barbacoa taco said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

You do realize that homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christianity, right? The two are not compatible? In order to make the two compatible, you basically have to write a new Bible?

---

A MORTAL sin? What? First time I've heard that.

I've met several gay Christians in my time. Have you?

And if they're not compatible, then so be it. Homosexuality is clearly not a choice and gay people are not lesser. If Christianity says they are then we are at an impasse.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You also realize that the pro-palestenian wing of the Dem party support regimes that literally want to wipe Judaism and Christianity off of the face of the earth? That would be like Republicans voting a Klansman into office.

---

---

Not true in the slightest. Opposition to the state of Israel is not antisemitism, but demonizing Palestinians and their supporters like that sure is an easy way to dehumanize them and justify killing them by the thousands.

You're aware that there are tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians, right?

---

There are (rarely) people born with both male and female sex organs and a choice is made.
Notice that "a choice".
While it is true that some "gay Christians" made their choice very early in life, it is also true that a large group known as "bi-sexuals" continue making that choice daily.
How much is social and how much is genetic in this choice is complicated, but the growing rate of homosexuality among the younger generation compared to the older generation is not just increased openness, it is really a choice that is being encouraged by a political movement.

BusterAg said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

The Democratic party is not far left.

---

I feel so silly. I have been arguing with a parody account.

---

You are very far right, based on your posts. And this website is dominated by people who are just as far right as you, so it's not surprising you think the Democratic party is far left.

But in reality, in the grand scheme of things, it is not.

barbacoa taco said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

The Democratic party is not far left.

---

I feel so silly. I have been arguing with a parody account.

---

You are very far right, based on your posts. And this website is dominated by people who are just as far right as you, so it's not surprising you think the Democratic party is far left.

But in reality, in the grand scheme of things, it is not.

---

Whose grand scheme? Who is defining far left?

barbacoa taco said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

The Democratic party is not far left.

---

I feel so silly. I have been arguing with a parody account.

---

You are very far right, based on your posts. And this website is dominated by people who are just as far right as you, so it's not surprising you think the Democratic party is far left.

But in reality, in the grand scheme of things, it is not.

---

Europe is generally farther left in the sense of having higher taxes and more social programs, but the business of transing kids is something on which they have not gone along with the American leftists.
And it appears the right in America has become the anti-war business party.

Not buying that. The income tax rate may be less progressive (haven't check back on the other candidates) but taxing unrealized gains? At least two additional taxes introduced in the inflation reduction act. Huge tax breaks for first time homebuyers? And while it may not be taxes, how about student loan forgiveness?

I'll grant they are talking much tougher on the boarder this time around. But what has that looked like in practice recently?

I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert of foreign policy, so I'll take your word for it that democrats have gotten more conservative there. It's not a major interest of mine.

And then you just casually wave away the social issues like it's been that way all along. It hasn't.

Your last paragraph is nonsense. Just painting all republicans as people that don't care about the democratic voting process doesn't make it true.

Well, the Greek translators of the Hebrew OT were native Hebrew speakers and the authors the of the NT were obviously using the Greek - St Paul famously makes a key theological argument that can only be made from the Greek in seed vs seeds - so I don't think we can use modern scholarship to throw out a deliberate word choice by the translators. Particularly when the verse in question in Hebrew is actually a pun - which St Paul also references "[the demons] are nothing". Both are taught, both are upheld, so why quibble?

It is true and scriptural that the gods of the nations are empty and vain, and idols, and that they are demons. The sacrifices offered to them are offered to demons and not to the true God.

This is absolutely a repeated theme in the New Testament and Old, and in church history and tradition, so what is the issue here?

The Banned said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

No, it's fact. You and I both know that demographic dominates former students beyond a certain class year. I'm not hating on all of these people, but we all should acknowledge that it's a good thing for people to be exposed to different types of people and ideas in college.

It's not the case anymore, of course. The student body and younger generations of alums are much more diverse now, in terms of race and background and political beliefs. The university has done a great job trying to enhance this experience, despite the efforts of former student groups doing everything they can to stop them.

But that is usually the demographic who complains the loudest about A&M becoming "too liberal" or "too woke." When in reality A&M is still conservative by university standards and is nowhere near as liberal as UT or any college outside the south.

---

Yet again you are showing how the Overton window has shifted left. "Conservative by university standards" as opposed to what? How conservative it used to be? Sort of like it shifted way left from the point of view of people who have not changed their views but still not nearly as left as places who have gone way further left?

