Random Politics & Religion #24

Langues: JP EN DE FR
users online
Forum » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » Random Politics & Religion #24
Random Politics & Religion #24
First Page 2 3 ... 51 52 53 ... 79 80 81
Offline
Posts: 12129
By Nausi 2017-06-09 08:23:00
Link | Citer | R
 
These Photos of Sad Brooklyn Hipsters in a Bar Watching the Comey Hearing Are Hilarious



Oh if not for my job, I would have loved to be there.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 08:23:09
Link | Citer | R
 
Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Think Christians Are Fit For Public Office

Sources are bad, unless they are from CNN and only then, if they are against Trump, according to the reality deniers.

Quote:
While the nation’s capital was twittering with excitement on Wednesday about former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, something far more outrageous was underway in another Senate hearing: Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a blatant violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, was applying a religious test for an office of public trust.

Specifically, Sanders doesn’t think Christians are fit to serve in government because they’re bigots. Basic Christian theology, in Sanders’s view, “is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.”

Here’s what happened. During a confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Sanders expressed his indignation at an article Vought had written in January 2016 about a controversy that erupted at Vought’s alma mater, Wheaton College. A political science professor, Larycia Hawkins, had published a Facebook post announcing her intention to wear a hijab in solidarity with Muslims and suggesting that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Vought, a Christian, took issue with Hawkins’s post and defended Wheaton in an article for The Resurgent. During the hearing Wednesday, Sanders repeatedly quoted one particular passage he described as “Islamophobic” and “hateful.” Vought wrote: “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

As a matter of theology, there is of course nothing objectionable, much less Islamophobic, about that. It is simply a statement of fact: core Christian doctrine, plainly stated in the Bible, says that eternal life comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. Not that exclusivity is unique to Christianity. By their very nature, most religions are exclusive, especially when it comes to salvation.

As for having a “deficient theology,” one could substitute any other religious group for Muslims: Christians also believe that Jews have a deficient theology, along with Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and the tens of thousands of Britons who claim membership in the Temple of the Jedi Order. And of course, members of all these religions likely believe Christians have a deficient theology.

To Sanders, Christian Theology Amounts to Bigotry

But to Sanders, a sincerely held religious belief—like believing there is only one path to salvation—amounts to bigotry and should disqualify anyone, or at least Christians, from public service. Reporting for The Atlantic, Emma Green noted that at one point, the exchange between Sanders and Vought became tense, with Sanders “raising his voice and interrupting Vought as he tried to answer questions.”

Quote:
Sanders: I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?
Vought: Senator, I am a Christian—
Sanders: I understand that you are a Christian. But this country is made up of people who are not just—I understand that Christianity is the majority religion. But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

In other words, Sanders understands Vought’s a Christian, he just didn’t think Vought was that kind of Christian. Neither did Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who defended Sanders, saying, “I don’t think anybody was questioning anybody’s faith here.” Van Hollen then questioned Vought’s faith and claimed his theology is all wrong: “I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God.”

It should go without saying that this is the sort of thing that should never come up in a Senate confirmation hearing. But it helped illuminate what progressives like Sanders and Van Hollen really think about religion, and especially Christianity. It’s okay to say you’re a Christian if, like Van Hollen, you don’t really think Christianity is the one true path to salvation. But if your version of Christianity lays claim to exclusivity—as orthodox Christianity does—then you’re a bigot who, as Sanders said of Vought, “is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”

Agree With My Religious Views Or You Can’t Hold Office

Let’s take a step back. Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Yet it seems that Sanders and his ilk not only want to exclude sincere Christians from public office, but to impose a kind of secular test of their own. To serve in government, in their view, one must affirm the ever-changing tenants of progressivism.

One recent example of this cropped up in Illinois, where the state’s child welfare agency declared that staff must “affirm” gender ideology and “facilitate” LGBT identities for foster kids, or be fired. Same goes for foster parents. If children or adolescents under the state’s care “explore/express a sexual orientation other than heterosexual and/or a gender identity that is different from the child/youth’s sex assigned at birth,” agency staff and foster parents must “support and respect” the child’s exploration “without any effort to direct or guide them to any specific outcome for their exploration.” If not, then in the state’s eyes you’re not fit to be a staffer or foster parent.

The state of Illinois has thus claimed that adherence to traditional Christian teaching on sexuality, which makes the bold claim that God created only two sexes, male and female, makes one unfit to be around children.

