(10-27-2022, 12:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not racist, I have a black friend who beats, abuses, and holds women at gunpoint. Check mate, liberals.
All jokes aside, if the government is supposed to represent the people then we can't go wrong with either Walker or Warnock, as we as a people do have a tendency to be giant hypocrites who use religion as a means to shield ourselves from our own misdeeds while looking down upon and judging the actions of others.
Nicely done, America. Win-win election, this one.
Fetterman vs Oz is harder to look at in this manner, though I guess multiple senate members had strokes in recent years but most of them are not, to my knowledge, Oprah-promoted con men who are Mooooslims.
Ok, but would you vote for a divorced pastor who'd had a stroke?
(10-27-2022, 05:16 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: What you wrote above is asinine. What you wrote is your opinion. What follows is "The Word".
1 Timothy 3:2–4 — The New International Version (NIV) 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.
Titus 1:6 English Standard Version 6 qif anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,4 and his children are believers5 and not open to the charge of rdebauchery or insubordination.
1 Timothy 3:8
Qualifications for Deacons
8 iDeacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,3jnot addicted to much wine, knot greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must lhold the mystery of the faith with ma clear conscience. 10 And nlet them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 oTheir wives likewise4 must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, pfaithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be qthe husband of one wife, qmanaging their children and their own households well. 13 For rthose who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
All of those are the words of men. I don't recall any creed that says we have to follow the words of unknown men.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(10-27-2022, 01:14 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Comparison is if you disregard the Reverend's ex-wife claim is not news worthy the same should declared when non-evidence claims of Russian Misinformation is claimed against a candidate.
Ah. Well, Russian misinformation was very real, that it happened is well documented with a plethora of evidence. For example Russian misinformation reached over 120 million people on facebook. Is what facebook themselves admit.
120 million people being confronted with fake news out of Russia is news-worthy. Not to mention all the other influence campaigns that were going on. Mr. Mueller made a list.
And also quite well-documented is that these efforts were made to help Donald Trump. Which is not inherently Donald Trump's fault. What was his fault is that he repeatedly lied to the public about that issue. Eg. by claiming it could very well be China or some fat dude in his basement when his intelligence cvlearly evaluated it was Russia, or having a campaign manager deeply endebbed to a Russian and giving him private briefings, and things of those matter. Not to mention letting Roger Stone coordinate with Assange when the Russia-hacked Emails from Hillary are dumped and things of this nature. This are all not "non-evidence claims". There's plenty evidence.
(10-27-2022, 01:14 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: As for as you not caring about Reverend Warnock having a divorce and then Preaching tells me something about you. Some people like me take their Faith very serious. You may not care, but I and many others who read the Good Book do.
Which is fair enough, you care about it, so vote accordingly. I don't take issue with that in any way. I myself have a very different perspective on that though. I'd say if a divorce is disqualifying we wouldn't have many of the current politicians. And I'd also say a divorce is what can happen in one's life, it happens more and more regularly and to me it's not a serious character flaw if it does. And I'd wager most people will see it in a similar way. Therefore, "Warnock is divorced" is not really national news.
Now that he's also a pastor, that's still really up to his church to decide about that one imho. I don't know the Ebenezer Baptist Church and their rules and preachings regarding things of that nature and I don't need to. To me he is a divorced man no matter his profession. As said, if he were on tape preaching how divorced people should be expelled from society and are going straight to hell or anything of that sorts than that would be a national story possibly.
That being said, it is my perspective, whatever that tells you about me. If you think being a divorced pastor is disqualifying, alright, I won't tell you that you're wrong. Just that your perspective probably is the minority and there's no real "need to know" for the average news consumer, as in "CNN has to report that with the same vigor as they report on Herschel Walker's abortion story". Those who care about these things, like you, will still know. You can vote accordingly. Though I would wonder how you could vote for the alternative with these standards of yours, but that's not my concern either.
(10-27-2022, 01:14 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Sorry you cannot open the link. let me try this ...
OK thanks for the effort. However, I have to say I find this story to be a bit thin to serve as a nationally broadcasted piece. First off, it's Warnock's church and whether he himself is involved in any of this is questionable. And the story is that they evict tenants that are behind. Which might not be the best look for the church, but again it's also not a crime or an unspeakable violation and also something that, as far as this article tells me, is not necessarily directly linked to one particular pastor of said church.
(10-27-2022, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As someone who has also been accused of misrepresenting my political affiliation(s) I have to say this isn't a fair accusation. His stated intent was to bring balance to the thread by pointing out the cons of the Dems who are the opponents of the two men mentioned in the thread title. I've seen nothing to put a lie to that claim. Could he still be untruthful? Sure, but what exactly would be the point of that?
I truly don't know, SSF, but I've gone through 2 pages of his posts and he's done nothing but take shots at the left and go after posters who are left-leaning.
