-
Posts
39515 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by TwiceHorn
-
-
7 minutes ago, ndawg said:
How did Jesus react to the Jewish leaders who had done to the temple what our Evangelicals have done to so many churches?
I have a very shallow understanding of Christianity, but it doesn't seem to me that the only example he set was for humans to accept persecution.
Well, except Jesus kind of had some special authority, y'know. Yeah he did do a bit of trashing of the bad guys, but it was mostly subtle and among his adherents as an example of what not to be, not among the general public.
Presumably, as the Son of God, he could have gotten exceeding wroth and smitten those Pharoahs, and Pharisees, and Prefects, but he did not.
-
21 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:
Timely post, as this just happened...
United Methodists tighten ban on same sex marriage and gay clergy
This could lead to a split in the largest non-fundamentalist protestant church in the world. The vote was largely US congregations vs the African and Eastern European churches. I'm a life-long Methodist, and the long tenured and much beloved pastor of the church I've attended for the past 14 years decided to retire last year when this conference was announced. He said at the time he didn't think he had the stomach to stick around to see the church he'd given his live to torn apart.
Ugh.
-
3 hours ago, ndawg said:
A thought experiment: imagine sticking every American who has ever professed a strongly held belief about, say, climate change into one giant room. I can imagine they would number in the tens of millions, so it'd have to be a REALLY big room. Now imagine a mind reading device that can identify everybody in the room whose interest in the issue does not stem from a genuine desire to strike a balance between human welfare and ecological welfare. Now, kick all those people out of the room. How many people are still left?
Now imagine a different room where we stick every American who has ever professed a strong belief in Christianity. Now kick everybody out except the ones who have really committed themselves to following the teachings of Jesus Christ, every single day. Same thing happens as with climate change -- most people who hold a strong political or religious opinion don't actually care about the subject all that deeply. They think they do. They'll tell you that they do. They'll probably even get aggressive if you suggest that they don't actually care about the thing they're so passionate about. Behold, tribalism.
All that to say, if rational Christians are tired of evangelicals, it's long past time for them to fight back. Publicly. Rational Christians should be demanding that the IRS audit whether megachurch empires are abusing their tax exempt status. Only Christians get to raise this issue, because anyone else would feed the persecution narrative that's radicalizing the evangelicals. Rational Christians, on the other hand, can do a sort of jiu-jitsu takedown move and actually flip the persecution narrative inside out -- they can say, "hey, 700 Club and TBN, YOU'RE the ones attacking Christianity," and get people to listen.
The problem is that being Christian requires a bit of humility (remove the plank from thine own eye . . . ) that generally forecloses judgment and attacks on other churches and denominations, even when they are damaging "the brand," as it were. Besides, once the Methodists declare war on Osteen, where do they stop, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Presbyterians or those dirty Lutherans?
In the final analysis, in the example set by Jesus Christ, to be Christian is to be persecuted.
-
So a sometime riding buddy from the trail I went OTB on just hit me up. I hadn't told him about the collarbone. He asked where I did it and when I told him, he said "did you hit that rock." I'm like "what rock." We may have an answer to why I went OTB, although I still think turning away from the stumps on this confounded slack bike set me up to go over of and when I did hit the rock.
I guess I should go recon that part of the trail while I am still gimpy.
-
Well, a non-believer doesn't have to talk shit and probably shouldn't. The persecution going on is not a legitimate criticism of faith (faith by its very nature is unsubstantiated), it is criticism based on specific behavior that isn't universal to Christians.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, F250 said:
Interesting story. The CoC are an odd bunch. I dated one but she was also an aggy from Tomball so it was hard to tell if her family was weird because of the CoC thing, aggy or was it Tomball.
Now I am thinking your name is Jesus as in Hey-Zues.
Yeah, I left them out of my screed above because, well, they're weird. So they objected to Bozo's Christian name as being un-Christian? So Bozo is Beelzebub?
-
11 minutes ago, Chili dog said:
I’m not doubting that a bunch of local elected officials misused proceeds from lawful forfeitures. That happens all the time. But those assets are acquired from local law enforcement operations, not from federal investigations. You need to understand the difference.