Progressives Have No Use For Christians

That’s more or less what Sanders did by conflating Vought’s thoroughly commonplace understanding of Christian theology with racism and bigotry. A spokesman for Sanders said in a statement issued Thursday: “In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.” The nomination of Vought, “who has expressed such strong Islamaphobic language,” the statement said, “is simply unacceptable.”

At the hearing on Wednesday, Sanders said he would vote against confirming Vought for deputy director of the OMB. Afterwards, Muslim groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Muslim Advocates, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Vought’s comments, saying without a hint of irony that his views threaten the principle of religious freedom.

It’s important to understand what’s going on here. The Left, itself a kind of secular religion, does not really think it’s okay to be religious—to hold strong convictions about eternal salvation or the divinity of Jesus Christ. Progressives believe this is disturbing and un-American. The irony is that the opposite is true, as John Adams put it: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Understand, too, that the progressives who now run the Democratic Party will turn a blind eye to the exclusivity claims of Muslims and other religious groups they think they need in their political coalition. But they will not suffer Christians. There’s a simple reason for that: Democrats know they have lost orthodox Christians as a constituency, and now they have no use for them.

Yeah, great strategy liberals! Let's condemn over half of the nation, that's going to go well!

Then again, this is coming from a side of the political spectrum that cries "deplorable" for anyone not exclusively agreeing to them 100%.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 08:23:59
Link | Citer | R
 
Nausi said: »
Oh if not for my job, I would have loved to be there.
Why do you think they were there?
[+]
Offline
Posts: 12129
By Nausi 2017-06-09 08:29:55
Link | Citer | R
 
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Rises in terrorism are a multi-faceted issue, but being the poster child for a reduced police presence isn't exactly helpful to your cause. Whoever replaces her not only has to reverse that, but also figure out a way to deal with the hilariously under-equipped and under-trained force that's already there.

Well, I mean we all know what one of the largest driving factors to local terrorism is. The unfettered and open flood of angry Islamic immigrants and their angry offspring flooding into Europe.

I mean there's a pretty clear reason that Poland is seemingly absent the consequences of such terrorism.
Offline
Posts: 12129
By Nausi 2017-06-09 08:32:31
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Yeah, great strategy liberals! Let's condemn over half of the nation, that's going to go well!

Then again, this is coming from a side of the political spectrum that cries "deplorable" for anyone not exclusively agreeing to them 100%.

I've watched several acquaintances pretty easily talk their way into the quicksand of.

The constitution mandates a separation of church and state
Therefore no values of a church should be present in government.

And all I can do is smdh.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 08:49:01
Link | Citer | R
 
In Perjury News:

Comey was Before Congress to Indict Trump. Instead, He Might Have Indicted Himself.

Sources are very bad. Analysis are even worse! All because it doesn't fit the narratives of the reality deniers!!

Quote:
The key interlude occurred with the ubiquitous Kamala Harris, the same Senator Harris who failed the bar the first time she took the bar exam. Only a Kamala-Comey marriage could birth this debacle:

Quote:
Harris: “So was there any kind of memorandum issued from the attorney general or the Department of Justice to the FBI, outlining the parameters of his recusal”?

Comey: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Thursday night, Attorney General Sessions’ Justice Department released a statement about Comey’s testimony. The statement reads as follows:

Quote:
“In his testimony, Mr. Comey states that he was not aware of any kind of memorandum issued from the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to the FBI outlining the parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal. However, on March 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff sent the attached email specifically informing Mr. Comey and other relevant Department officials of the recusal and its parameters, and advising that each of them instruct their staff not to brief the Attorney General about or otherwise involve the Attorney General in any such matters described.” (internal ellipses omitted).

In fact, Comey always knew the “parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal.”

It gets worse for Comey. Right before and right after the answer that triggered the DOJ’s extraordinary written statement (name me the last time the DOJ publicly identified their recent ex-FBI Director as having just lied to Congress?), Comey denied knowledge about the “extent” of Sessions’ recusal and denied knowing Sessions’ scope of recusal as to “if he reviewed any FBI or DOJ documents.”