As I am not American, I don't see Americans as D and R, but left and right, thus even though I may have been presumptuous in my party naming, I was speaking from what side of the spectrum his posts were from and he may be independent, but if it walks, talks and insults like a duck...
(10-27-2022, 08:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All of those are the words of men. I don't recall any creed that says we have to follow the words of unknown men.
Lol, ok now I know who I am talking to. I am done with you. I will take the Word of God through Paul over you or your pastor divorced friends 24/7.
Paul unknown man .
(10-27-2022, 11:56 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I truly don't know, SSF, but I've gone through 2 pages of his posts and he's done nothing but take shots at the left and go after posters who are left-leaning.
As I am not American, I don't see Americans as D and R, but left and right, thus even though I may have been presumptuous in my party naming, I was speaking from what side of the spectrum his posts were from and he may be independent, but if it walks, talks and insults like a duck...
You don't know any about me. Quite frankly you are ignorant about me. If I was pushing Dr. Oz and Hershel Walker AND knocking their opponents you would have an assertion and no evidence that am a Republican. Because I could not like Fetterman and the Reverend Warnock and like Dr. Oz and Hershel Walker and still be Independent.
But you won't find a post of me praising Dr. Oz or Hershel Walker. So I would say shut your stupid mouth. My point as I repeatedly said that this thread is one sided and it needs the cons of Fetterman and the Reverend Warnock for a fair reasonable person to make a judgment. Maybe it's the legal education that I have makes me want two sides of an issue. However, many of my law school colleagues won't take a fair judgment in their diatribe as well, so maybe it's just me that wants both sides of an issue. For instance, if this thread was knocking 100% both Fetterman and the Reverend Warnock, then I would mention the cons of Dr. Oz and Hershel Walker. I don't need to do that because many people have already done that. I hope this gets into your thick skull where I am coming from and I await you finding me praise Dr. Oz and Hershel Walker.
Oh by the way stupid here is a post of mine praising President Obama ...
(10-28-2022, 06:02 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: Lol, ok now I know who I am talking to. I am done with you. I will take the Word of God through Paul over you or your pastor divorced friends 24/7.
Paul unknown man .
Those books were written after Paul's death. They have long been attributed to Paul, but they aren't his.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(10-28-2022, 07:12 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: Here ignorant one. I was 100% pro-Bill Clinton in 1992 as I hate the Bushes and still do. The Democrats of today are not like the Democrats of years past.
Here fool, this is the Biden and the Democratic party that I liked that was pressed by the NAACP to do something about the crime back then. The Republicans did not care and ONLY the Democrats have to come to the rescue of minorities. Only an ignorant fool can't understand that the party and Joe Biden have changed. Crime is back on the upswing but Biden and the Democrat party have changed.
Don't care.
You used to be such a fun, engaging poster on the mothership. Now you post like a bitter and angry old man.
(10-27-2022, 11:56 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I truly don't know, SSF, but I've gone through 2 pages of his posts and he's done nothing but take shots at the left and go after posters who are left-leaning.
As I am not American, I don't see Americans as D and R, but left and right, thus even though I may have been presumptuous in my party naming, I was speaking from what side of the spectrum his posts were from and he may be independent, but if it walks, talks and insults like a duck...
I've noticed the same on other social sites. My "independent" and "libertarian" friends will routinely attack the Democrats over everything but when I ask if they feel the same about Republicans they say they do. They just don't post/write about it.
TBF I don't agree with everything the Democrats say or do but I lean that way so I'm going to point out more about the Republicans and how awful they can be. Conservatives on this site do the opposite.
I should also add that the libertarians also dramatically respond to any criticism of their party like you've killed their grandma...something you don't see too much from the main two parties.
Edit to add: That's what I've seen personally dealing with people I know as much as just in general perusing of the web.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
(10-27-2022, 11:56 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I truly don't know, SSF, but I've gone through 2 pages of his posts and he's done nothing but take shots at the left and go after posters who are left-leaning.
As I am not American, I don't see Americans as D and R, but left and right, thus even though I may have been presumptuous in my party naming, I was speaking from what side of the spectrum his posts were from and he may be independent, but if it walks, talks and insults like a duck...
Seems to me the number of "independents" who do nothing but "take shots at the left"
but claim they don't back either party
really spiked 4-5 years into the Iraq War, as more and more Republicans figured out they had been mislead.
But they couldn't really choose the other party because of what they "knew" about Democrats.
So we get a lot of "independents" who make the same value and candidate judgments as regular old GOP
but expect people to think they are not "bissed" because they disavow a party connection.
Sometimes its like listening to someone defend the concepts of transubstantiation and Papal infallibility,
and then protest he is NOT a Catholic no-sirree it's just people are bad-mouthing Catholics on this thread
he's just explaining their beliefs.
But you never see them defending/explaining sola scriptura or salvation by grace on any thread, ever.
People can be outside of a party, but they can't be outside and above the political spectrum.
