[Big Steve-1]

Atheists and others who like to make anti-religious arguments such as the "Mary rape" one profoundly offend Christians.

I should be clear: I don't make a habit of it. But when someone feels they're completely justified in telling me why my beliefs are fucked up, trust me, I'll waste little time to afford them the same courtesy.

For me, I can believe there's a "higher power", but I think it's pretty damn arrogant for anyone to believe they've got the correct God. A Jew's beliefs are no more right or wrong than a Muslim's, which are no more correct or incorrect than a Buddhist's.

I was raised Roman Catholic, and there are just too many things which, for me, defy logic.

Believe what you choose, but never lose sight of the fact that they're called "beliefs" for a reason.

[Pants-of-dog]

Trump’s treatment of Lt. Col. Vindman and Mr. Sondland is a good example of why the identities of whistleblowers needs to be kept secret.

[jimjam]

LTC Vindman was wounded by an improvised explosive device in Iraq in October 2004 when the vehicle he was riding in was hit. I really don't see the simple shedding of blood as a measure of a hero.

How ironic that Private Bone Spurs, a known draft dodger, gets to screw up the life of a purple heart soldier to satisfy his lust for hatred/revenge. Is America great again or is America now the world's laughing stock?

[Big Steve-1]

Trump’s treatment of Lt. Col. Vindman and Mr. Sondland is a good example of why the identities of whistleblowers needs to be kept secret.

Yeah, but everyone pretty much knows that Eric Ciaramella was the whistle blower, and I think he still has a job.

[blackjack21]

Trump’s treatment of Lt. Col. Vindman and Mr. Sondland is a good example of why the identities of whistleblowers needs to be kept secret.

It's an example of why the whistleblower statute should be considered unconstitutional, because in the United States a defendant has a right to confront their accuser. Trump should have fired Vindman on day one simply because he was an Obama holdover.

We also need to get rid of civil service protections. The risk of a spoils system is less than the treachery we've seen recently.

How ironic that Private Bone Spurs, a known draft dodger, gets to screw up the life of a purple heart soldier to satisfy his lust for hatred/revenge.

For those calling Trump a dictator, coup plotters usually get far worse treatment under real dictators.

Yeah, but everyone pretty much knows that Eric Ciaramella was the whistle blower, and I think he still has a job.

Saving Private Ciaramella

One of the benefits of impeachment was that the Senate was compelled to sit an listen to Pam Bondi's case against the Bidens. The Senate is starting to look into this now, as they should have ages ago. Politically, Biden is melting down now. I'm betting they are going to start looking into the coup plotters too.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, but everyone pretty much knows that Eric Ciaramella was the whistle blower, and I think he still has a job.

I remember you trying to convince me that Ciaramella was the whistleblower, but you had no evidence.

Do you think Trump should fire him anyway?

After all, he did fire a decorated military officer just because of his vindictiveness.

[Hindsite]

Anyway Mark almost universally agreed to be the earliest extant Gospel clearly didn't think the Mary was a virgin. There is no suggestion that Jesus or any of his brothers had anything, but a normal conception and even if Jesus had been conceived by a Holy non incarnating Spirit, there is no suggestion in Mark that he was the oldest sibling.

Mark is also believed to be the youngest of the gospel writers. He says nothing at all about the birth of Jesus. That information is left to Matthew and Luke, where it is clear that Mary was a virgin before her first child by the Holy Spirit. I am not under the catholic delusion that Mary remained a virgin and that she should be worshiped like the Son of God. It is not reasonable for me to believe Joseph was not a normal man that desired sexual intercourse with his wife and which would have resulted in other children in addition to the ones Joseph brought to the marriage. However, there seems to be no clear text to prove Mary had additional children after Jesus. It is just my personal belief that she probably did.
HalleluYah

[jimjam]

For those calling Trump a dictator, coup plotters usually get far worse treatment under real dictators.

Good point …… it sure is great that impeached president Trump isn't setting up the gas chambers. I plan to vote against him though. I had better prepare for my Social Security checks to be "delayed" under the new stink of hatred and revenge permeating Fatso's "Great America".

