Don’t you just LOVE the BBC?
only they could be capable of this sentence:
“Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.”
Bring on Greta!
I certainly agree that our relationship with God s/b first ( i don’t know what you mean by universal relationship) but many people don’t believe in God or God as we believe. However after that i am proud of America and acknowledge our many faults but also credit this country’s many advancements and charitable helping and giving way beyond any other country IMO. I want a loyal opposition as that is like iron sharpening iron but today there seems to be no “loyal” anymore just resistance akin to an armed conflict.
Trump to me often acts like a buffoon or a bully and can be impulsive and exaggerate or stretch the truth into a rubber band but he is a Capitalist and Patriot and they, the Dems have turned into Socialists so i have no choice.
I’m pretty sure that you are right - he is ‘acting’ when he does the buffoon thing. He’s no buffoon - he has taken the mantle of power and has done world-changing things for America with it. Compared with other “better-behaved” Presidents who were of lowly ethical standards, or who outright worked against America’s interests - well, I cannot think of anyone today that is more what we need than DT.
I agree with most of your astute perceptions.
I simply meant that I believe that everyone is made in God’s image for relationship with God
as the non-nationalistic foundation of their worth, whether they share our conception of God or not.
1 Like
Well, Dave, you seem to present a similar argument on the national level, that so many do on the personal level. Concerning Jesus’ command not to resist evil people but to love our enemies, pray for them and do good toward them, the argument is “If someone is about to attack your wife or child, are you just going to stand there and do nothing?”
It was not Jesus’ teaching to stand there and do nothing, but not to resist evil people with violence. There are other ways to battle evil in a non-violent way. Similarly in national matters. Anabaptist people such as Mennonites and Hutterites have always refused to fight in wars—based on our Saviour’s instructions. I’m sure that in the case being considered, that there would be ways for other nations to oppose the United States stance of the weaponization of space other than doing the same themselves.
When everyone is armed to the hilt, either on the personal level or on the national level, there is bound to be violence or war to follow. Let us Christians take the instructions of our Lord seriously and practically!
I could not agree more with that sentence.
And with this one: People can sleep peacefully in their beds at night, because rough men are willing to do violence to protect them.
Don, I fervently wish the world was different.
I think he has done a great job including things he gets no credit for like the tariff ordeal with China, it may end up being the single most important action any President has implemented since WW2.
However when he personally attacks people like calling Blumberg “Little Mike” , it is beyond me what the upside could be in rhetoric like this?
2 Likes
Guys like little Mike have been bad-mouthing, mischaracterizing, caricaturing, and slandering him for years; he does punch back and doesn’t let them get away with it. It’s a strategy, I don’t know what else to say.
I’ve used the term “Far Left” a number of times to differentiate from the term “liberal.” I found a list of things that I would fit under ‘Far Left’ - and we see these things every day and have for some years now>
" They went from “safe, legal, and rare” to anytime, anyplace, and your neighbor has to pay for it.
They went from scientifically and “medically accurate” information to men can have babies, too.
They went from, “Ask not what your country can do for you” to demanding a universal basic income provided by your neighbor.
They went from, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” to “speech is violence.”
They went from talking about a crisis at the border to saying anyone who believes there is a border crisis is a racist.
They went from adoring Barack Obama despite his public position that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, to passing laws preventing the opening of chicken restaurants because the deceased owner held the same position.
They went from “coexist” bumper stickers to suing grandmothers who preferred not to decorate a same-sex wedding.
They went from defending women’s autonomy to demanding women wax the genitals of men claiming to be women.
They went from nearly unanimous support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act during the Clinton administration to insisting religious freedom is simply a “license to discriminate.”
They sued a convent of nuns to force them to pay for birth control.
They went from e pluribus unum to intersectionality.
They went from encouraging people to be good, to incentivizing people to be victims. Now, some people want to be victims.
They passed new legislation clarifying that if a woman wants to kill her child the day before her due date, she can. If the baby somehow survives the attempted abortion, the adults are permitted to deny treatment to the baby. They can just let it lie there and cry until it’s dead, I guess. Women’s rights and stuff.
They went from working to get drugs out of schools to working to get drag queens and Planned Parenthood into schools.
They went from the Fatherhood Initiative to telling anyone who would listen that dads don’t specifically matter, kids just need adults around who care about them.
Did I mention the nuns they sued?
They went from the War on Poverty to war on anyone who believes someone with a penis is always a man.
They went from fighting for freedom of expression to fighting for safe spaces.
They went from being the biggest defenders of free speech to passing laws that punish people if they use the “wrong” pronoun.