---

And, from the point of view of an old Ag who at one time drove around with a "Sissy for Governor" sticker on his car and supported Johnson's Great Society, it is aggravating to be told I'm too conservative when it is the liberals who have pushed A&M into discriminating against the children of Aggies.
I see my position now as one of self defense.

Zobel said:

---

Well, the Greek translators of the Hebrew OT were native Hebrew speakers and the authors the of the NT were obviously using the Greek - St Paul famously makes a key theological argument that can only be made from the Greek in seed vs seeds - so I don't think we can use modern scholarship to throw out a deliberate word choice by the translators. Particularly when the verse in question in Hebrew is actually a pun - which St Paul also references "[the demons] are nothing". Both are taught, both are upheld, so why quibble?

It is true and scriptural that the gods of the nations are empty and vain, and idols, and that they are demons. The sacrifices offered to them are offered to demons and not to the true God.

This is absolutely a repeated theme in the New Testament and Old, and in church history and tradition, so what is the issue here?

---

You realize the books making up the Septuagint were translated at different times by different people? The translators of the Torah were not the translators of Isaiah, for example. They seem to have been working off of a copy of the Hebrew texts from Alexandria, and a different textual tradition than what we find for books like Isaiah in Qumran. The Masoretic text is likely reflecting a textual tradition from Judea while the Septuagint is a different tradition. The Dead Sea Scrolls are pretty good at showing the existence of these different textual traditions.

AggieRain said:

---

Quote:

---

In other words, fascism is on the rise.

---

Man, y'all need some new words. You are wearing this one out just as fast as you did racist...

Pretty hard to have a fascist government with a near 50-50 split in the body politic.

---

I'm not wrong, though. Even if a bunch of doofuses on the internet say the word too much.

FWIW I'm not letting Dems off the hook either

barbacoa taco said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Quote:

---

In other words, fascism is on the rise.

---

Man, y'all need some new words. You are wearing this one out just as fast as you did racist...

Pretty hard to have a fascist government with a near 50-50 split in the body politic.

---

I'm not wrong, though. Even if a bunch of doofuses on the internet say the word too much.

FWIW I'm not letting Dems off the hook either

---

Can you provide me some of your concerns regarding a descent into fascism on either side of the political aisle? Maybe just start with those concerns about the right? I'm generally trying to understand your concerns, because my Gen Z employees use the same language and have the same concerns; however, they are largely unable to articulate them through a filter my Gen X brain can process.

And, tbh, I generally enjoy your posting style and methods of interaction even if I disagree with most of your posts. Always appreciate an alternative perspective.

It's been used as a term to refer to more than just the Torah, so if that's how you're using it, fine. It changes nothing else I said. It's one community's written tradition from Alexandria. It's not the only written tradition.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Quote:

---

2) Masculine men are toxic - you just made this up.

************

Um, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Have you really never heard of toxic masculinity?

---

Rather than respond to your whole post I wanted to just address this.

Take a look at the wikipedia article. The concept of "toxic masculinity" does not mean traditional masculinity in itself is toxic. It means there is a VERSION of masculinity that is toxic. The ugly, negative version of masculinity that entails homophobia, misogyny, suppressing emotions, bullying, and violence. These are not good things and should not be encouraged or normalized as part of traditional masculinity.

From that same article:

Quote:

---

Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one's family, are not considered to be "toxic".

---

Donald Trump is a perfect example of toxic masculinity. I find it hilarious how conservatives idolize him as a "man's man." He's anything but that. He's a whiny little b*tch. He's narcissistic, he's a bully, he divides people, he ****s over his employees and contractors, he complains about EVERYTHING, he lies constantly, and he is a sore loser who can't accept he lost.

No self respecting man or woman would ever try to instill these traits in their son. Which is why toxic masculinity is a bad thing and should be discouraged.

---

I like this response.

