It is false, Dave. I have never hated Mr. Trump in the least. I just disapprove of his false judgments and poor decisions. But you and other Trump supporters will not allow that possibility. That’s why I say that you guys seem to believe that Mr. Trump can do no wrong.
Now, this is interesting. I’m flipping through the TV news channels, and guess what? CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and BBC - are all broadcasting the live impeachment proceedings. So I switched to France-24, for tonight.
But the BBC did have an interesting and unusual article.
Interesting. Almost everything I’ve been able to find shows that T’s chances for re-election are even better now. Which is great news.
And in fact, that this entire hoo-ha of impeachment will be a blot on the Left. Though, with their lackeys the MSM (or is it the other way around?) - the spin will go on.
In 1999 Nadler said, in the context of the Clinton impeachment:
“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
Yes, I agree our debate is about what ‘freedom’ needs protection. You argue what matters is those in gov’t power being free to enforce “accordance with the truth,” which means preserving freedom for “discrimination” against those reasoned incorrect in their beliefs and practices.
My own contrary perception is that the actual challenge in free republics is precisely preserving freedom for those seen as acting contrary to what the majority sees as the truth. Thus “discrimination” against minority views & practices should not necessarily be seen as a paramount virtue in a free society.
I don’t see that your expectation is realistic or right that we must never need to go along with something we consider nonsense, or that doing such is the most profound harm that can happen to someone.
Heavens, the reality is the gov’t requires my taxes whether I think what it funds is nonsense or not. I thought billions spent on invading Iraq was deeply immoral and destructive 'nonsense," but I still paid for what our democracy did. And heavens, as a pastor, I regularly went along with nonsense in order to keep my job. If I had insisted on what I believed was reasonable, it would have been unemployment!
More fundamentally in a free republic, where people will never be homogeneous in their beliefs, preserving minority rights will mean allowing beliefs and actions that I myself don’t find reasonable. E.g. While I can believe whatever I want about transgenderism, arguing that gov’t must enforce a gendered dress code upon such characters in order that the truth I recognize can be “affirmed,” strikes me as sacrificing the freedom of a strange minority for the sake of my personal comfort. But there’s no way everyone will always be ‘comfortable.’
qaz, of course! Are you implying consequences are not among reasonable considerations in evaluating gov’t policies? You imply with your hypotheticals that I would find consequences irrelevant to what gov’t should do. That’s nonsense. I believe they should always be weighed along with all other argument concerning alternative policies.
I think you’re missing my point about ontology. When you imply the only issue is whether women are “females,” isn’t that precisely a focus on identifying their correct being? I’ve never argued women aren’t females, nor that a female isn’t a ‘woman.’ Of course, every dictionary tells us that definition. That is entirely different than whether I want the power of gov’t to tell those disturbed over identifying with the dress and usual practices of their inherited gender, that it is going to enforce conformity upon them, especially if they are doing nothing to assault me or others.
My pastoral experience is that changing people’s lived reality seldom happens by telling them what I think it should be. Genes are not everything, and what worked best with transgenders is showing loving counsel and consideration to where they actually are in their journey. But shucks, I didn’t even find it helpful to tell the schizophrenics in my flock that they were nuts around rational reality, or that the condemning voices of the Devil they heard were just fabrications. It worked better to encourage them to believe the promises of God’s love for them 
Well you clearly have not read many of my posts Paidion.
Oh the horror!! LOL
Trump brings uniqueness even in humor, teasing a grieving widow that her husband may be in Hell.
I don’t read your responses on this thread Bob, but I’m sure you are wearing black and praying for the president, just like Nancy Pelosi, as she obeys the scriptural injunction also!!
Norm, you are truly a genuine gentleman. I reckon even a broken clock inadvertently gets the time correct once or twice a day
I affirm your wisdom in avoiding any temptation to engage what I actually argue.
Billy Graham was often beautifully prescient.
Once if it is digital.
1 Like
" > Does all this talk of civil war seem overheated? Ask yourself: looking at the current chasm in American politics, the fundamentally incompatible visions of America the two sides hold, the degree of dehumanizing hatred they show for each other, the bloody damage already done, and the implacable fury with which they grapple for every atom of power, can we imagine some way forward in which the Right and Left just “bury the hatchet” and “hug it out”?
Of course not. This fight continues, and intensifies, until either one side is destroyed, or we work out some kind of divorce." - Malcolm Pollack
http://malcolmpollack.com/2019/12/04/angelo-codevilla-on-the-unraveling-of-america/
That passionate insistence is the emotion I also perceive among extremists at both ends.
Bob to DaveB2.0
Well, when the zombies from Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) arrive…here’s what some folks might be saying. 
THE PARTY LINE CAN TURN ON A DIME
Win by any means. The end justifies the means. The issue is never the issue. Use the enemy’s values against him. The true narrative is the one that empowers us, and is true only as long as it empowers us. Reality is a social construction. Words mean whatever we need them to mean for our purposes in a given situation. Reality, truth, language: all malleable by our will, our will to power. BV
I’m in disbelief!!! The world’s by far most influential Christian conservative publication, the U.S.'s “Christianity Today,” has urged the president’s removal. Not only John Piper sees his ‘qualifications’
Like most of my friends, I’m sure that most CT readers believe their faith’s values can support Trump. It’s a gutsy risk to its’ survival to prophetically insist that, No! Trump is a disaster for evangelical Christian faith and for our nation. I honor courage that bucks the tide.
So Christianity Today weighs in. Unfortunately, with dribble, and using Billy Graham’s name on top of it.
" Galli acknowledged that Democrats “have had it out for [Trump] from day one” and that the president “did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story” during the impeachment process.
However, “the facts in this instance are unambiguous…”
So, the president had no opportunity to offer his side of the story? But yet CT is willing to pass judgment?
Brilliant, just brilliant. - We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
And of COURSE the President weighed in, though not in the hallowed (halloween) House - but he was heard, his transcript was made public, and even then all the weaknesses of a shabby House circus were obvious to everyone. His popularity rose, America has been made greater - and the shallowness of CT, which has been obvious for a long time, is even more apparent.
And now Pelosi is playing her games - after being in such a hurry!
What a 3 years we have had, all because of a hissy fit by the Dems, because they lost. boo-hoo.
