• Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

Idiot of the Day

Messages
10,050
Christian
Yes
Perhaps. But it is highly suspicious that the nations he denigrated are all black nations, while he encouraged immigration from a decidedly white country - Norway.

It is at least defensible to approve of most of Trump's policies. But to defend the man's childish personal behaviour is the textbook definition of burying your head in the sand.
What are the facts.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,255
Not quite. We all know that making fun of people's appearance is childish. Do you deny this?

Calling such behaviour childish, while insulting, is simply a rebuke of childish behaviour.

If Rosie and Whoopi has committed some immoral act, and you called them on it, then and only then would our respective behaviours be equivalent.

You did something immature, ungracious, and unChristian - of this there is no doubt.

How do I know this? I know this because none of your fellow right-wingers here are going to say that making fun of these women's appearance is a Christian act.

I perhaps should have said "Insulting people based on their appearance is not a Christian act".

Would you agree with this statement I have just made? Was it unethical of you to poke fun at Rosie's and Whoopi's less than alluring appearance?
All I am saying is when exhorting others, don't do the same thing you are accusing them of doing. Make sense?
 
Messages
244
Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the world, it is the fastest growing enforced religion in the world, and the only one.
This is very true. Who do you think will run the NWO? I’ve seen on a previous forum that is literally Satan’s playground. It’s a place that targets, insults with troll members waiting for their next victim. The majority of posters were Muslim, they would put things in their status update such as “ Islam is the New World Order” and they in fact believe it.
 
Messages
3,255
This is very true. Who do you think will run the NWO? I’ve seen on a previous forum that is literally Satan’s playground. It’s a place that targets, insults with troll members waiting for their next victim. The majority of posters were Muslim, they would put things in their status update such as “ Islam is the New World Order” and they in fact believe it.
the antichrist will have jewish roots, if not there is no way the Jews would allow him into the jewish temple to desecrate it.
 
Messages
3,255
I dont believe in a single antichrist figure.
I believe in a literal Bible and interpret it literally, it's called verbal plenary inspiration. People differ on which parts should be literal or not. But I view this spectrum as a lack of study into the discipline of Biblical interpretation.
 
Messages
13,886
Location
Montreal, Quebec
Christian
Yes
but yet you call it racist. Nothing new here.
Obviously misleading. When someone (in another thread) posted a picture of young black men stomping on a police, was that racist?

Obviously it was, given the context.

Can it be proven to be racist? Of course not.

You, and many others as well, are clearly illicitly leveraging the fact that most acts that are clearly racist - like the desire for a wall - are not provably racist. Well, that's true.

But I cannot prove a lot of things that reasonable know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Messages
6,332
Judicial Resistance: Another judge tells Trump he can’t end DACA on March 5



Posted by William A. Jacobson Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 9:05pm
A continuing pattern of usurping Executive Branch authority and substituting judicial policy preferences.

Earlier today I was reading Prof. Josh Blackman’s post responding to criticism he has received for using the term Judicial Resistance, On the Judicial Resistance:
Over the past year, I have discussed at some length the self-professed “legal resistance,” which has coordinated legal strategies to resist President Trump in the courts. This front is part of the broader #Resistance movement against President Trump in the political sphere. These actions are completely rational, and unsurprising from the party that (unexpectedly) lost the election….

Without question, I have been extremely critical of these judicial opinions, which I firmly believe are profoundly flawed. Yet, I work very hard to ground my opposition in substantive arguments (many of which are published on Lawfare), and not devolve into political barbs….
The clearest articulation of my views on the judicial resistance comes in an October 2017 National Review essay that doesn’t even use the phrase. It develops three points that I’ve developed over-and-over again.
First, I have written at voluminous length that these judges have abandoned the traditional deference afforded to the President based on Trump’s conduct. That is, the presumption of regularity has been abandoned…
The consequence of this jurisprudence is that in effect, President Trump is disabled from exercising his own constitutional authority because of the circumstances in which he became president….
Second, courts have been motivated to reach out to resolve difficult constitutional questions when countless prudential barriers (standing, justiciability, constitutional avoidance, etc.), which would usually be adhered to, are ignored. In particular, the courts have shown no hesitation in second-guessing the government’s national security rationales,…
Third, the courts have repeatedly questioned the president’s motivations as acting in bad faith, and doubted government lawyers who have offered legitimate reasons in court….​
Read the entire post by Prof. Blackman, in which he explains that while he doesn’t claim bad faith by any judges, the result has been an abnormal judicial interference (my terminology).
Having covered many of the court decisions, particularly District Court decisions, which read in parts like political manifestos, I certainly agree that there is a judicial resistance to Trump.
We saw it in the travel order cases, and again in the January 2018 order from a San Francisco federal court judge order preventing Trump from ending DACA. I wrote of that Order
Rest of the article here:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/...d:+LegalInsurrection+(Le·gal+In·sur·rec·tion)
 
Messages
3,255
Obviously misleading. When someone (in another thread) posted a picture of young black men stomping on a police, was that racist?

Obviously it was, given the context.

Can it be proven to be racist? Of course not.

You, and many others as well, are clearly illicitly leveraging the fact that most acts that are clearly racist - like the desire for a wall - are not provably racist. Well, that's true.

But I cannot prove a lot of things that reasonable know to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you can't prove it, then what is the point of saying it.
 
Messages
15,078
Location
SE Texas
Christian
Yes
Where does mocking people based on their appearance fit into your holiness program?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
If you were not so arrogant and would address the issues, some of us might, actually learn to enjoy your fellowship. As it stands, you are so busy slandering and insulting that if you are a saved man no one can see it for all the horse manure you sling on yourself. You act like the Parisians and that is not a good thing. They, also, are rude and crude.