Christopher000 wrote: Hi Frank, I was just thinking along that line just yesterday. I was thinking about how incredibly unprofessional he sounds, along with the things said. Like you, I really thought he would be on his best behavior and grow into the position quickly, but he just brought himself into the office. Yes, interesting for sure.
I don't know, Christopher. The professional sounding type, like we just got rid of, who read all their carefully worded lines, are able to make people's eyes glaze over, while they steal their clothes with a big smile and proper decorum. I'll take a chance on the buffoon. And he's just what the decorum-fawning media deserves.
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @Christopher000 Absolutley! Case in point: a few evenings ago CBS reported on the cost of Trumpâ€™s vacations to date. I didnâ€™t think liberals had access to that info since they had nothing to say about Obamaâ€™s spending for the last 8 years! Now that Trump is going after the media, the left has suddenly discovered the 1st Amendment- after giving the â€śConstitutional Scholarâ€ť (President Obama) cart blanche to trample Freedom of Religion for 8 years. To be honest, I expect the left to be hypocrites as a matter of course- if they ever werenâ€™t, Iâ€™m too young to remember it. What hurts more for me is watching â€śConservativesâ€ť flip-flop on things they said were â€śPrinciplesâ€ť.
Not much different than the daily military death count while Bush was prez, and the total ignoring of the deaths during the Obama administration, even though there were were more. The agenda must go on.
From the news: "The rite, requiring a stub of a candle, a pin, salt, matches, a tarot card, a feather and other odds and ends, calls on spirits to ensure President Trump will â€śfail utterly.â€ť It also includes burning a picture of the commander in chief, visualizing him â€śblowing apart into dust or ash.â€ť ..
Must be Trump is doing something right, if the witches are after him. They must think their voodoo doodoo has power over Christian prayers for those in authority.
Phillip Mezzapelle wrote: Setting aside the never ending debate about whether or not the New Testament believer is still required to keep the fourth commandment, regarding which, in my own humble opinion, we are still commanded to observe. If one of us were to petition the NFL to schedual its games on a tuesday or thursday I don't think they would respond back to us in a kind civil way. There's a big reason why the games are played on Sunday. Finally, just one more reason why I can thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for helping me gradually get off the pro sports fix.
Maybe they might consider Saturday. You know, the seventh day of the week.
Elmer Gantry was fiction, Jim. Really. Sinclair Lewis who made him up was agnostic. (He isn't agnostic anymore, btw) Ever question why an agnostic's view of Christian life should be taken seriously, as the character Gantry was? As far as Graham not being welcome in Vancouver, the left wing of Canada, that says he must be on the right track.
You said "..other people could do it, probably even better then Frankie,"
First, what did he say that you disagree with about homosexuality and Islam, and second, have you suggestions the mayor of Vancouver might be open to?
From the news: "A federal judge has ordered the city of Fort Collins to stop enforcing a policy that bans women from showing their breasts in public.
It started with one woman asking, "If men can go topless, why can't women?"
Of course, yet another federal judge ordering something over which he has no authority. As far as the woman's question goes, it is not one asked by those who can still think. Because women aren't men, that's why. The hidden agenda is the same as the others of late. Destroy gender, family, marriage. The rightful response to the fed judge would be to deny unlawful authority. Can he have the entire city arrested? The idea that a judge is final arbiter of these issues does not exist in the Constitution. That is myth.
Peculiar, Exellent Sermon This isn't just an excellent sermon. There are qualities to this message and other sermons from this speaker that clearly set it apart from other broadcasters. His messages are peculiarly organized, every work carefully spoken. The messages are lacking personal opinion and heavy on scriptural references. He takes the time to prove his assertions from scripture which makes these messages IDEAL to use in the company of other believers with different backgrounds. The applications are common sense and often indisputable.
We invest the money to transcribe these sermons for our work bible study. We use a projector to display the .pdf file while we listen to the message. Periodically we pause the message for discussion. Overall we find these sermons from this speaker very edifying and provoking. The discussion is real. The overall effect is that these messages are propelling men towards God in a life of faith and obedience. Thank you!
Sad how those you'd expect to know better, fall in line using the language of the offenders:
From the news: "The White House today rescinded the Obama administrationâ€™s transgender directive, a policy that required schools to allow students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that corresponded with their gender identities."
Why even use such nonsensical language? Would it not be more truthful and accurate to have it read:
"The White House today rescinded the Obama administrationâ€™s transgender directive, a policy that required schools to allow students to use the restrooms of the opposite gender."
It isn't about tradition vs rights, it's about reality.
John Yurich USA wrote: Say what? I did not copy any URL. And I am not nor have I ever been a Hindu. Where did you get that nonsense from that I am a Hindu also? ---
Jim's take is a little different than mine, John. Maybe the idea of Hinduism comes up because you have said in your next life you are going to be an eastern Colorado rancher who travels with a country band.
Here is what the Media Bias/Fact Check link says about the New American.-
"Displays right wing bias in reporting and does not always follow the consensus of science."
I didn't realize that consensus of science was the basis for unbiased fact. Evolution is true then?
They also rated New American factual reporting bias as "mixed." Now that may well be, but I checked what they said about "Black Lives Matter." Though they are classified "left bias," their factual reporting was rated "high." I thought the contradiction interesting.
From the news: "Susan Creamer, a Merritt Brown Middle School teacher in Panama City, Florida, berated her students on a Facebook page designated for local atheists, where she claimed that the middle schoolers teased and harassed her by inviting her to go to church with them."
I suppose to an athiest it is harassment to be invited to church. But the teachers aren't to proselytize, right? Somehow she made known to the students what she was about. Now she doesn't like their response of inviting her to church. Poor thing.
We can set up a "what if" scenario, but doesn't the premise have to at least be possible? We may ask what if it were Obama or Clinton, but it takes a serious imagination to set that up. Why? There is already sufficient personal, political, and policy experience for a number of years with those two to safely conclude there could never be any such what if for us to ponder. We already know what they think about it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I was looking around for material why Albert Schweitzer was a heretic. I I came upon this article by Phil Johnson. He really earned his pay on this one! Besides his short remarks about Schweitzer he goes on at length about, http://tinyurl.com/jprh5g6 (Whatâ€™s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul). " review of an influential book by Anglican author N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham. The book is titled 'What Saint Paul Really Said .' This is a book written by a well-known Anglican Bishop , who has found too much favor in the Evangelical world. After reading this, I'm beginning to wonder if a Christian should pay any attention to the Anglican Church or anybody in it before the 20th century? My advice would be no
It's one thing to take a day off work, quite another to not even call in the absence. Employer is fully in its rights to seek new employees who will respect the organization rules. I wonder if the rule breaking employees are illegals? Their unhappiness would make some sense then.
Trying to understand. Is it the Boy Scouts want to admit girls who think they are boys, or is it boys who think they are girls? Will they have to become the LBTGSA? And they think it ok for homosexual men to be BOY Scout leaders? Guys who like guys in a most inappropriate way? Someone needs check what they're drinking, and what they are looking at on line.