Second, there is a huge difference between use and SALES. If the Feds are involved, it’s about drug sales of tremendous amounts. Pounds and pounds. Probably hundreds of pounds if it’s weed. They don’t care if you used it. Many of them probably used it. In Texas, use isn’t even illegal. Possession is illegal, but not use, ironically. So you can tell a cop who smells weed from your car that you don’t have any of the weed he smells because you just smoked it all, and you won’t be arrested. Of course, he will tear your car apart searching it because you just gave him probable cause.
So they’re not really being hypocrites. However, if you’ve been a drug dealer, you’re fucked and they won’t hire you, just like you’re fucked if you’re caught currently selling drugs. See the consistency there? So call the Feds whatever you want; hate drug laws all you want, but understand that what you are calling hypocrisy isn’t really hypocrisy.
Further, do you really have a problem with seizing the proceeds of criminal activity? Is it wrong to use drug money to pay for court appointed attorneys, or would you rather, as a tax payer (I’m making a big assumption there), pay for those attorneys yourself? I understand the argument that we should raise the burden of proof required to seize the assets, but the cocksuckers who break the law should lose all rights to their ill-gotten gains. I’ll concede that a margarita machine is not an appropriate use of the seized funds.
The feds seize things without a conviction all the time. They may not use it for margarita machines, but that doesn't make it right.
-
1
-
-
I still have full-blown fuck up dreams. Shitfaced, consequences, the whole banana. They tend to start with me being shitfaced for some reason, not the way I got like that.
-
1
-
-
I don't object to the persecution of alleged Christians in the media, because the ones being persecuted, typically, are exactly that, alleged or purported Christians. They are being "persecuted" precisely because of their hypocrisy.
What I do object to is the broad-brush labeling of Christians as being all the same. The most likely group to be hypocrites or bigots are non-denominational, congregational churches and they are a relatively small percentage of people professing to be Christian in the US.
Most mainline Protestant denominations are more likely to be "good" Christians or at least neutral by comparison and the churches themselves are almost uniformly a boon to their communities.
And setting aside the institutional problems of the Catholic church for a moment, individual Catholics are more likely to be minorities, minority-sympathetic, and overall classically liberal than your average American.
Unfortunately, "Baptists" are a big chunk of Protestants and they vary wildly from complete assholes to pretty good folks. And Westboro Baptist is not actually Baptist in that it is not affiliated with any national denomination. Baptists tend to have more in common with the congregational "evangelicals" than with mainline Protestants, but you generalize at your peril.
-
6
-
-
You kind of have to think a rogue programmer did that for the lulz. He should have put in quadroon, octoroon and quintroon.
-
9 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:
Is he the guy who had his car all wired up with cameras and mics in all directions, real-time GPS, instant up load to the cloud of speed, location, video etc?
And I fucking hate those BP checkpoints. They are straight up fucking bullshit.
Anyway, can somebody give a straight forward analysis of the cyber stalking law? And why the "knockdown" is a good thing? Not a shaggy legal eagle, so please type slowly.
A law violates the First Amendment if it prohibits or attaches a penalty to speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The law in question provided:
QuoteA person is guilty of [criminal] cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:
(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act;
(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or
(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household.
Items a) and c) refer to unprotected speech. Item b) encompasses protected speech and thus violates the First Amendment.
Quote[Subsection b's] breadth—by the plain meaning of its words—includes protected speech that is not exempted from protection by any of the recognized [First Amendment exceptions, namely obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, and speech integral to criminal conduct] ... [It] criminalizes a large range of non-obscene, non-threatening speech, based only on (1) purportedly bad intent and (2) repetition or anonymity.
When statutory terms are undefined, Washington courts generally give them their ordinary meaning, including the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition of "harass" includes "to vex, trouble, or annoy continually or chronically," and the meaning of "torment" incudes "to cause worry or vexation to." "Embarrass" means "to cause to experience a state of self-conscious distress." As a result even public criticisms of public figures and public officials could be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment if they are seen as intended to persistently "vex" or "annoy" those public figures, or to embarrass them....
Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently classified emotionally distressing or outrageous speech as protected, especially where that speech touches on matters of political, religious or public concern. This is because "in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide 'adequate breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." ...
-
5 minutes ago, BBQ2Bayou said:
You still getting those? IIRC, you're well over a year now, right? I'm only about 10 months, but mine have tapered off quite a bit. Still every now and then, but it was a few times a week for a while.
I've been sober for 21 years and I still get them.
-
I have real mixed feelings about the show. I think I enjoyed "the ride," even though I didn't much care for the ending. I guess that is attributable to the actors/acting.
I had kind of the same feelings after season 1, but still call that a great show.
-
14 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:
If they don't arrest the women, how do they prevent them from just being moved to Tampa next week? Don't they have to detain them somehow in order to find help for them? Bring in a jail in Palm Beach has got to be better than in a strip mall waiting for Bob Kraft to show up.
I suppose I should have said "arrest and charge." I have seen some more trafficking-oriented arrests where the victims were placed in protective custody, which is technically an arrest or detention. But as soon as they start mugshotting and publicizing their names, it loses credibility, imo.
All I am saying is, please critically examine these so-called human trafficking busts and ask yourself if it is really impacting trafficking, despite what the popo and the FBI may be trying to sell you.
It may help you be more informed if a legislator should bring up some ill-informed or advised piece of legislation to combat an horrific problem. Like this. Why is that shitty policymaking, or the beginning of it? Because the federal government has no business enacting rape legislation. None. That bitch is doing nothing but currying favor with a certain segment of the electorate.
-
12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:
The order discusses the tension between the Army clause of Art I and Am XIV and the deference given to Congress when acting on an Art I power. So that may be the basis for difference between a DoD view and a Congressional view -- one is acting under an explicit Constitutional power.
Well, in the end, it boils down to "more enlightened" views of gender. Just like the overruling of Dred Scott and Plessy and repudiation of Korematsu boiled down to more enlightened views of race. I'm ok with that.
-
10 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:
It's easier to BS to get out of county jury duty and it's a simple as saying your summon got lost in the mail if you are questioned later about it. The summons some counties send out look like junk mailers and have been known to get mis delivered or not even reaching the potential juror at all. The Federal summons is mailed in a standard envelope with US government mailing official mail markings. Thank goodness my county has implemented a system where you can respond on line and if you are lucky and get empaneled with a court who uses the full system, you won't have to show up until they actually need your jury pool for jury selection. Some courts still do it the old fashioned way which means this time of year sitting around people with snot coming out their noses.
The Federal Marshall Service is increasing becoming a multi level government paid bounty service. They are all over the place picking up people on warrants who not even being charged on a Federal level. So yea it wouldn't be that hard for them to make pit stop by your home or place of business if they get a call from court.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
-
One thing that's odd about this is that it shows what a shifting Constitutional standard we have in discrimination cases. To sustain a facially (meaning right there on it's face it says 'male" and excludes "female") discriminatory law such as this, it has to survive strict scrutiny, meaning it has to be supported by a compelling government interest in the discrimination and be the most narrowly tailored way to support that interest.
This decision rested on the determination outside the context of the draft (or draft registration) that women are fit to serve in combat roles, so the earlier compelling interest is no longer compelling. The earlier case rested on the determination that women were not fit to serve in combat roles, which was deemed at the time to be a compelling interest (of course the question remains why shouldn't women have been drafted for non-combat roles, which was the subject of a dissent by White, Marshall, and Brennan).
It seems kind of odd that the Constitutionality of a law depends on how Congress and the DOD view a separate, but related issue. One would tend to think that Constitutional principles are a bit more universal and immutable than that.
Then again there's Dred Scott and Korematsu, among others, but even those aren't dependent on congressional findings.
I'm not saying it's a wrong decision. Just noting an area that is somewhat open to criticism.