[Hindsite]

I remember you trying to convince me that Ciaramella was the whistleblower, but you had no evidence.

Do you think Trump should fire him anyway?

After all, he did fire a decorated military officer just because of his vindictiveness.

Eric Ciaramella does not work in the White House. He only found out about the Ukraine phone call from the leaking by LTC Vindman, who also told his brother.

[Drlee]

Rich wrote:
Anyway Mark almost universally agreed to be the earliest extant Gospel clearly didn't think the Mary was a virgin. There is no suggestion that Jesus or any of his brothers had anything, but a normal conception and even if Jesus had been conceived by a Holy non incarnating Spirit, there is no suggestion in Mark that he was the oldest sibling.

Keep it up Rich. Every post like this is a dozen votes for Trump.

If I were a Trump strategist I would start planting all kinds of this kind of stuff and attribute it to some "liberal" or some Democrat. It would drive even more of the silent majority to vote for Trump.

The impeachment drove Trump's approval rating to its highest point yet. Totally predictable. Here is why:

To the religious person it was an attempt to get rid of the religious champion, Trump.

To the anti-abortion crowd it was an attempt to kill babies.

To the pro business person it was an attempt to regulate them out of business.

To the climate denier it was an attempt to kill jobs with environmental regulation and fake science.

To the anti-gay marriage crowd it was an attempt to normalize homosexuality.

To the small business owner, like myself, it was the threat of higher taxes.

There are more but you get the point. The republican party is a coalition of single issue voters. So are independents.

This election is going to be high farce. What are the choices? A very old highly tainted democratic party faithful. A socialist. A woman who is a one issue campaigner. A gay but establishment consultant with no national experience. Some assorted women who can't seem to garner the woman vote. It is going to be a rout.

The dems have one chance and one chance only. Run Michele Obama. She MIGHT get sufficient women to turn the tide.

[Hindsite]

Republican Sen. Susan Collins says she's getting death threats after her vote to acquit President Donald Trump at his impeachment trial, saying three of them were deemed “credible” and are being investigated.

Collins also received threats before when she voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=U453DHP

Democrats have become very sore losers.

[Rugoz]

One of the reasons. About 20% of Americans voted for him; for a significant part of that 20%, he's their 'revenge' president, who hates the same people they do and is brazen enough to do what they want done, eg immigrant children locked up, Muslim countries banned from entering the USA. They are his base, who were enthusiastic in the primaries. They are probably mostly nicer people than him in person (eg they like animals, and would help a neighbour in trouble), but have a mean streak he satisfies. Many of his voters were just 'good Republicans', who went with the flow in the primaries, and justify supporting him because he installs the judges the Federalist Society tells him to, and works with the party for high-end tax cuts (the permanent policy of the party).

Get real; no one thinks Trump is better, morally, than they are. Republicans think he's flawed, but useful to them.

I don't really buy it. Maybe he won the primaries because of a bunch of people with a "mean streak" (aka assholes), but he went on to win the presidency. Meanwhile Obama and Bill Clinton won against typical well-behaved Republicans, and Hillary Clinton lost against Trump. Sure, Hillary wasn't exactly popular either but why would a "good Republican" who picked Obama over Romney pick Trump over Hillary 4 years later? Or do you think it's all due to different turnout? If you ask me there's something "typical American" about Trump that has broad appeal.

[Big Steve-1]

I remember you trying to convince me that Ciaramella was the whistleblower, but you had no evidence.

Do you think Trump should fire him anyway?

Yes, I do.

After all, he did fire a decorated military officer just because of his vindictiveness.

As was his prerogative to do.

[Hindsite]

Gutfeld reacts to Mitt Romney's attack on Trump - 1 year ago
Jan 2, 2019

Trump Calls For Mitt Romney’s Impeachment After Criticism of Ukraine call - 4 months ago
Oct 6, 2019

Gutfeld on the acquittal
Feb 5, 2020

Democrats invented a new kind of crazy: Knowing the outcome of an event well in advance and still expecting a different result.

