The Political Discussion Thread

[The Flyattractor]

What?
He's willing to talk, he just wants it on the public record.

It would be anyway. He is just trying to get some Cam Time for himself.

[Annoyed]

What?
He's willing to talk, he just wants it on the public record.

I can understand why. I want it public too.

But if the Senate wants to do a closed hearing, they still have the legal right to drag him before them. As I said, he won't get a say in the matter. He's not being prosecuted, so he can't even claim 5th amend. rights. If by testifying, he will incriminate himself, they can grant immunity, again nullifying 5th.

[Gatefan1976]

No, they asked him to do it behind closed doors, he declined. (annoyed is right in saying they could get him to testify if they wished however)

He wants to say his piece in the public arena, and I don't blame him for that.

I think the FBI should demand trumps "tapes".

[Gatefan1976]

I can understand why. I want it public too.

Yup.

But if the Senate wants to do a closed hearing, they still have the legal right to drag him before them. As I said, he won't get a say in the matter. He's not being prosecuted, so he can't even claim 5th amend. rights. If by testifying, he will incriminate himself, they can grant immunity, again nullifying 5th.

Yup.

[Coco Pops]

Hehe watergate all over again yay.

[SGalisa]

You can't think of American politics in terms of left and right any more. Those terms have become meaningless to the American system. You now have the Democrats who are the "Keep things the way they are, but a little better" party. And the Republican "Burn the system down and leave everyone to fend for themselves" party.

You (PH) seem to have that backwards. It was during the Dems control under President Obama's reign where almost entire blocks of neighborhoods were being burned down and those left in the lurch, so to speak were left to fend for themselves as a result, until the rest of the community finally shouted days later *Enough!!! ..Get someone in to STOP this madness--NOW!!!*

Oh, and don't forget Democratic Detroit, Michigan that is more became like a ghost, where gangs rule the roost. Chicago, Illinois along with Berkley (Calif.) and Los Angeles, California are more highly Dem regions where "all hell breaks loose" and is allowed to continue, because law enforcement aren't supposed to go after the culprits causing the mayhem in the first place. Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon are also in that high ranking destruction of the neighborhood zones, too.

Why exactly did you go into the armed services for Garkhal?

A_ Duty
B_ a family tradition.
None of us did it cause we thought we owed our potus anything..

Don't forget the threat of being drafted if you didn't go in either. Everyone (male AND female) have lived under that annual political threat, ever since the 1970's. The threat of bringing back the mandatory "draft" became more real during Bill Clinton's presidential reign, tho. My nephew has been fortunate to have escaped what his dad did as duty. His dad is a sworn Democrat, now, or at least strongly holds to the liberal and Democratic political POV.. he even married a devout Democrat -- so we avoid discussing politics as much as possible. Sci-Fi discussions are okay, but NOT politics.

[Gatefan1976]

You (PH) seem to have that backwards. It was during the Dems control under President Obama's reign where almost entire blocks of neighborhoods were being burned down and those left in the lurch, so to speak were left to fend for themselves as a result, until the rest of the community finally shouted days later *Enough!!! ..Get someone in to STOP this madness--NOW!!!*

You do not understand PH's point, and you just proved it.

Oh, and don't forget Democratic Detroit, Michigan that is more became like a ghost, where gangs rule the roost. Chicago, Illinois along with Berkley (Calif.) and Los Angeles, California are more highly Dem regions where "all hell breaks loose" and is allowed to continue, because law enforcement aren't supposed to go after the culprits causing the mayhem in the first place. Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon are also in that high ranking destruction of the neighborhood zones, too.

Excuse me while I take over some federal land...........

Don't forget the threat of being drafted if you didn't go in either. Everyone (male AND female) have lived under that annual political threat, ever since the 1970's. The threat of bringing back the mandatory "draft" became more real during Bill Clinton's presidential reign, tho. My nephew has been fortunate to have escaped what his dad did as duty. His dad is a sworn Democrat, now, or at least strongly holds to the liberal and Democratic political POV.. he even married a devout Democrat -- so we avoid discussing politics as much as possible. Sci-Fi discussions are okay, but NOT politics.

Utterly irrelevant to the discussion Garkhal and I were having.

[Gatefan1976]

Now, on to #3 replies to GF..

So, I can assume that this is directed at me?
There will be no claims of "speaking to a broader audience?
cool.

