I hope I've changed. I aspire to always change a little. You used to make fun of both sides. Thank god for Donald Trump!
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I still do make fun of both sides, but it all comes back to Trump for you. I think he broke your brain, dude. He's done things that you would have championed a few years back, but you can never give him credit for...because he's Donald Trump. The difference between us is that you have TDS and I don't.
Franklin graham has called out buttagieg for being a gay christian. Basically calling him a hypocrite. This is the same franklin graham that once said trump paying off a porn actress to keep silent about him cheating on his wife with her was a private matter and no big deal. Hes also never commented on trump bragging on tape about sexually assaulting women.
Thank you frank for reminding me why i’m not religious you pos hypocrite.
Thank you frank for reminding me why i’m not religious you pos hypocrite.
I'm not religious either, but you can't let one blowhard idiot ruin a whole religion for you. FWIW, it's hard to be a gay Christian because it's against the tenets of the religion.
Dude he’s like number 3,630 in blow hard christian idiots i’ve encountered. And fwiw supporting trump violates about every tenet of christianity as well.
Actually, Jesus said to hate the sin but love the sinner, so you're incorrect there. And there are plenty of of Christians who accept homosexuals. They may not agree with them, they may think it's a sin, but they also accept them.
LOL! I'm no Christian. However, I obviously understand more about the religion than you do.
Yes... it comes back to Trump for ME. You're not very self-aware.
Tell me... what has he done that I would have championed years ago? Aside from NOT going to war in new countries. I'm really glad that he's a thorn in the side of neo-cons like Bill Kristol. I mean, he seems to be. He has no understanding of monetary policy.
Well, we are all aware that you know more about everything than the rest of us combined.
Well, remember when we had this conversation and I pointed out him signing prison reform into law? You seem to have already forgotten that. How about shutting down TPP or trying to control the border and bring back manufacturing jobs in an effort to improve wages?
You can try to cheap-shot me all you want, but what did I say that wasn't true?
Yet you've already forgotten about it, or his attempts to help out the working man via lower unemployment and higher wages. How about restructuring NAFTA to give us a better deal?
He's delivering Biblical truth, man
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politic...biblical-truth-to-gay-democrat-pete-buttigieg
Nobody is defending Franklin Graham, bruh. I believe I called him a "blowhard idiot" earlier in the thread. It's one thing to not agree with someone's lifestyle. It's another thing, at least IMO, to put them on blast for political reasons. Graham should just shut up and stop grandstanding. He reminds me of these idiot celebrities.
Possibly not.
You claim to know more about Christianity than someone else, and there's nothing factual about that statement. You provide opinions that you are convinced are factual. You just ignore anything that challenges your opinion. Self-congratulatory rhetoric is the usual contribution from you.
I was going to make a Dirty Work joke about this, but I figured it would be too eclectic.
Anyways, uncboy doing what uncboy does.
“Love the sinnner hate the sin” or any variation is not in the bible. I suppose u could make a good argument its implied but its not in any verse.
Well, I wasn't replying to you with that post.
Idiot celebrities? Be careful... you're talking about the leadership of this country when you bash idiot celebrities.
You're right, it was my opinion, but it sounds pretty solid in light of the conversation. I'm not telling heelmanwilm that he can't hate Christians. I would completely understand if he hated Christians. All I said was to not let one guy ruin a religion for you. That seems like pretty good advice to me, wouldn't you agree?
It doesn't appear verbatim. The quote is based upon Jude 1:22-23.
“Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.”
However, I was wrong when I attributed it to Jesus.
BTW, interesting story time. I saw an older guy with a MAGA hat on today. I was kind of hoping that someone would try to bully him about it while I was there, but that doesn't happen in this state, because in this state that s*** will get you shot, and rightly so.
It may "sound solid" to you. That's fine. That doesn't make it FACT.
I would encourage anyone to not let the few bad apples ruin one's opinion of any group. I guess it depends on the particular group, however. It's hard to find "Good Nazis", I would imagine. Sometimes, the group's theme is more likely to extinguish the beneficial traits of a person.
Organized religion is an institution that, in my opinion, has run its useful course in human society. The ancient religions, I mean. They're stagnant, tribal, dogmatic, and they are always used to embolden prejudices. Do they have qualities that benefit human society? Sure, they do. In fact, the religions that prosper are ones that change and modify to accept contemporary, SECULAR behaviors!
Whoever they please. But if they want to vote for someone that reflects christian values it SURE AS FUK AINT TRUMP
I disagree. Trump is someone who is actually the epitome of what has become contemporary Christian values.
Man, this might be your worst posting day ever. The law doesn't state that the court has to give bail. It just doesn't. If you will read the rest of the constitution, you'll notice it talks about the rights a citizen has and what the government can't do. It mentions those rights specifically. Pretty much every legal scholar and constitutional expert agrees that denying bail is constitutional. I'm going to explain this in more detail for you, but this is going to be the ultimate Van Damme, so I hope you are sitting down. Bear with me because it's going to be a long post.
The eighth amendment is almost identical to the English Bill of Rights version, which states:"excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It's clear by the similarities, that the founders intended the basis of the eight amendment to reflect the meaning and origin of the version in the English Bill of Rights. Now that I've taught you that, I can teach you about the origin of the English Bill of Rights version.
It's origin actually started way back in the 13th century. Parliament passed a statue back then that listed crimes where bail could be denied and crimes where bail had to be given. Kings would try to abuse this power, so in the 16th century the Petition of Right stated that the King didn't have that power. There were still some loopholes, but the Habeas Corpus act closed those loopholes.
All of that lead to judges giving defendants high bail, so the English Bill of Rights was written to address that with the language that I mentioned above. Since denial of bail powers have been given to the courts since the 13th century, the 8th amendment is interpreted to still give that power because there was nothing in the English Bill of Rights that took that power away.
Now that I have clearly established the legal basis for the reason bail can be denied, you can go ahead and admit defeat. That's what you should do anyway. I have a feeling that you are going to try to dig your heels in even deeper and once again respond with your opinion instead of actual facts. Hope you enjoyed the history lesson though.
I think this is the part of the conversation where I present you with a mic drop.
Similar threads
