The Goat Pen

hedge wrote:Dignity has no place in this forum...

I.... can't hold a candle to that one.

I know the Bible quite well. Probably better than you. Unlike you, I actually went to two evangelical seminaries. What training or education do you have as a Christian counselor? A certificate from Strayers earned in a weekend?

I love a good theological debate. I just ask that the person I'm debating be relatively sane. When you quote the Bible as "proof" that a husband can cheat on his wife, beat up his wife, molest his children, refuse to get a job and support his family, but his wife isn't allowed to divorce him. But a husband is allowed to divorce his wife if she gives him a cup of coffee at the wrong temperature. With that kind of "Bible knowledge" it's hard to take you seriously enough to debate you.

Professor Tiger wrote:I know the Bible quite well. Probably better than you. Unlike you, I actually went to two evangelical seminaries. What training or education do you have as a Christian counselor? A certificate from Strayers earned in a weekend?

I love a good theological debate. I just ask that the person I'm debating be relatively sane. When you quote the Bible as "proof" that a husband can cheat on his wife, beat up his wife, molest his children, refuse to get a job and support his family, but his wife isn't allowed to divorce him. But a husband is allowed to divorce his wife if she gives him a cup of coffee at the wrong temperature. With that kind of "Bible knowledge" it's hard to take you seriously enough to debate you.

Pure hooey.

• I ask you why it is important that a wife (who is not a widow) be a virgin on her wedding night, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.
• I ask you why it is important that a wife obey her husband in all things, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.
• I ask you why it is important that you instruct women never to preach to men about anything spiritual, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.
• I ask you why it is important to remind wives to submit to their husbands as much sex as their husbands desire, why God has instructed that to refuse your husband is committing sin, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.
• I ask you why it is important to tell young men that if they marry a divorced woman that they are committing adultery, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.
• I ask you to show me anywhere in the Bible anywhere where God says a woman can divorce her husband, and you don't have an answer for me. That is because it is NOT there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

According to you, all of this is just an example of God being insane. You feel (with your evangelical seminaries and training) that you have the authority to change the rules and correct, God.

I am not interested in debating you about the Bible because I know why you wont debate me. Your comments about men beating up their wives and molesting their children, you are being a white knight for feminism. I know why pastors and clergy try to reconcile feminism into Christianity. They do that because they want to eat. They do that because they need to keep the lights of the church and the heat, on. Preach the Red Pill truth, you are preaching to an empty church and you don't make the mortgage payment. That is because the wives of the church run the church. They pick which church they want to bring the family to or ELSE they divorce the husband and collect cash and prizes. If the husband puts his foot down and demand a Biblical preacher, they divorce the husband and collect cash and prizes. And if they just "fall out of love" with their husband and they want to hop up and down on alphamcstudlyunemployedharleyridingrockbanddrummer's cock, but they don't want to give up hubby's earning power, they divorce their husband and collect cash and prizes. In feminism, this is right, and good, and moral, and "Biblical."

I suggest we move this to the religion thread.

Fuck the bible

Professor Tiger wrote:At Bob Jones University, they believe that Roman Catholicism was the equivalent of Satanism. At least they used to.

Just ask Sardis.

No, just the harlot possessed by the anti-Christ.

Heh.

That interpretation is right there in Chick Publication tracts. So it must be true.

This thread has been in need of a pick-me-up.

But then IB came stumbling back..

Tick, if you haven't done so already, I suggest you swing by the religion thread. It has been quite lively there today. IB has been in rare form.

Beating off to 13 year old girls is not considered "rare form"

Professor Tiger wrote:Tick, if you haven't done so already, I suggest you swing by the religion thread. It has been quite lively there today. IB has been in rare form.

I avoided our downtown Market Square for a long time because of the sidewalk preachers with their megaphones. Seems many have moved onto 1he internet (formerly a denizen of evil, prior to gofundme).

I get that. But you can always put on a trench coat, a big floppy hat, and a fake mustache so nobody knows you're there.

Already tried that

hedge wrote:They just have to live another 4 years....

Serious question: Were you OK with the senate repubs not giving a hearing to Garland? Would you have felt the same way if senate dems had done that to a repub president in that same situation?

The dems would have done it and in fact advocated for it. Which is why I was glad to see R's fight like a Democrat for once.