Would you rather I put an eye-popping smilie there instead? jeesh! picky, picky.
Snickers were the actual reaction from the people looking at the person in the cat-suit.. but that's because it was (usually) someone walking in from off the street. Sure, go ahead and scold that person for being an abomination for their current dress code. Scare them away from probably the only opportunity they have to accepting Jesus WORDs into their life and spiritual heart.

Excuse me but what?
I don't give a damn what you wear, I am operating off -your- book, not mine with that comment. You want to bring people into your cult, that's your business.

Covering someone else up due to someone being mistreated (raped or beaten or injured with torn clothes) is a special circumstance. Otherwise, NOT_GONNA_Happen in a genuine reaching-out-to-unbelievers scenario. Eventually, if that person feels compelled to believe and has the conviction of the Holy Spirit, they will eventually change accordingly.

How is this relevant?
Covering up women is in your book, not mine.

When Jesus spoke in his days, people came from all over the region to hear him, dressed as they were (any ancient *fashion police* could/would be appauld all they dreaded!). On certain hot and humid summer days, some folks probably even sat on the sandy beaches, while sticking their feet in the water to cool their toes and aching hot feet. Jesus didn't rebuke them for that, did he? Ohhhhhhhhhhh, how I longed to be able to do that while we sat in those hot Church buildings with no air-conditioners, and sweated in the horrible heat with no relief during some unbearably lonnnnnnnnng sermons and services.

Blah blah blah, is this a discussion, or storytime?
How about you asked the people you were tithing to, to get Air con?

One country Church had a swimming pond outside for children's summer camp, with horses across the street. It was a beautiful spot to be in; but for crying out loud, let us sit outside by the water and cool our aching/hot tootsies into the water, so we don't pass out during the service! We never got to be outside in those unbearable days, and several people passed out sleeping thru parts of the Church service. One person borrowed and in a fit of near heat stroke -- broke my favorite, wildlife painted paper-folding fan that my mom bought for me.

Blah, blah, blah.

I used to sit there and plead with God to intervene and motivate the pastor to please let us sit under the cooling pine trees by the babbling brook at least, instead of under that hot, building roof. It never happened until after the "formal" service was over. Even during the informal services, we suffered inside that hot room. Apparently, TPTB never got the hint and made everyone suffer, because *that* was the standard assembly rule that was established. God didn't write it in stone that we *had* to be in there in that manner just to meet together and study the WORD of God / worship the LORD..!

Blah, blah blah.
You do have one point, GOD did not write that, the Church did.

What religious book are you reading from?
Cause "modern" Christians in the USA's 20th century dropped the maxi dresses in favor of more comfortable clothing. Started with the pants dresses as a fashion thing, and I had a very nice white and navy blue one with "elephant pants" (wide legging that looked like a dress, but fit like pants). I wore it to my grandparents funeral (mom picked the outfit out), and when school's approved of the dress code changes, I also wore it TO school AND to (Catholic) Church.

Can you simply state a point and move on?
The "book" I am reading from is yours, specifically, Deuteronomy 22:5.

I could say that mens kilt's are an abomination, but that is a Scottish dress style.

Under your book, yes you could.

So, unless you're wearing a kilt and waiting 20 minutes in 15 F. degree temps with bitter wind chills below Zero F. degrees for the school bus that broke down (for the umpteenth time), while frostbite is creepy up your exposed legs, then you have a valid reason to complain about "pants" vs dresses.

Blah blah blah.

We were living according to the rules/regs of "society". "Church" then only required something on the head, even if it was a ribbon of yarn tied into a bow. Shocking enough yet? My fellow, female school classmates didn't even bother with that.. there hair cuts were "fashion" enough. And my *usher* dad sometimes picked them to take the "offerings" up to the priest during the walk up to the altar. THE "Church" never complained. So, add that to your list of SIN offenses.

It's your bad you got lax with YOUR gods laws, not mine.

What are you now, the *fashion* police?
I'd stop there, because I can go into a whole spin zone about having scoliosis (abnormal curvature of the spine) and females looking lopsided in skirts because of it. I stopped wearing skirts for 2 reasons -- weather and looking lopsided. God didn't FIX my scoliosis, so I had to live with dealing with what was given to me. If females wearing pants is offensive to you, that is "your" problem.. pants is a fashionable social issue now, not a "spiritual" one.