Congress criminalizes lying to Congress under oath. The relevant statutes are 18 USC 1621 and 18 USC 1001. Section 1621 requires a person first, be making a statement under a sworn oath; second, that statement be “material” to the proceeding; third, the statement be false; and fourth, the statement be knowingly and willfully false. Section 1001 mirrors those elements, without the same tribunal prerequisites: it also requires the government prove a person willfully made a materially false statements. In either case, the primary focus is: first, a false statement; second, a false statement as material to the matter; third, the false statement be made knowingly and willfully. A statement is not false if it can be interpreted in a completely innocent manner. A statement is not material if it is not particularly relevant or pertain to the subject of the matter. Willfully remains a very high standard of proof in the criminal law, though less in perjury cases than in tax cases: it requires the person know they are lying.

Sadly, for Comey, Sessions has the smoking gun: Sessions’ own email sent and read by Comey, according to the Department of Justice statement, showing Comey in fact did know “the parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal” despite his repeated comments to the contrary to Senator Kamala Harris’ questions.

Dead. To. Rights. This really is a slam dunk case, or as close to it as imaginable. Maybe Comey will claim the Ruskies hacked his emails, and blame them instead?

So, Comey did commit perjury. Just not on the statement I assumed would get him.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 08:50:31
Link | Citer | R
 
Let's see the reality deniers try to explain this one away.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:04:57
Link | Citer | R
 
Yea Comey committed Perjury and the POTUS Obstructed Justice.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:06:56
Link | Citer | R
 
I like how KNs arguments are so weak that he has to dismiss any dissenters before they respond by saying they are "Denying reality". Really poor debate form.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:06:57
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
the POTUS Obstructed Justice.
Prove it.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:09:19
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
eliroo said: »
the POTUS Obstructed Justice.
Prove it.

If you are going to say that the statement "Not that I'm aware of" proves perjury then you could also draw the line to Trumps intimidation.

Actually easier to prove Trump than Comey because Comey's statement absolves him from falsehood because his awareness can change over time. There is still a possibility that Trump was trying to intimidate Comey.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:10:10
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
I like how KNs arguments are so weak that he has to dismiss any dissenters before they respond by saying they are "Denying reality". Really poor debate form.
No, these three posters actively deny anything/everything that happens that makes their narrative look bad. In other words, they actively deny reality.

Thus, they are called reality deniers.

You want proof of this assertion? Just look at their posts on this very thread.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:12:57
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
If you are going to say that the statement "Not that I'm aware of" proves perjury then you could also draw the line to Trumps intimidation.
Except he was aware of it.

Sessions gave the Senate Intelligence Committee evidence that not only did Comey received an email stating the terms of Session's recusal towards the Russian investigation, but they also provided a read receipt stating that Comey not only received it, he read it.

The question wasn't "Do you understand what the memo says," it was "was there a memo issued?" Comey said no. Sessions says not only was there one issued, but Comey himself read it.

So, perjury.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:14:13
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Except he was aware of it.

You cannot prove his awareness at the time of the question. He didn't say "No" it said "Not that I'm aware of". So he could have known, but at the time of the question he couldn't think of it. That answer absolves him. It is a stretch to say he committed Perjury. You can say that he should have been aware but not that he lied or was wrong.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:16:15
Link | Citer | R
 
So you are going to implicate those three without mentioning how people like Saevel and Nausi are consistently doing the same thing? Yourself and I even see things based on our preconceived notions. We all deny reality at times but most of the time we just see it from a different lens.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:17:43
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Except he was aware of it.

You cannot prove his awareness at the time of the question. He didn't say "No" it said "Not that I'm aware of". So he could have known, but at the time of the question he couldn't think of it. That answer absolves him. It is a stretch to say he committed Perjury. You can say that he should have been aware but not that he lied or was wrong.
Except that is not a defense for perjury.

Also, do you know that your so-called "Defense for perjury" would undermine his entire testimony?

You are seriously stretching well past the breaking point. I'm not even sure if you are serious or just trolling now.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 12129
By Nausi 2017-06-09 09:18:52
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
Yea Comey committed Perjury and the POTUS Obstructed Justice.
#hopegate

Libs are cornered on this one. Trump did not obstruct justice by "hoping" anything.

Lynch might have obstructed justice by insisting that the Clinton investigation be mischaracterized as a "matter" instead of an investigation. She certainly affected the election.

However there is no argument that can made that Trump obstructed justice but Lynch did not.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:21:14
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
So you are going to implicate those three without mentioning how people like Saevel and Nausi are consistently doing the same thing? Yourself and I even see things based on our preconceived notions. We all deny reality at times but most of the time we just see it from a different lens.
Savael presents his argument based on observations of events that occur. Nausi does too.