First of all, I take umbridge over many things you say as fact that has no support. You say that he is:
1) Narcissistic: check. He's a DC politician. Please name a non-narcissistic DC politician.
2) Bully: check. Good for being a dealmaker, bad as a politician. But, not bad when you are an instrument of change.
3) Divides people: Um, how? Not purposefully. Not any worse than Obama by result, so, tough to measure it that way. He has principles. That means he will divide people. I have many bad things to say about Obama, but I do think he is a man of principles. I just kind of despise his principles.
4) He f's over his employees and contractors - weak sauce, need sources, need litigation wins by employees, and an analysis of how many employees he has versus how many employees that have successfully sued him. This is an easy thing to prove objectively, and I have seen no objective data.
5) He complains about everything: Check. He's a perfectionist. Not his best trait. Comes with the package. No one is perfect, even you.
6) He lies constantly: This is an interesting one that probably deserves it's own thread. If you make the definition of a lie constant across all communications, he lies about 5% as much as the MSM. My mom taught me that, if you tell someone something knowing that they will come away with an understanding that isn't true, that is a lie. It doesn't matter what words you use. It doesn't matter what the definition of "is" is. Under this definition of lying, Trump is likely the person in DC, outside of SCOTUS, that lies the least.
7) He is a sore loser: check.
8) He can't accept the FACT that he has lost: That isn't a proven fact. There is an easy way to prove that someone has won or lost. The powers that be have chosen a path where it is murkey. He is right to call it out.

As for, is Trump Masculine? He provides. He creates wealth. Provider is the #1 job of a man, other than, maybe, semen. He has some major qualities, which are completely ignored by the MSM, and some faults, which are the only thing the MSM talks about. But, to say he isn't masculine? Really?

How many women have you had go to bed with you by grabbing them by the *****? Let me tell you a secret. If YOU grabbed them by the *****, you would go to jail. What is the difference between grabby you, and grabby Trump?

Quote:

---

Let's see, the man has already been President for 4 years. Did he "surround himself with yes men," then? Considering the left keeps beating themselves into a frenzy about how many former staffers have spoken out against him, I would said that is objectively a no.

---

He specifically states that he looks for loyalty to him first and foremost. You're trying to spin the number of former staffers who have stated he's unfit as some kind of proof against the claim that he surrounds himself with sycophants rather than acknowledging that maybe he's just THAT unfit for office. It's also true that in 2016 he didn't have a large group of experienced people to draw from who had loyalty to him first. So what did he do? He either placed manifestly unqualified people or relatives like Kushner into very senior roles or relied on recommendations from Republicans or hired generals. I'm guessing the latter is because he saw generals as people who would follow orders without question. Turns out career military men brought up in a culture of honor and duty found him disgusting and dangerous.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

I also love the "he's only in it for himself." Since running for President his net worth has been cut in half, half the country hates him when they use to love him, and he's come inches away from losing his life. Donald Trump would obviously have lived a much less stressful, richer, and more pleasant life if he never ran for office. In fact, he's the only major politician in recent history to lose net worth after taking office. Again, an obviously, objectively false statement that gets repeated by the mindless sheep everyday.

---

He's the only president to neither divest from his companies nor place his assets into a blind trust. His sons ran a hotel near the White House that foreign leaders stayed at to curry favor. He clearly broke the emoluments clause multiple times and has spent funds raised by the GOP for political purposes on his legal defenses. Yes, he's only out for himself. The fact that he's terrible at it doesn't change reality.

---

You forgot to include that he sold all his stocks before entering office (ahem, unlike a certain former House speaker), and only held cash/liquid assets, while his company also turned down any new business arrangements/deals. A family run/owned business can't be easily transitioned to a blind trust as with an investment portfolio. The ludicrous claim that profits from room service/hotel rooms were an emoluments clause/14th amendment violation was laughed out of SCOTUS without so much as a dissent from the communist justices. Fortunately, all the lawfare and rhetoric has spiked enthusiasm for Trump though.

On the other hand, the wealthy mega donors giving to Kamala are clearly trying to court favor if she somehow did miracle her way into office. Bill Gates, who owns more land than anyone else in America, shady 'dark money' and goals to drive depopulation should raise lot's of questions as well.

More christian blowback toward the godless Democrat party:

Quote:

---

Beth and Polaske later appeared on "Fox & Friends Weekend" to discuss the incident. "I was pushed by an elderly woman. We were heckled at, we were cursed at, we were mocked," Beth said. "In reflection of the event, Jesus was mocked. You know, His disciples were mocked, and that's OK. In reality, we did God's work, and we were there for the right reasons, and God is watching us in this moment."

Polaske said Harris gave him "an evil smirk" as he held up his cross and pointed at her while being escorted out. "She looked directly in the eye, kind of gave me an evil smirk," he recounted.

During the sermon, Hibbs asked Evangelicals who support Harris, "What are you going to do with that? Even Evangelicals for Harris what are you going to do with that one? She said, 'If Jesus Christ is Lord, you've got to go to the other party.' Wow! ... Well, you better hurry up, by the way, before they erase it (the video on YouTube)."

