Started By
Message

re: Trump’s belief that men can be women is an automatic disqualifier

Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:58 pm to
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
44231 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:58 pm to
quote:

But solid job at trying to deflect to a pages back post after looking like an idiot about the whole "not a national news story" fiasco.


So you lied. Got it.

You could just admit it.

I still don’t consider it a national news story. It had a moment, then disappeared like a fart in the wind (as most stories do).

Perhaps my definition of what constitutes a “national news story” is the issue.

Russian collusion is a national news story imho.

Mr. wannabe Canada, not so much.

ETA - Stating the organization is rigged (probably true) was the justification. Could she have had an issue with the trannie (I don’t blame her), maybe. But that is just a rumor - no?
This post was edited on 6/24/23 at 9:00 pm
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
73069 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 8:59 pm to
quote:


So you lied. Got it.


lied about what?

quote:


I still don’t consider it a national news story


This is a you problem.

quote:


Perhaps my definition of what constitutes a “national news story” is the issue.


confirmed
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
44231 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:01 pm to
quote:

Perhaps my definition of what constitutes a “national news story” is the issue.


quote:

confirmed


Cool, I concede that the Trump tranny story = the Russian collusion story.

Now, will you admit that you lied (even if inadvertently)?
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
73069 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:01 pm to
YOU EDITED YOUR POST HOW frickING DARE YOU!!!!
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
73069 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:01 pm to
quote:



Now, will you admit that you lied (even if inadvertently)?


lied about what?

Is this what you're desperately trying to hang your hat on? Trying to say that I lied about something?
This post was edited on 6/24/23 at 9:03 pm
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
44231 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:02 pm to
I didn’t remove anything though.

So about your lie…
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
73069 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:02 pm to
quote:


I didn’t remove anything though.



cool....and neither did I.
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
44231 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:04 pm to


You do you.

Peace out liar.
Posted by pankReb
Defending National Champs Fan
Member since Mar 2009
73069 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:05 pm to
so you can't say what I supposedly removed and you won't tell me wtf I lied about.

Usually people just abandon the thread after being completely embarassed like you've been.....but if this gets your rocks of then..

as you say.....

you do you.
Posted by NCIS_76
Member since Jan 2021
5246 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:09 pm to
quote:

Jon Ham


Who are you voting for from who get's the nomination?
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46851 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:49 pm to
quote:

Very smart. A non-vote for a conservative (even a conservative who doesn’t share your whacko religious views) is a vote for a dirty commie scum democrat who wants to destroy your religion and your constitution.
A lack of a vote is a lack of a vote. That is all. I'm not voting for anyone; that's the point.

What you're talking about is the "lesser of two evils" concept in voting. I've had to apply that principle for my entire adult life when voting, and I'm done with it.

My denomination put together a small booklet on voting a few years ago that you can purchase (it's only a couple bucks) if you're interested, but I'll quote a small section on this topic. As a warning, I don't expect many, if any, to agree with this, but as someone committed to voting only for candidates that are credible professing Christians who desire God's glory above all else, I believe this is important.

quote:

Approach #1: The Lesser of Two Evils

What happens when a Christian candidate with explicitly Christian principles is nowhere to be found on the ballot? Should we simply read through the platforms of the two major party candidates and vote for the so-called lesser of two evils? According to most Christians today, this is precisely what we should do. There are, however, several major problems with this approach.

It is a proven failure. Despite its best efforts to appear pragmatic, this approach has proved an utter failure, particularly in the United States. As a nineteenth-century Presbyterian minister once observed, "American Conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition...It is worthless because it is the 'conservatism' of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle."

At best, voting for the lesser of two evils merely places society on a slower road to perdition. Such gradual declension, however, often proves to be more dangerous in the long run, since it occurs at a less disturbing, less noticeable pace. The triumph of lesser evil is of great use to Satan, because it allows moral decline to press onward, cleverly disguised as moderation.

Consider the effect of this philosophy on American politics. For the most part, today's conservatives are less biblical, less moral, and less dignified than yesterday's liberals. We have inadvertently created a market for wily politicians, who know full well that as long as they can appear slightly less evil than their opponents at election time, they are sure to garner the support of most evangelical voters, notwithstanding their numerous unbiblical policies and immoral habits. This approach is clearly not helping our cause.

It leads to absurdity. If Christians are required to support the lesser of two evils, then they would technically be required to vote for Stalin over Hitler (or vice versa), which is patently absurd. Incidentally, if the current trend of moral backsliding continues, the prospect of seeing a Hitler or a Stalin on our ballot may not be so far-fetched!

It hinders real change. This approach typically opposes third-party Christian candidates on the supposition that they have no chance of winning. Godly men with scriptural principles are thereby discouraged from running for office, since they cannot even count on their fellow evangelicals to vote for them. This effectively guarantees the political dominance of evil candidates and perpetuates the status quo of moral declension. What could be more evil than that?
This post was edited on 6/24/23 at 10:03 pm
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46851 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 9:52 pm to
quote:

Squirrelmeister
I'm not going to engage you in theology and the Bible except where I feel an obligation to set the record straight for others. You have exhibited nothing but ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of orthodox Christian doctrine, and an opposition to the truth. I hope that the Lord changes your heart as He did for the Apostle Paul, who was a hater of Christ before He was given eyes to see the truth, because I really don't want to see you suffer for eternity.
Posted by Tmcgin
BATON ROUGE
Member since Jun 2010
6557 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 10:35 pm to
People in Athens can cut and paste
Yeah !
Remember when the Trump Family stole money from their own charity ?
Great days
Posted by Jon Ham
Member since Jun 2011
29691 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 10:49 pm to
@jbdawgs03
Posted by Hobnailboot
Minneapolis
Member since Sep 2012
6094 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 11:19 pm to
Bro you’re done. Quit
Posted by gmac8604
Green Bay, WI
Member since Jun 2012
1401 posts
Posted on 6/24/23 at 11:33 pm to
The Greek word you are trying to reference, you don’t even say?

I will help you.

?d??t??, idiotes

quote:

The word "idiot" comes from the Greek noun ?d??t?? idiotes 'a private person, individual' (as opposed to the state), 'a private citizen' (as opposed to someone with a political office), 'a common man', 'a person lacking professional skill, layman', later 'unskilled', 'ignorant', derived from the adjective ?d??? idios '


The first definition is a private person, an individual. Also, we aren’t citizens of a democracy, but of a republic.
Posted by Squirrelmeister
Member since Nov 2021
3691 posts
Posted on 6/25/23 at 7:12 am to
quote:

I'm not going to engage you in theology


Because what I said is true and indefensible by you.

Use your brain for once.
Posted by geauxbrown
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
27247 posts
Posted on 6/25/23 at 7:39 am to
On count one…Trump doesn’t give a crap about whether men are in his beauty pageant. It’s all about ratings with him.

He truly believes that if he wins the ratings war, he wins it all.
Posted by Jon Ham
Member since Jun 2011
29691 posts
Posted on 6/25/23 at 8:46 am to
quote:

Bro you’re done. Quit



Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 6/25/23 at 9:01 am to
quote:

You cite bullshite studies to support cutting of the breasts and dicks of children.
Why do you lie?

You cannot link ONE post in which I have supported transition surgery for minors. Not one.

Because I have posted repeatedly that I oppose it.
This post was edited on 6/25/23 at 9:13 am
Jump to page
Page First 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram