, did you? See what I mean? You only want to address the provocative elements that offend you rather than digest the totality of the post.

Honestly, it's because you're not as clever as you think you are, and your insights aren't as accurate as you think they are.
I'm a bit groggy this morning, what insights are you referring to?
You don't know what your own point was?

Quote

But just so I'm clear, can you point out exactly what was so provocative?

If you don't know, you're probably less qualified to tell people how to talk and what to talk about than you think you are.

Quote

Is it something I said, or something Ron said? Is it provocative that I dind't bash Ron like you people do on daily basis?

You agreed with Ron's entire post. There's a difference between simply not bashing him, and supporting him in bashing everyone else.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

*********
My initial point was how Democrats can win back those that have jumped ship, specifically in the midwest and eastern swing states. I was also expressing my disappointment in the republicans failure to unite the country, but you didn't address any of that, did you? See what I mean? You only want to address the provocative elements that offend you rather than digest the totality of the post.

Honestly, it's because you're not as clever as you think you are, and your insights aren't as accurate as you think they are.

I'm a bit groggy this morning, what insights are you referring to?

You don't know what your own point was?

So you disagree that the democrats can win back the swing states that voted against them? You also disagree with my naivety in thinking that the republicans would've at least tried to unite the county?

Quote

***Is it something I said, or something Ron said? Is it provocative that I dind't bash Ron like you people do on daily basis?

You agreed with Ron's entire post. There's a difference between simply not bashing him, and supporting him in bashing everyone else.

So telling Ron that the childish rhetoric of conservatives might cost them the upcoming election means that I agree with him and that I'm bashing everyone else?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

So you disagree that the democrats can win back the swing states that voted against them?

Jeez man, look at your original post and tell me that's the only thing you said in it

Quote

You also disagree with my naivety in thinking that the republicans would've at least tried to unite the county?

Would have? If what? They've had control of all branches of government for going on 2 years and all they've done so far is wage rhetorical war on everyone who isn't them.

If you're saying you thought they would have tried to unite the country after the 2016 election, then yeah, that's incredibly naive.

Quote

So telling Ron that the childish rhetoric of conservatives might cost them the upcoming election means that I agree with him and that I'm bashing everyone else?

No, appearing to agree with him when he says all liberals are mentally ill children means you're bashing everyone else.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

Quote

So you disagree that the democrats can win back the swing states that voted against them?

Jeez man, look at your original post and tell me that's the only thing you said in it

Well that's what I was asking you to clarify. Your string of quotes didn't include anything from my original post.

If you don't want to talk about it, why don't you just say so?

[RonD1120 62]

motionscribe

***
Regardless of what JoeWeber thinks about my phraseology

Given his response to some of my posts, I wouldn't credit him with much in the way of comprehension, so his opinion is of little import.

RonD1120

I believe SHTF is moving closer to the service. We have to maintain our faith in Christ and we have to prepare for pragmatic reality.

I can understand that. We both know where this place is headed. I'm just trying to buy some time for the others and make it a peaceful exit as possible. When SHTF, I might be leading a small group of new converts your way. We'll be headquartered along the Toccoa. What's ours is yours. If we need assistance, I got the password.

We are close, very close my brother.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

Well that's what I was asking you to clarify. Your string of quotes didn't include anything from my original post.

I didn't say they did. But you do know what you posted, right?

Quote

If you don't want to talk about it, why don't you just say so?

You remember that's why we're having this conversation, right? You were criticizing Wendy for only responding to the bad stuff you posted, I said that the 'good' stuff you posted wasn't actually that good, and that's why no-one can be bothered to talk about it.

Honestly, you can go back and check the conversation thread and it's right there in black and white.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

You were criticizing Wendy for only responding to the bad stuff you posted

And apparently the only thing she considered bad was my response to Ron.

jakee

I said that the 'good' stuff you posted wasn't actually that good, and that's why no-one can be bothered to talk about it.

I was simply giving my opinion of how the democrats need to win back the midwest and eastern swing states.

If you have a problem with any of that, then for fuck's sake man, spell it out.

[RonD1120 62]

motionscribe

If you have a problem with any of that, then for fuck's sake man, spell it out.

I have read his posts for the last decade. Good luck with that request.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

***You were criticizing Wendy for only responding to the bad stuff you posted

And apparently the only thing she considered bad was my response to Ron.

That's an unwarranted conclusion. Your original post also considered 'liberals' as a whole to be a homogenous block with only one set of aims, strategies and tactics.

Quote

I was simply giving my opinion of how the democrats need to win back the midwest and eastern swing states.

If you have a problem with any of that, then for fuck's sake man, spell it out.

It's overly-simplistic, factually incorrect, ignores the possibility that people can do two things at once, or that two or more groups within a wider movement can be doing different things at the same time, and simply cherrypicks the good you want to see within one movement and the bad you want to see within another.

Consider the statement that the right is fostering racism and white supremacy within it's own organisations, yet you blame the left for not tackling it strongly enough.

Consider the statement that republicans and conservatives were running around egging on a bunch of socialists and killing people over a stupid god-damned fucking statue and you think it makes the left look bad.

Consider that the liberal candidate had the most clear, comprehensive, costed and well thought out election manifesto in memory available for everyone to look at throughout the election, and you think the other guy who said anything and everything whenever it popped into his head was the one who demonstrated the capability for tackling middle class concerns.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

RonD1120

***

If you have a problem with any of that, then for fuck's sake man, spell it out.

I have read his posts for the last decade. Good luck with that request.

You do remember that you've just stated you're posting esoteric cryptology, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

Consider the statement that the right is fostering racism and white supremacy within it's own organisations, yet you blame the left for not tackling it strongly enough.

