Outsider wrote: So Connor, You left not room for direct comment. Apparently you are not a supporter of Ben Carson - the successful brain surgeon who stated that everyone had a brain. I guess he was referring to the brain as an organ occupying a particular cavity up there. He is of the SDA cult. What they believe is laughable. You have to reject sound doctrine to believe any of SDA's hogwash. ---
I wonder if you would accept him as a brain surgeon, should you have need for one? Or would you say "Sorry, you're SDA"
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ladybug, of course you're talking about Donald Trump, a world-class liar? --- --- Maybe I have been too hard on DT comparing him to Mussolini? Maybe I should have compared him to a more recent Italian clown donald-trump-is- (Donald Trump is Americaâ€™s Silvio Berlusconi). ---
For someone who says Clinton has a 97% chance of winning, your name calling posts make it obvious you don't really believe it.
JY is no troll for the RCC, because JY is no RC in spite of what he thinks to the contrary. Most former RCs can see this. The only reason he hasn't been kicked out is he keeps his thoughts about the RCC a secret from them. No one would be tempted to be RC via JY's posts.
Wayfarer Pilgrim wrote: Limbaugh was always on our radio in the day. But, he's just part of the conservative entertainment cabal that makes a straw man on your local congressman or city officials who remember the being a republican meant they were conservative, for using taxes for schools, roads and yes prisons. He's also one reason , carnal Christianity has flourished. Thrice married, arrested for bringing in pounds of pharmaceutical pain meds, lost his hearing due to addiction to pain meds and still makes millions on everyone's frustration that the government " needs to work for me".
If Christians are carnal, it's because they want to be. They at least should own their own flaws.
Buckeyes wrote: (John 8:32)@Mike from NY, I understand your skepticism, so I have gathered a couple of article links for you. --- How can one condemn Hillary for her illegal email server, which put U.S. intellegence at risk, yet defend the man who openly published the largest bundle of classified information in U.S. history? It doesnâ€™t work. www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Chris-Inglis-Snowden-ISIS-detection/2014/09/04/id/592757/ www.express.co.uk/news/world/620270/Traitor-Edward-Snowden-taught-ISIS-Paris-terrorists-avoid-detection-NSA-CIA-John-Brennan
Last things first, Hillary's antics haven't been labeled treason, though she clearly works against her country, even today.
Links: Former NSA official says Snowden's leaks reveal spying on the internet, makes it harder to catch ISIS plans. Why is this spying on the entire internet, but not based on probable cause, constitutional? Specially designed court doesn't count
CIA director "claimed," "said," "said previously," thus it must be Snowden that caused the Paris attacks? Understand, none of this is evidence. It could very well be the CIA didn't pick up on it and he's a handy scapegoat. Question-if Snowden helped ISIS, why do the Russians protect him, when they are fighting them?
Buckeyes wrote: (John 8:32)@Mike from NY, --- China wants to destroy us as soon as they get a chance, so it is of imperitive importance that our millitary knows what theyâ€™re up to. And while we --- Espionage on American citizens is wrong and unConstitutional unless with a warrant, espionage on foreign countries is not. American espionage on both hostile nations and allies is literally as old as our country. Youâ€™re kidding yourself if you believe other countries donâ€™t have international espionage programs.
They do indeed. But China is a trading partner, whether we like it or not. Go to article 3 Section 3. If China is an enemy as so defined, then why does American business and govt authority strengthen the Chinese economy with huge amounts of money and buy their junk, thus giving them much aid and comfort? New way to defeat an enemy? The revealing of the fact that our govt is also spying on them is hardly comparable, when they are ones giving them aid and comfort to a massive degree. Yes, hypocritical, to accuse Snowden when he is a piker in comparison with the accusers.
On the other hand, if China is not a constitutionally defined enemy, then revealing that our govt is spying on them cannot lawfully be held treasonous.
ladybug wrote: --- I will be so glad when this embarrassing political fiasco is over. Now I see where Trump has said he'd take Biden up on meeting him behind a barn to 'duke it out'! This mentality is quite embarrassing [source - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-joe-biden-gym_us_580fe461e4b02b1d9e63961e] It's probably best to avoid news sites until after this three ring circus is over....
I agree. Nothing should be believed in the last few weeks before an election, especially from Clintonite news sites like Huffington Post. Interesting how there were no Huffpost embarrassments when Biden made plain his desire to beat up Trump. It only became barbarian when Trump responded in similar fashion. It's the hypocrisy I find more repulsive than Trump's non-Christian behavior, which we shouldn't expect from non-Christians anyway.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike of N.Y.: excerpt from, (Snowden answered the question, 'Aren't you a traitor?' â€” and it was puzzling--Business Insider) Yes, he's a traitor unless you agree with that liberal Oliver Stone who made a movie about him?
Nothing puzzling about his answer except to folks who don't have a constitutional clue as to what treasn is. Whatever Oliver Stone did with a movie is an irrelevant bunny trail, Jim, but you already know that
Tell me true, Jim. Don't you find it interesting how it is evil and even called traitorous to reveal to the Chinese, or anyone for that matter, that the NSA has been hacking their phone companies, and attacking university servers, while at the same time we watch Hillary and her lemmings decry alleged Russian cybermessing of our election as an evil thing? What hypocrisy.
John Yurich USA wrote: Well that Catholic university should be told by the Vatican to either fall inline with Catholic teaching and be against abortion or everybody who supports abortion at that university will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
You don't fall in line with Catholic teaching, John. Why shouldn't you be excommunicated?