(10-27-2022, 11:56 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I truly don't know, SSF, but I've gone through 2 pages of his posts and he's done nothing but take shots at the left and go after posters who are left-leaning.
Agreed, but to be fair, if you're trying to balance the thread topic then that's what you'd have to do. This PnR section trends hard left. Sadly, the posters who leaned right were either trolls/extremists (you can figure out who those are I'm sure), or they got tired of the left wing echo chamber in which they were attacked immediately upon saying anything right of Stalin. Also, as I said, I get the same accusation hurled at me all the time, using much of the same argument you posted here, so I am sensitive to others being accused of lying in this regard.
Quote:As I am not American, I don't see Americans as D and R, but left and right, thus even though I may have been presumptuous in my party naming, I was speaking from what side of the spectrum his posts were from and he may be independent, but if it walks, talks and insults like a duck...
Which, again, he'd be doing if he's following his stated goal of bringing balance to the thread. But I'm honestly not trying to convince you of anything, you have eyes and a brain and can draw your own conclusions. I just wanted to throw out some points that may give you a different perspective. So, no worries either way.
(10-27-2022, 04:38 PM)Dill Wrote: As I said, I was just curious about the grounds of your choice to "correct" some Dem trend.
If you answer when you are feeling better, great. If not, ok.
But I am truly looking for information. I may ask one more question, but I won't
challenge and attack you.
Dill I put it about as simply as I could when I wrote "We won't get change unless you vote for change" And I fully realize change may not happen then.
Looking at where our country is now can you name anything that is better now than 2 years ago. The only thing that comes to my mind is covid seems to be on the decline. At least the severity of it. Other than that I got nada. Am I wrong ? Can you name any ? Anybody ?
You have never attacked me that I'm aware of. We can agree to disagree without resorting to that.
(10-28-2022, 03:15 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Dill I put it about as simply as I could when I wrote "We won't get change unless you vote for change" And I fully realize change may not happen then.
Looking at where our country is now can you name anything that is better now than 2 years ago. The only thing that comes to my mind is covid seems to be on the decline. At least the severity of it. Other than that I got nada. Am I wrong ? Can you name any ? Anybody ?
You have never attacked me that I'm aware of. We can agree to disagree without resorting to that.
I honestly don't know if things are better or worse than 2 years ago. This is part of what gets me about the GOP talking points, and I don't mean you specifically, but it's that whole "you'll never struggle if you are willing to work" mantra combined with the whole "everything sucks and it's not your fault, so I'll fix it if you elect me" solution.
When I think about it I think back to Regan beating Carter on a platform of "Are you better now than you were 4 years ago?" and then once he's elected starting with the talk about how many people are "choosing" to be poor.
Either the power is ours alone or it isn't. Just seems like it's a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps....er, unless we need you to blame democrats" mindset.
If gas is too expensive, not your fault really, but you'd better elect a republican so you can afford it.
If you can't afford your $100k of medical bills, tough luck pal, get a flip phone and stop buying avocados.
(10-28-2022, 03:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I honestly don't know if things are better or worse than 2 years ago. This is part of what gets me about the GOP talking points, and I don't mean you specifically, but it's that whole "you'll never struggle if you are willing to work" mantra combined with the whole "everything sucks and it's not your fault, so I'll fix it if you elect me" solution.
When I think about it I think back to Regan beating Carter on a platform of "Are you better now than you were 4 years ago?" and then once he's elected starting with the talk about how many people are "choosing" to be poor.
Either the power is ours alone or it isn't. Just seems like it's a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps....er, unless we need you to blame democrats" mindset.
If gas is too expensive, not your fault really, but you'd better elect a republican so you can afford it.
If you can't afford your $100k of medical bills, tough luck pal, get a flip phone and stop buying avocados.
Isn't that what every election should boil down to ? Am I being selfish in looking at things that way ?
(10-28-2022, 03:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Not if your political party is going to pull the "It's your fault if you are struggling" crap the second they are in control.
You may be right about that Reagan quote. I honestly don't remember. Too many years ago for me.
Doesn't sound like much of a winning philosophy to me. But I just read that Reagan Reagan won 525 of the 538 electoral votes, the most of any presidential candidate in U.S. history.
(10-28-2022, 04:04 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: You may be right about that Reagan quote. I honestly don't remember. Too many years ago for me.
Doesn't sound like much of a winning philosophy to me. But it looks like Reagan Reagan won 525 of the 538 electoral votes, the most of any presidential candidate in U.S. history.
So apparently it worked for him.
Yes, being full of crap works in politics, no matter how much voters say they can't stand lying politicians. Politicians are full of crap and lie to voters because they represent people who are full of crap and lie to themselves.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Truck_1_0_1_.png]](https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/Truck_1_0_1_.png)
.![[Image: 4540978331_3e8fe35323.jpg]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2781/4540978331_3e8fe35323.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