'The Five' on Trump taking marathon victory lap after his acquittal
Feb 6, 2020

[late]

I remember you trying to convince me that Ciaramella was the whistleblower, but you had no evidence.

Do you think Trump should fire him anyway?

After all, he did fire a decorated military officer just because of his vindictiveness.

He can't, he's in the CIA.

Of course, Trump can gut the CIA for Putin same way he did to State. But that will have to wait til after the election.

(For those with a short attention span, one of the first things Trump did was attack the CIA. Which is straight out of the Wannabe Dictator playbook, take down anyone and anything that could limit your power.)

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I don't really buy it. Maybe he won the primaries because of a bunch of people with a "mean streak" (aka assholes), but he went on to win the presidency. Meanwhile Obama and Bill Clinton won against typical well-behaved Republicans, and Hillary Clinton lost against Trump. Sure, Hillary wasn't exactly popular either but why would a "good Republican" who picked Obama over Romney pick Trump over Hillary 4 years later? Or do you think it's all due to different turnout? If you ask me there's something "typical American" about Trump that has broad appeal.

Romney did get a higher proportion of the electorate to vote for him than Trump. Romney got 47.2% of a 54.9% turnout - 25.9% of the electorate. Trump got 46.1% of a 55.7% turnout - 25.7%. If you're looking for why some people voted for Obama in 2012, and Trump in 2016, then yes, those could be those who think a woman shouldn't be president. The "good Republicans" are the ones who voted for both Romney and Trump.

No, Trump doesn't have 'broad appeal' - his personal disapproval rating has always been high. Because he is an asshole. Some people wanted him to behave like an asshole to certain sections. The more gullible may have believed he'd be an asshole to big business, and side with the average American. They could also be in the sector of "voted for Obama in 2012 (against a guy who worked for private equity firms), but for Trump in 2016 (having fallen for his bullshit)".

[Patrickov]

Romney did get a higher proportion of the electorate to vote for him than Trump. Romney got 47.2% of a 54.9% turnout - 25.9% of the electorate. Trump got 46.1% of a 55.7% turnout - 25.7%. If you're looking for why some people voted for Obama in 2012, and Trump in 2016, then yes, those could be those who think a woman shouldn't be president. The "good Republicans" are the ones who voted for both Romney and Trump.

No, Trump doesn't have 'broad appeal' - his personal disapproval rating has always been high. Because he is an asshole. Some people wanted him to behave like an asshole to certain sections. The more gullible may have believed he'd be an asshole to big business, and side with the average American. They could also be in the sector of "voted for Obama in 2012 (against a guy who worked for private equity firms), but for Trump in 2016 (having fallen for his bullshit)".

Or was it as simple as some Democrat voters punished their party for robbing Sanders of his candidacy?

[Big Steve-1]

Of course, Trump can gut the CIA for Putin same way he did to State. But that will have to wait til after the election.

No, it doesn't. Trump could gut the CIA tomorrow if he wants to.

The only reason he doesn't is that he's tired of all the liberal whining which occurs any time the guys does anything.

(For those with a short attention span, one of the first things Trump did was attack the CIA. Which is straight out of the Wannabe Dictator playbook, take down anyone and anything that could limit your power.)

He didn't "take down" the CIA.

Your desire for drama is noted, though.

[late]

1) No, it doesn't. Trump could gut the CIA tomorrow if he wants to.

2) The only reason he doesn't is that he's tired of all the liberal whining which occurs any time the guys does anything.



3) He didn't "take down" the CIA.

1) There is a good chance of that costing him the election, which is why I said he couldn't right now.

2) He's a sadist, he likes it.

3) You have some issues with reading comprehension, that's not what I said. I said he attacked the CIA, which he did. The attempt backfired, he hadn't gotten rid of enough competent people. But I expect he will again.

Foolishly, I didn't think I needed to cover that bit of recent history in detail. It was a huge story at the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I do.

I have no doubt that Trump supporters love it when Trump does something vindictive with no evidence.

As was his prerogative to do.

Yes, it was.

And it is a clear indicator that he does not respect the military.