---

WARNING: MATURE CONTENT

I like to think of voting and VOICING. Think about it. You may not get the opportunity to preach to a million people like Billy Graham or Pastor a church of 10,000 like Charles Spurgeon - but God has called each of His true children to take advantage of…

— Jack Hibbs (@RealJackHibbs) October 19, 2024

Quote:

---

More christian blowback toward the godless Democrat party:

---

What was their goal besides causing a scene?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

A family run/owned business can't be easily transitioned to a blind trust as with an investment portfolio

---

Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust before becoming President. Trump directed the government to rent from his properties and charged the Secret Service when he repeatedly visited his own for-profit properties at rates designed to make a profit. Spare me this bull*****

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496

---

Jimmy Carter, lol, a common fall back for Democrats when desperately trying to find a 'good/clean guy' from their team in history. Mostly this is just mythology on the left, of course, and he was such a terrible business person (as with most communists) that he was 7 figures in debt by 1981 and had to sell it off after leaving office anyway.

In any case, Jimmy's trust was hardly a paragon of ethics in government despite his protestations: it was actually fairly scandalous.

Quote:

---

It didn't take long for the administration to face ethics questions, however. Carter's nominee to serve as the head of the Office of Management and Budget was Bert Lance, an adviser to his campaign and the president of the bank that gave Carter's company that large loan. Lance resigned under an ethics cloud in September 1977, facing questions about his management of the bank.

---

Quote:

---

Carter was also subject to new ethics rules that he'd signed into law as the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. For his companies to be held in a true blind trust, he would have had to have maintained a strict wall between himself and Kirbo. But Kirbo still served as an adviser to Carter, with a June 1980 story in the Times noting that Kirbo was both a frequent guest at the White House and had advised the president on staffing decisions.


(New York Times, June 1980)
Given that relationship, Carter's team reported financial details of his businesses, describing the trust as "open" (under the definitions of the new law) as opposed to "blind." It was at this point that the loan to Billy Carter in 1977 was made public.

---

So, family loans, paying off his idiot son from the trust while in office, close contact with the trustee as an advisor, and yet…Republicans didn't demand he be impeached/tried in federal court.

Interesting video from Australia on how the Brit Labor Party
is sending about 100 campaign workers to help Harris and
how Musk's $million/day is legal as long as it for signing a
petition but may have violated PA lottery regs.

Impressive attempt at deflection. Sounds like you should be upset about Trump's behavior given that it was significantly worse than anything Carter did.

Not at all. I didn't bring up Jimmy's sainthood, just pointed out the fallacy in his unethical behavior by comparison, in response.

I think it's absurd to think Trump would be making policy decisions (or any others) on the basis of who stays in one of his hotels. It's just amusing to hear the tears and lamentations (or, to borrow another phrase, gnashing of teeth) is all. There's zero substance to it.

The communists have no substantive attacks at all, and pathetic last second efforts to spin some sort of "Trump is a racist" narrative are falling flat (again), despite the megaphone efforts.

AggieRain said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Quote:

---

In other words, fascism is on the rise.

---

Man, y'all need some new words. You are wearing this one out just as fast as you did racist...

Pretty hard to have a fascist government with a near 50-50 split in the body politic.

---

I'm not wrong, though. Even if a bunch of doofuses on the internet say the word too much.

FWIW I'm not letting Dems off the hook either

---

Can you provide me some of your concerns regarding a descent into fascism on either side of the political aisle? Maybe just start with those concerns about the right? I'm generally trying to understand your concerns, because my Gen Z employees use the same language and have the same concerns; however, they are largely unable to articulate them through a filter my Gen X brain can process.

And, tbh, I generally enjoy your posting style and methods of interaction even if I disagree with most of your posts. Always appreciate an alternative perspective.

---

thank you.

What bothered me a lot from this year alone was the forcible suppression of the Palestine protests in the spring, which were by all accounts nonviolent. That was truly insane to watch DPS troopers march onto UT's campus immediately as the protests begun. And this is just a recent example. Forcible suppression of opposition is a trait of fascism.

Trump is clearly an authoritarian who has talked about removing free speech protections from speech he doesn't like, and crushing certain "enemies from within." He and his allies have consistently sought out a form of government with unchecked executive power. His only real litmus test for his cabinet members and judges is loyalty to him. He is a demagogue.

What really bugs me is Trump supporters constantly write all this off as him just exaggerating and being his bombastic self. Why shouldn't we take his words at face value? His rhetoric is consistent. He never softens up about anything. Within the past couple weeks he has talked about crushing an enemy from within. This should be disturbing to anyone. Fascism entails uniting around a common enemy.