They passed laws claiming it’s always harmful to tell a boy with gender dysphoria he’s a boy, but they say it’s never harmful to give him puberty blockers, sterilize him, and cut off his penis — as long as he says wants to.
They convinced themselves that loving their neighbor gave them the right to another neighbor’s property.
They went from “believe women” to saying any woman who doesn’t want to share a shower with a man who says he’s a woman is a bigot. Then they went back to “believe women” when they thought it would help them oust a Supreme Court nominee they didn’t like.
They talk inalienable rights but mock faith in a Supreme Law Giver from whom inalienable rights might come.
They actually booed God.
They said they wanted everyone to love their neighbors, but when their neighbors created faith-based organizations for that purpose, they mocked and ridiculed them, then passed laws preventing them from placing orphans or housing foster kids, and protested those who were feeding the hungry because of their religion.
In some states, they passed laws telling churches they had to pay for abortions. In those same states, they made it illegal for a 13-year-old to go to the tanning bed but legal for her to get an abortion. Her parents don’t even have to know. The law also allows her to surgically remove her healthy breasts after her abortion, but sun beds are just a step too far.
No Room for Disagreement
Somewhere along the way, they also lost the desire to understand those with whom they disagreed. They claimed “the science was settled” and “the debate was over,” so they stopped listening. It seems they decided they had nothing left to learn.
So they started interrupting speeches, town halls, and public meetings held by anyone who disagreed with them. Rather than trying to listen and find common ground, they shouted and agitated mercilessly to prevent the expression of ideas they didn’t like.
."
A few of them even started running around cities with masks and clubs, violently attacking demonstrations they opposed. They lacked the awareness to call themselves anti-fascists. They’re like a steakhouse that claims to be vegan.
It’s crazy out there, and when I talk about the “radical left,” this is what I mean. This isn’t to say the right doesn’t have its own set of challenges, but anyone who denies the existence of an influential, mainstream, radical left in America today simply defines “radical” differently than I do."
2 Likes
These are attributes of communism or one party rule. God help us if they ever control the police.
1 Like
While Steve and Dave talk about Trump’s accomplishments…let me add this one, from the BBC today. 
And they had this interesting story.
Luckily, this was from some professor. Just think what would have happened, if President Trump said that - via a Tweet!
1 Like
Just out of curiosity, how do you define “radical”?
He appears to think the mainstream of America embraces the real “root” of liberalism that challenges the right. I personally perceive most mainstream folk do not embrace such thuggish nonsense, and that it is a caricature of those who are not on the far right, that thus evades addressing many moderate American’s understandable uneasiness with the way present right-wing trends are being promoted.
I don’t have a definition, actually. I do point to things that liberals once believed, and some still do, but that others have abandoned to pursue a fairly obvious program of political correctness, identity politics, and power - by any means, including ruining the country, propagandizing the young, curtailing free speech - in short, the actions and attitudes from that list.
This is how a far leftie would talk about conservatives:
" Several weeks ago, progressive writer John Pavlovitz wrote an article objecting to the idea that he is part of the “radical left.” He doesn’t think he’s radical at all. In fact, he prefers to see himself as part of what he calls the “human middle.”
He writes, “I’m pretty sure that most people reside here in this place alongside me: the desire for compassion and diversity and equality and justice; that these things aren’t fringe ideologies or extremist positions — but simply the best way to be human.”
The implication is that those who disagree with him desire cruelty, uniformity, inequality, and injustice. He didn’t imply it for long, however. He concluded with, “I suppose humanity feels radical to inhumane people.” Ouch."
This might be considered radical to moderate liberals: what do you think. Don?
Bob to Paidion to Dave
This might help.
Perhaps a song, by the New Radicals?
“He doesn’t think he’s radical at all” but, apparently, “he is unremitting in his derision for voters who he believes must take responsibility for the chaos and violence that’s occurred since the election” (from an article in INDY Week).
Obviously, he is unaware of the adage “if the cap fits, wear it”.
I get being pained that someone attacked by the right claiming he just seeks justice and compassion thus implies that you may not, if you inhumanely insist he is evilly “radical.”
But your “ouch” parallels what we here can feel if we aren’t on the right praising Trump. The implication seems to be repeatedly spelled out explicitly that we should be identified with leftist communist racists who applaud violence, oppose free speech, blaspheme God, reject science, oppose working people, and think males have babies.
This is reflected in responding to our critiques with name calling and endless rightwing posts ridiculing leftist nutballs, and ignoring what any one here with reservations about our present polarized direction has actually contended. It feels just as much a straw man attack as you sense in Pavolitz implying you who attack him are not “humane.”