Errr, no.
You rail against the Muslim dress code, but create excuses for your violation of your own gods dress code.
-that- is my issue.
This is not MY opinion, I don't give a crap what you wear, wear a G string and see through dresses for all I care.

As long as the pants aren't soooooooo see thru without a proper slip beneath, or shredding/shredded (holely) in the wrong places, or NOT so overly tight that they constrict the body's natural walking and sitting movements, I'm personally okay with females wearing it, even in Church.

You might be OK with it, but GOD is not.

If I joined the religious Clergy, then I could say dressing outside of their restricted "dress code" enforcement law would be wrong. Otherwise, use *respectable* common sense (for one's own self) when wearing clothes in a public setting! That is how my parents raised me, and how I accept materialistic fashionable things to this very day. Religion never controlled my decisions--common sense (with being comfortable as in ease of movement) and respectability dictated my clothing decisions, instead. Besides, from my coworkers POVs, I am more blamed of being over-dressed than under-dressed, anyway.

This is relevant how?

Does the Holy Spirit care about me wearing pants to stay warm or be comfortable (since skirts and dresses bothered me at various times for different reasons)?

I did not set the rules, GOD did.
Do you know better than GOD?

I think the Holy Spirit is more concerned about my treatment of compassion towards other people God has set forth to live within this universe.

How do you treat them?

I'm certainly NOT going to weed out my garden wearing a skirt or dress so the bugs can climb up my legs..! I put pants on with the anti-bug spray over the material to keep the bugs OFF of me. Let them crawl somewhere else -- NOT *on* me without my approval..! Same with appropriate length shorts. Silly nonsense otherwise.

Yes, you are full of silly nonsense.

Obviously, (GF) *your* LORD is not the same as *my* LORD.
You are keeping either other religions or Jewish food and clothing customs UNDER the (their) Law, whereas, one of Jesus' apostles even said that we, who believe in Jesus (of Nazareth) as doing what Jesus did cancels out those laws and now "blesses" the foods, fabrics, and restricted "fashions" formerly under the LAW, to now be freed up within reason (reasonable adjustments).

Jesus never claimed to change the law of GOD

The whole purpose of Jesus living as he did and dying on the cross was to FULFILL (and satisfy) the LAW of God. Once that was accomplished, to those who believe in it, "believers" live under the *grace* of God. (for example, see Romans, Chapters 4-6). Of course, regardless of whatever Paul wrote, he was also conflicted with putting people back under the old Mosaic laws, via Romans 7-8. However, in Romans 9, Paul returns to the living with grace and mercy aspects under God.

Jesus "lived" to forgive "original sin", for mankind to have the right to choose and accept the consequences of -their- actions, not their forefathers.

FH mentioned in one of her postings somewhere about NOT mixing certain fabrics together, because the ancient LAW stated not to do so. Well, there's some scientific reasoning behind that, even tho the ancient Jews or whoever may have been too primitive knowledge wise to know better.

This matters...........why?

I can understand the issue with mixing certain fabrics together, because they are incompatible. I used to study fashions and learned by washing and drying mixed fabrics that some don't "set" properly with cotton. Instead the other fabric composition shrinks or stretches out of shape. Duh, object lesson -- stop wearing that type of fashion mixture; and to the fabric manufacturers, stop mixing incompatible fabrics with each other.

WTF does this have to do with religious exemptions?

[Annoyed]

Don't forget the threat of being drafted if you didn't go in either. Everyone (male AND female) have lived under that annual political threat, ever since the 1970's. The threat of bringing back the mandatory "draft" became more real during Bill Clinton's presidential reign, tho.

Women are NOT and have never been subject to the draft in the U.S. I've always found this to be rather hypocritical on the part of the women's rights advocates. If they want "equality", why haven't they demanded equality on this and other aspects where society favors the female? Gotta take the bad with the good.

[jelgate]

I agree with Annoyed.

































I'm scared

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Women are NOT and have never been subject to the draft in the U.S. I've always found this to be rather hypocritical on the part of the women's rights advocates. If they want "equality", why haven't they demanded equality on this and other aspects where society favors the female? Gotta take the bad with the good.

But it was men who decided that women were too delicate to be included in the draft.

Men also decided that women are the better parents and should be favoured during divorce proceedings.