Biden in '92 from NYT:

Video of Biden: https://nyti.ms/2jUfLde via @nytvideo

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

It all goes back to Bork. Dems started this crap and then went nuclear stacking the circuit courts with Reid. Obama filibustered Alito. BTW Bork was nominated July 1st 1987 or 18 months before the 1988 election. He would have been confirmed more than a year before the election if not for the disgraceful actions of Kennedy and the rest of the Dems. Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 only because the Dem's voted down Bork.

The irony is if they had voted for Bork and he served until he died in 2012 he would have been replaced by Obama instead of Kennedy still being on the court.

If I was McConnell, I would go to the floor and inform Democrats that we didn't start this fight but we are going to finish it. Your leaderships hubris brought us to this point and now its time to pay the piper (aka get metaphorically prison raped). Keep Reid's rules for three years (including H-Bomb if Dems filibuster ANY Scotus) and then re-instate the filibuster as it always had been with 60 for everything. Basically Dems brought us to this point so suffer some pain bitches. Additionally I don't know if they can, but if it is possible I would make the rule on filibuster require 2/3rds vote to make any change to it. Not sure if that can be put in place with a majority or if it takes 60 or 2/3rds. Dems need to suffer some pain for it and then a 2/3rds requirements to change could then back everybody back from the precipice. Reagan got all kinds of shit done with a Dem house all 8 years and a Dem senate 6 of 8. It can be done.

bluetick wrote:Overnight...saber-rattling at Iran, piss-fighting with Australian PM, defending Milo Yiannopoulus's right to hate speech at Cal..

the frenzy to Make America Great Again continues

Hate Speech? Why do you hate fags tick?

Milo is great. You really think he shouldn't be allowed to speak? Wow.

BTW the best think I read about Gorsuch is when he said as a judge if you are happy with all your decisions then you are probably not a very good judge. I couldn't agree more.

A good judge makes decisions based on the law and Constitution and not what he feels is right. The 9th circuit seems very happy with its decisions which is why it also overturned more than any other court.

How anybody can read the Constitution and the laws that Congress passed on immigration and come to any other conclusion than the President absolutely has the power to do so is crazy:

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

In addition he is acting under authority granted to him by Congress which from a case against Truman when he tried to seize a steel mill:

The most famous part of the decision is a concurrence from Justice Robert H. Jackson, which set out a framework for considering clashes between presidential power and congressional authority. The president has the most power when he acts with congressional authorization, Justice Jackson said, and an intermediate amount when Congress is silent. The president’s power is at its “lowest ebb,” Justice Jackson wrote, when Congress has forbidden a particular action.

Truman’s actions fell into the third category, Justice Jackson wrote. Ms. Bennett, by contrast, said Mr. Trump’s order was in the first category.

“Here we have the president acting pursuant to power that Congress gave him, which means, under the Youngstown steel seizure case, he’s acting at the apex of his power,” she said.

Now the courts are inserting themselves into the President's sole authority over national security and foreign affairs. Stunning that the 9th is saying essentially we don't believe you that there is any national security risk. Well run for President, win, and maybe you can decide that but as a judge that's out of your purview. You didn't attend national security meetings and you weren't briefed on anything nor are you cleared for it. Obama's security team said they couldn't properly vet refugees in front of Congress, but these jackasses know better? Yeah fuck you.

"You didn't attend national security meetings and you weren't briefed on anything nor are you cleared for it. "

They are cleared for it, the government can present any evidence to federal judges, including classified information...

From the 9th Circuit's ruling:

"In addition, the Government asserts that, “unlike the President,
courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed
by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of
those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting
process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified
information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal
and maintain its confidentiality. Regulations and rules have long been
in place for that. 28 C.F.R. § 17.17(c) (describing Department of Justice
procedures to protect classified materials in civil cases); 28 C.F.R.
§ 17.46(c) (“Members of Congress, Justices of the United States
Supreme Court, and Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal and
District Courts do not require a determination of their eligibility for
access to classified information . . . .”); W.D. Wash. Civ. L.R. 5(g)
(providing procedures governing filings under seal)."

Why did you lie, puter?

Conservative justices rule on the law - what it actually says.

Liberal justices could care less what the law actually says. They rule on how they feel about it.