User Profile: termyt

termyt

Member Since: February 15, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] April 18, 2016 at 10:39am

    True, but anyone who frames another would have the same due process as the person they framed. They’d get convicted on only the ones the state could prove.

  • April 18, 2016 at 9:05am

    I have no idea. I wouldn’t do it, myself.

  • [3] April 18, 2016 at 8:42am

    Anyone who frames another should get at least what the person they framed got.

    Thankfully, this story ends much better than that, though.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] April 18, 2016 at 8:27am

    Did they force anyone to participate who were otherwise not inclined to? If not, more power to ya.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] April 15, 2016 at 4:55pm

    Prove it. Pull anything from my history that indicates I want rules to work for me differently than they work for others. Show me my own quote where I say rules that should be selectively enforced to suit my needs. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

    You are all talk and no substance.

  • [15] April 15, 2016 at 3:53pm

    You can’t do that governor! How dare you suggest that a potential victim alter their behavior in some way? She should be able to walk around the campus at night naked, drunk, with “Rape Me” tattooed on her body if she wants without fear of assault!

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] April 15, 2016 at 3:19pm

    If you want to win a game, you need to play by the rules. Simple enough for you?

  • [29] April 15, 2016 at 12:40pm

    If Colorado had given all of its delegates to Trump, I believe he would have praised their system. He might have won at least some of them, but he apparently thought that since there was no popular vote, he didn’t need to show up there. How did he think Colorado would handle its delegates? Did he even bother to ask anyone?

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] April 15, 2016 at 8:54am

    It already has. Have you seen the trump protesters?

  • [1] April 15, 2016 at 8:47am

    “What time are we hoping to return to?”

    That’s part of the trap. We should not be trying to return to any time. Every time has its own triumphs and tragedies. We want to continue to move forward, but we need to be looking and moving in the right direction. We’ve certainly had greater troubles in our past, but it’s not so much recapturing past glory that we need, but the correct attitude in facing our troubles today.

    There’s basically two “positive” responses to our struggles (I’m going to ignore defeatist theories like capitulation and resignation for this). The first is to stand defiantly in their face and rely on ourselves alone to overcome them. That sounds good, right? Self-reliance is a good thing. Unfortunately, no one can truly stand alone in this world. It’s a recipe for disaster proved time and again. What’s more, God is faithful. If we demand to stand alone without Him, He will let us.

    The other response is to humble ourselves and seek help. Seeking help from other nations will strengthen us for the short term, help us overcome some obstacles we couldn’t overcome alone, but in the long run, relying on other flawed nations only works so long as that nation is willing and able to help. We can also seek help from God. There is no limit to God. Seeking Him first and foremost is a permanent solution, not so we will never have struggles, but to always overcome them.

    That’s the Christian PoV.

  • [9] April 15, 2016 at 8:14am

    This is pretty much the whole point of the history books of the Bible – Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc. God has a relationship with and blesses nations as well as people.

    If a nation, via its chosen form of government, honors God, promotes Justice and Mercy, and turns to Him, He will bless it. If it defiantly stands on its own with a “bring it on” mentality, God will let its enemies do just that.

    Responses (1) +
  • [19] April 15, 2016 at 7:58am

    An indictment would require the current administration’s justice department to prosecute its own. They’ve shown that if your politics are agreeable, you can do anything you want and get away with it – like stand with weapons shouting threats and obscenities at people of a different skin color outside voting places – so that’s not going to happen. We’ll see if anything does next year.

    But of course they are obstructing. The whole point of Fast and Furious was to track guns FROM U.S. gun sellers, who were forced to participate, not TO Mexican cartels. Before the whistle was blown, Holder already gave several speeches demonizing American gun stores. It was a mad power grab to disarm US citizens and it failed spectacularly. It should have been one of the greatest scandals in US history, but, like Benghazi, no one in charge lost their job over it.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] April 14, 2016 at 12:12pm

    Some people do that, true, but they do that to deceive and are not followers of Christ.

  • [1] April 14, 2016 at 12:10pm

    I didn’t say His law passed away. It will never pass away.

    God’s Law is forever, it has not changed. The requirements for how keep it have changed. We no longer need ceremonial or cultural purity with a flawed human intercessor to take our case to God for us. We have a perfect human intercessor, who is also divine. He has no flaws but took our flaws on Himself, sacrificing Himself so that we may live. I know this is hard to understand, impossible, perhaps, for you. But if you do not understand, you cannot understand the scriptures, which make the wise seem foolish and those who seem foolish wise.

  • [3] April 14, 2016 at 11:09am

    To understand a document like the Bible, you have to understand its context. Why was that verse written? Who was the intended audience? What does it apply to? These are not simple questions to anyone but the atheist evangelicals that look for any reason to dismiss the whole because of a sentence buried in it somewhere.

    The simplest answer is we are not bound by a single law written anywhere in the Old Testament. Christians aren’t 40th Century BC Jews. God does not require us to be ritualistically pure as an entire nation and culture. That’s not how we operate, but to break down even as simply as this ignores a very important part of what it means to follow God as a Christian.

    As far as tattoos go, the purpose of prohibiting them was to keep the Jews noticeably different from their neighbors and their pagan gods. Tattoos today do not have that connotation in our culture (but they do elsewhere, so don’t get one if you want to be an effective missionary in, say, Japan.) If your tattoos today glorify a pagan god (i.e. any thing man today places ahead of God such as sex, money, gangs, violence), then, yes, that’s a sin. If they do not detract from the one, true God, than, no, they are not.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] April 14, 2016 at 10:02am

    Where can I get me a pair of them Trump goggles? If I wear them on Texas’s south border, will I see a wall being paid for by Mexico?

  • [-3] April 14, 2016 at 8:46am

    Filing a police report requires an investigation. Declining to prosecute could mean no crime was committed, but could also mean the crime isn’t worth the time and money to prosecute. The latter is grounds for a civil suit, which is what’s happening next.

    The whole thing is just about their denial that even happened at all and claiming the reporter made it up. I bet the assault is not going to be the focus of the civil suit, but the denial it even happened and the claims they made about her character. She’s likely going to go after them for slander.

  • April 14, 2016 at 8:31am

    Nonsense. It was never about how rough the contact was or whether it constituted criminal assault. It’s that he, the campaign, and his candidate continually lied about it.

    They claim Cruz is a liar, but here they are caught red-handed in a lie. Not that any trumpies care. Which is fine, you don’t have to hold your own candidate to the same standards you hold others. Lord knows Obama’s supporters don’t.

  • [7] April 14, 2016 at 8:06am

    All the Trump campaign had to do was admit it happened and apologize. That’s all. This would have all gone away as a non-story.

    Instead we have a soap opera.

    Responses (6) +
  • [13] April 13, 2016 at 3:13pm

    $1000 tax is too much. The Supreme Court will likely vote it down, depending on who replaces Scalia, of course. They have rejected such taxes in the past as de facto bans.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love