Those three posters mentioned above counters those observations with basically a "no u" argument without presenting any basis of their arguments. Most times, they present it to the point where their "facts" aren't based by events or even occurrences.

Their entire arguments are detached from reality, and when you point it out, even source it where they are wrong, they are so pigheaded to the point that you can't help but to point out their lack of reality.

Don't compare Savael and Nausi to those 3.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:24:13
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Except that is not a defense for perjury.

Also, do you know that your so-called "Defense for perjury" would undermine his entire testimony?

You are seriously stretching well past the breaking point. I'm not even sure if you are serious or just trolling now.


Not at all. It is nearly impossible to prove Perjury. You know it, you just want to keep the narrative going that Comey is the bad guy here. Saying I'm trolling doesn't make me incorrect.

Here is the definition of Perjury:

Quote:
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

The wording of his statement totally absolve him of this. Unless you can read his mind at the time of him answering that question, you cannot prove perjury.
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2017-06-09 09:26:32
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
So you are going to implicate those three without mentioning how people like Saevel and Nausi are consistently doing the same thing?
I'm not doing this "thing". It's KN being KN.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:27:29
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Savael presents his argument based on observations of events that occur. Nausi does too.

This is the most biased ***I have read in awhile. You think they do because you often side with them, but that doesn't make their arguments anymore coherent. I mean just read above you. Nausi completely missed the point of my post and went on some tirade about ***we already knew.

We all have some biased and we all post ***. Even now you are trying to hang Comey based on a statement that can't possible hurt him, just simply because you want to frame him as the bad guy.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:28:27
Link | Citer | R
 
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
eliroo said: »
So you are going to implicate those three without mentioning how people like Saevel and Nausi are consistently doing the same thing?
I'm not doing this "thing". It's KN being KN.

I honestly think we all *** arguments based on our perspective all the time. Some more than others, the two that I think actually do that to an extent that would warrant them being ignored hardly post here anymore.
Offline
Posts: 12129
By Nausi 2017-06-09 09:30:08
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
prove perjury
The definition of prove isn't universal. All you really have to prove it to is the jury or judge.

Just because you don't think you can prove anything without being inside someones head doesn't mean that's the way it is. Otherwise killers could just say I didn't intend to pull the trigger 6 times, reload, then pull it again.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:31:43
Link | Citer | R
 
Nausi said: »
The definition of prove isn't universal. All you really have to prove it to is the jury or judge.

Just because you don't think you can prove anything without being inside someones head doesn't mean that's the way it is. Otherwise killers could just say I didn't intend to pull the trigger 6 times, reload, then pull it again.

Talk about a false analogy.
 
Offline
Posts:
By 2017-06-09 09:34:36
 Undelete | Link | Citer | R
 
Post deleted by User.
Offline
Posts: 2442
By eliroo 2017-06-09 09:35:55
Link | Citer | R
 
Apparently "reality" is anything that falls in line with right ideals.

Climate change isn't a "reality".
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:39:33
Link | Citer | R
 
eliroo said: »
Here is the definition of Perjury:

Quote:
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

The wording of his statement totally absolve him of this. Unless you can read his mind at the time of him answering that question, you cannot prove perjury.
Wrong, and wrong.

Or are you going to say that your "definition" of perjury trumps the legal definition of perjury?

eliroo said: »
Not at all. It is nearly impossible to prove Perjury. You know it, you just want to keep the narrative going that Comey is the bad guy here. Saying I'm trolling doesn't make me incorrect.
Thousands yearly. Unfortunately, there is no separate reporting for non-violent crime on the FBI database. But to say it's nearly impossible to prove Perjury is saying that it's nearly impossible to breath.
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2017-06-09 09:40:05
Link | Citer | R
 
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
“Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”
Just because it's part of your beliefs doesn't mean the above statement isn't bigoted.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2017-06-09 09:42:07
Link | Citer | R
 
Correction: 2009 data. Thousands convicted of perjury (and related) crimes.
[+]
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Offline
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Pleebo
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2017-06-09 09:42:10
Link | Citer | R
 
And by you, I don't specifically mean you, KN.
First Page 2 3 ... 51 52 53 ... 79 80 81
Log in to post.