Buckeyes wrote: (John 8:32)@Mike from NY, Snowden is a traitor, not because he exposed NSA spying, but because he provided secret military information to other enemy countries. Such action is consistent with the definition of a traitor that you sight from the Constitution. Snowden provided aid to our enemies. Itâ€™s reported that international terrorists have used info provided by Snowden to make it harder for our government to spy on their communications.
Who do we have as declared enemy countries? What secret military information did he provide the enemy countries? Where can I find the information he provided them? Has war been declared on us by these countries he allegedly comforted, or by us on them? Are we actually fighting for liberty anywhere? I know parents and spouses are being told their children and husbands died for freedom. But we don't get in these things to win freedom anymore, do we? We just blow things up, get blown up, bury the dead, with no goal nor purpose, while pretending the game is moral. Then move on to the next crisis. If there are traitors, it is those who are shredding the Constitution. It is those who are levying a war against the States.
p, I would call it criminal activity, and deal with it according to the rule of law of which you spoke. Not all criminal activity is treason, however. The word gets tossed about a lot these days. Former VP Cheney apparently doesn't know what it is. He said what Snowden did in revealing NSA spying on the people was treason. No, actually it revealed unconstitutional activity on the part of govt. Cheney failed in is oath to uphold the Constitution when he said this. Treason isn't opposition to what govt does, regardless of what they think. Point is, the definition is specific. Govt can't redefine it, neither can we.
KK wrote: Ignominious Emirakan Thank you the first three paragraphs of your post are from the "breitbart.com article" listed in my post #25 on this thread Please brothers and sisters take a contemplative look at that article â€“â€“â€“â€“ it helps shed light on the intertwining web of corruption that has consumed every aspect of our government â€“â€“â€“ MAYBE AMERICA SHOULD BRING BACK "PUBLIC HANGINGS" SO GREEDY TREASONOUS SELLOUTS, WHO FIND IT ALL "TOO EASY" TO BETRAY THE "GOOD-FAITH" OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WOULD KNOW THEIR END â€“â€“â€“ AND EVERYTHING THEY OWN WOULD BE SEIZED AND PUT TOWARD THE NATIONAL DEBT!!! â€“â€“â€“ A WHOLESOME FEAR OF MEETING THEIR "CREATOR" ON SUCH TERMS WOULD BE AN "EXCELLENT DETERRENT" FOR A BUNCH OF GODLESS GREEDY GRASPERS WHO WOULD SELL THEIR OWN SOULS AND THEIR "COUNTRYMEN" OUT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN â€“â€“â€“ Hmmm ?? These people have no respect whatsoever
Treason, according to the Constitution, does not include corruption as part of its definition. We shouldn't go there and be like others who remove corrupt dictators, only to install their own version. Batista to Castro, Louis xvi to Napoleon? No thanks.
Being a bit more interested in what the candidates wish to be doing as president, than participating in the lunatic left's hatchet job, which they do every election btw, here are 8 of Trump's goals if he's elected. They were revealed at his Gettysburg appearance "Contract with the American Voter":
1.Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress 2.Institute a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health) 3.Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated. 4.Institute a five year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service 5.Create a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. 6.Institute a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections. 7.Announce intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205. 8.Announce withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
There are 20 more on the list.
How much of this was heard on the mainstream in the tank for Clinton media? What are we hearing from them? Anyone care enough to ask why? Why believe liars?
Christopher000 wrote: In the last debate, I sure wish Trump would have been specific when speaking on abortion and the brutal ways these babys are murdered. I also wish he would have called her on her gun control lies, and the Heller decision not having anyrhing to do with toddlers like she was lying about. The Heller decision makes lawful gun owners not only keep their guns locked and unloaded, but completely disassembled. What nonscense. So, a rapist breaks in, or whatever, and the homeowner has to scramble to their gun and assemble it before they can protect themself. Ridiculous.
There will be a lot of "law" breakers if the "law" makers think they can tell you what to do with your stuff in your home. The right of self defense is not for them to define for they have no authority to do so. Control freaks are always looking for more power. We need hope they don't push too far.
John UK wrote: --- Now if you think about it, we rightly joy in being justified through faith. The refrain is correct in that. But where it went wrong was in getting Matt 7 wrong. That is all about works, obeying Christ. Obey Christ = rock Disobey
I could take some issue with that, but instead-
The song is about what is it we place our trust in, the solid Rock, which is Christ, or anything else, which is sinking sand. Lest we be speaking past one another here is the refrain:
"On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand, All other ground is sinking sand."
Are either of these statements false doctrine? Do they contradict Scripture in any way?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Perhaps a fair assessment of Hilly. You forget I'm not a fan of hers either, but much less of a fan, Donald "the Animal" Trump. So, how are you going to celebrate Hilly's victory after she's elected? Well back to the topic of the thread -http://tinyurl.com/jddav8
Celebrate? I would suggest mourning. Evil will grow, and this present darkness will be remembered as the good old days. But I'm not as bound by determinism as some, so perhaps she will lose. Maybe the country will exorcise her once and for all, and that would be a good thing. At least I will vote against her.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Humor has to have an element of truth, Mike. I couldn't say that about Hillary because she doesn't have an obscene mouth -- at least not in public-- but the Donald certainly has shown one of the tell-tell signs of Demon possession--a foul mouth. ---
Therein lies the problem, Jim. At least with him, there are no pretensions, as with Hillary. She has a number of former co-workers assigning her a broomstick. A real tell-tale sign, perhaps?