-
The other bummer about federal court is that they have limited voir dire, most often conducted by the judge, so if you're going to try to spin some bullshit about how "everyone did it" or "no one is ever guilty," or "I like drugs," you will have little opportunity to voice such an opinion, and will have to do it, most likely, directly to a federal district judge and answer his or her questions about it.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Lobwedgephil said:
They use US Marshalls if you don't show up? That seems extreme.
The Marshals are the bailiffs/sheriffs of the federal world. The state and county courts would do this too, but they call so many jurors every week that it's impossible to send a sheriff out to bring you in if you don't show up for a summons. Every now and then, though, the district or county court will bring someone in.
-
43 minutes ago, hookemATL said:
How exactly does one become an FBI agent? IIRC he hasn’t been retired all that long. I assume there is some formal criminal justice education, but after that did he have to do any time in PDs or he is able to just start the FBI training academy?
There is no specific qualification for thr FBI, other than a degree. They do have a fondness for accountants and lawyers. And they take dipshits straight out of college frequently, but you are not eligible to be a Special Agent gman until you have acquired the experience.
You can be reasonably assured that he didn't smoke a lot of pot, or survived a polygraph on that issue.
-
So what the hell happened to Amelia? She dade?
-
Again, I have no issue with actual promotion of awareness of sex trafficking. It's horrendous, and, as noted, a sort of historically neglected problem.
However, in any alleged "sex trafficking" bust where they arrest the hookers, it loses all credibility as anything other than a hooker/john case. The hookers are supposed to be the victims. Also, LEO working to stop actual sex trafficking aren't going to want to screw with 200 warrants for misdemeanor solicitation. It was either never about human trafficking, or they gave up and settled for low-hanging fruit.
And publicizing an issue is fine, politicizing a crime is rarely, if ever, fine. Legislators are barely competent in criminal justice, and when they start using it to pander for votes, it never, ever works out well. "Prioritizing" a crime, so that cops employ their usual tactics to bust people at a higher rate, and falsely or disingenuously calling it a victory for the prioritized crime is also bad idea jeans.
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:
It is not.
Drugs are drugs. Prostitutes are people.
Think about this for two seconds. If prositution is legalized, there will be a lot more dudes wanting the service than there are ladies to provide that service. Sure, some women would be ready and willing to be hookers, but most women would not. Therefore, human trafficking would happen to satiate the demand.
Again, these are real people. Not inanimate objects. This is not comparable to drugs for that reason.
Source, btw:
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
Reasonable point as far as it goes. I get skeptical when a crime gets politicized as it seems human trafficking has become or is becoming.
-
On 2/22/2019 at 2:14 PM, tucker said:
But they wouldn't have collected almost any tax dollars from Amazon which was the issue. Additionally, the terms allowed AMZN to change the agreement at will anytime. It was a bad deal. Cities like NYC do not need to give incentives to companies. Foxconn is the perfect example of what happens when politicians provide tax give aways to companies.
I'm not sure Foxconn is a good example of anything, except perhaps an absolutely rapacious, amoral company with a decidedly Asian approach to business and contracts. Making any kind of deal with Foxconn is almost assured to end badly if it requires Foxconn to adhere to terms of an agreement.
Media/Hollywood's anti-Christian campaign
in Cloak Room
Posted · Edited by TwiceHorn
Well, first of all, Christianity is about the person, more than the church or the movement. The first concern of an individual Christian as concerns others is their well-being, and secondarily their coming to Christianity themselves. But a Christian doesn't reject an unbeliever or a different believer out of hand, and certainly doesn't declare some kind of war on them. A Christian is bound to reserve any judgment and preach by example and by words when appropriate.
That type of philosophy doesn't lend itself to militaristic action against other faiths or non-faiths, even false prophets. If you ask a Methodist. Presbyterian, or Lutheran minister what he thinks of Fred Phelps or John Jeffers**, he might give you an earful couched in the gentlest possible terms and more in terms of what you can learn about being a Christian from their poor example, but he would never or rarely say it in public.
Real Christianity teaches to love your neighbor, no matter how big an asshole he is.
**Actually, he might say good things about the deceased attorney, but he probably wouldn't about Robert Jeffress.