Yes, self reflection/criticism is a good thing. Nothing good came of Charlottesville except shock value and exploitation by the media. I think our time would be better served by putting pressure on the racists that actually have influence on those in power. We can do both, but the latter should be the priority.

jakee

Consider that the liberal candidate had the most clear, comprehensive, costed and well thought out election manifesto in memory available for everyone to look at throughout the election, and you think the other guy who said anything and everything whenever it popped into his head was the one who demonstrated the capability for tackling middle class concerns.

I didn't say anything about that guy. I just think that Democrats can learn something from the unity displayed by the republicans. Politics is a dirty job and the republicans are just better at playing the game. I know, it's sad but true on so many levels. I really wish it wasn't this way, but idealism just isn't going to cut it.

[jakee 1,594]

motionscribe

I didn't say anything about that guy. I just think that Democrats can learn something from the unity displayed by the republicans.

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected.

Quote

Politics is a dirty job and the republicans are just better at playing the game. I know, it's sad but true on so many levels. I really wish it wasn't this way, but idealism just isn't going to cut it.

And yet in your first post you said that Democrats could win just by talking about normal working and middle class concerns like jobs and healthcare. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that they're not doing that already, isn't that an idealistic vision of how to counter the Republican propaganda machine?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 2,274]

Quote

No wonder nobody trusts liberals/democrats to get anything done. . .

What do you mean? If no one trusts them how the hell did Clinton manage to get 3 million votes more than Trump. Your country is nearly evenly divided. There is tons of support for liberal ideas. Progress is marching on. You can impede it for a while, but history is clearly moving in a direction of more rights for more people. And that is the central message of liberalism.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 1,173]

motionscribe

***>Do you not see the importance of calling out white supremacist keynote speakers
>at the federalist society?

Definitely. But you can only do so much "moaning" as you put it.

Right, much easier to just fight among each other and lose our lives over some statue rather than attack the source of the problem. At least we'll have some good footage, headlines and facebook stories to broadly damn the conservatives at the expense of the deceased. . .

No wonder nobody trusts liberals/democrats to get anything done. . .

Like there has been a
-"Wall built, paid for by Mexico",
-a "infrastructure plan to rebuild America",
- "Hillary Clinton locked up"
- "a plan to fix immigration"

All promised by trump, none of which was forthcoming.

How many bills has Trump signed into law in his first 500 days — and how does it compare to past presidents?

...According to GovTrack,...

NBC News counted each piece of legislation passed under Trump and the previous four presidents and removed those that simply named, commemorated, awarded or appointed an individual, group or cause.

Under that count, Trump is also about on par with his previous two successors. Of the 176 bills he has signed into law, 132 are classified as substantive, compared to 118 for Obama and 133 for George W. Bush. But George H.W. Bush and Clinton are far ahead of all three, clocking in at 170 and 177.
https://www.nbcnews.com/card/how-many-bills-has-trump-signed-law-his-first-500-n879886

trump's biggest? The tax cuts to be paid for by increased economic performance. trump Says GDP of '4, 5, and Even 6%' Is possible all paid for by the tax cuts. in fact the growth was paid for by debt placed upon US children who will have to pay for it.

A truth!. trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWI4Y6GWNg as long as bankruptcy or someone else pays for his economic missteps.

The foundations of sound arguments are facts, documented. Not giberdybabble.

[billvon 3,111]

>They simply have no strategy and are lost. They will soon be begging Oprah to get
>them out of this mess. . .

Eh, in four years the Democrats will be back in control and pundits will be saying "Republicans have no strategy after Trump and are lost. They will soon be begging Hannity to get them out of this mess."

[wmw999 2,587]

I try to specialize in thoughtful and pollyannaish. I’d much rather build than tear down. And if one has to tear down, an honest attempt to understand what’s being torn down is called for.

Maybe I don’t get pushback, but there are the occasional nods.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Is it something I said, or something Ron said? Is it provocative that I dind't bash Ron like you people do on daily basis?

Didn't you earlier advocate calling out white supremacists?

[DJL 235]

Quote

Actually, I was surprised about the lack of pushback. But that was most likely due to the fact that those who actually know science understood the point that I was trying to make, unlike you, DJL and tonyhays.

Sorry, in the future I'll pay better attention to the wandering self absorbed stream of consciousness you call making a point.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[motionscribe 0]

jakee

***I didn't say anything about that guy. I just think that Democrats can learn something from the unity displayed by the republicans.

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected.

And yet they were able to overcome all that, weren't they?

Do you think the democrats/liberals would've fared as well in a similar situation? Hell, they couldn't even get enough votes from their own base for one of their most qualified candidates ever, a candidate that would've bent over backwards and succumb to their every whim. Instead, they went for the libertarian or some other independent/write-in even if it meant Trump winning. And then we have to listen to those same people crying about him in forums like this. . .

jakee

Quote

Politics is a dirty job and the republicans are just better at playing the game. I know, it's sad but true on so many levels. I really wish it wasn't this way, but idealism just isn't going to cut it.

And yet in your first post you said that Democrats could win just by talking about normal working and middle class concerns like jobs and healthcare. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that they're not doing that already, isn't that an idealistic vision of how to counter the Republican propaganda machine?

As I've already repeated nearly a half dozen times, I'm talking about the blue Midwest and eastern states, specifically Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. You could probably throw Ohio in there as well even though they tend to go 50/50.

The democrats took these states for granted while the republicans double downed on their campaign efforts. Even in Hillary's new book she just blames Comey for the failure rather than admitting that they fucked up by failing to understand their voters and taking for granted the base that put both Obama and her husband in office.

The dem's ability to win back those blue states is realistic, but if they can't, then the hope of ever having a democrat president again will merely become an idea of the past.