You're annoyed at the wrong people.

[jelgate]

*enlists PH*

Soldiers need a target when they learn their weapon

[SGalisa]

Now, on to #3 replies to GF..

So, I can assume that this is directed at me?
There will be no claims of "speaking to a broader audience?

GF, if you haven't figured me out by now and how I write, I give up trying to explain that.

You're wrong about the broader audience, but that's you being you again.
Anyone can pipe in their POV about what I wrote. But the answers were in direct response to your specific questions/comments that were posed at me.

I don't give a damn what you wear, I am operating off -your- book, not mine with that comment.

Again, (GF) your comments sounded like you *were* presuming *I* was offending the "LORD" God of some religion. It wasn't me who walked into Church in the clingy cat-suit, but someone else. I know people who walk in wearing very used work clothes, where the fabrics are so worn out that they look like the person has slept in them for weeks without changing. Oh, and very used (dirty) sneakers, too. Guy *looks* homeless and is obviously on some sort of med, because he often falls asleep in the pew.. but he faithfully keeps returning -- maybe for free food at the food pantry.. I don't know. I just know he comes.

You want to bring people into your cult, that's your business.

It's NOT a cult in my world. It's part of Jesus' GREAT Commission (of Gentiles) and partaking thereof.
(See Matthew 28:18-20).

Clarification note-- I have seen some devoted "Christian" Churches grow, and others dwindle. Some Churches have been blatantly disobedient, so if those have dwindled, it's not a surprise. I have also read various "religious" forums on the internet. Some of the questions posed are sort of shocking to me in the sense of replying with "duh!! if that's what Jesus said or did, that's what he said or did". By faith one believes, OR not.

Based on how you've voiced yourself against God/Jesus of Nazareth, etc., Problem I see is *probably* NOT a problem to you--- the GREAT Commission to the Gentile world (non-Jewish) is closing down. Once that particular time era has ended (as determined by God's designated appointments of who, when, how and where), then the 144,000 Jewish "evangelists" will take over and lead the world the rest of the way -- up to the moment their *true* Messiah returns to earth/establishes "HIS" gov't upon the earth--in Jerusalem (Israel). So, if anyone in this world thinks they got problems dealing with Christians alive now, Oooooo! wait til then..
That's when things will get *reeeeeeeeeeeally* interesting.

Covering up women is in your book, not mine.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul addresses female "believers" to cover up their hair. It is a *symbolic* gesture which basically states that a woman is under the authority of the man/husband. Symbolisms are just that -- symbolic. Enforcing the symbolism as a mandatory ruling is getting nit-picky in some areas. This is why that "covering of the head" issue has been debated so fiercely in the recent decades.

Blah blah blah, is this a discussion, or storytime?
. . .
Blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah blah.
You do have one point, GOD did not write that, the Church did.

Thank you!!
That is WHY I wrote that whole situation up. To provide a sense of what was going on in the background, in order to get to the specific point of who set that system up and why it was oppressively unbearable to sit thru. Jeesh. If you (or anyone else) really wants to know, that particular Church (camp) could have had an amazing ministry, but abused the abundant gifts they had via (political governing) manipulation (in both spiritual and physical realms)--they became chronic control freaks, and ended up losing everything they physically built when an outsider came in and had them evaluated for "cult-like" status. Problem wasn't really a cult, but "SIN" in the camp that came straight from the pulpit.

My hubby and I only attended there at an invite from one of the members. I went along because I liked the surrounding scenery (it became *my home away from home*)---I mean, this place had a babbling brook, covered walkway bridges, gorgeous pine trees, huge piece of property with horses across the dirt road; and I was enchanted with the outdoor beauty of this chunk of land.

However, the elders there wanted my hubby there 6 days every week, and I put my foot down because it was impossible with our jobs and distance driving over there (90 minute drive round trip just to go to "Church"!?). So, they kept their distance and I kept mine (my hubby went every day/night he could, because he got *talked* into it..and questioned my resistance, instead of looking at *common sense* dictating the reasons why he got so overly involved). After I was laid off from my job and we couldn't travel over there any longer, a year later the whole Church fell apart. Hmmm.. We found out it was "SIN" in the camp that destroyed them--the very items they preached against about, some were doing behind the scenes... Not good.

Can you simply state a point and move on?

No. I am a detailed oriented person, not diplomatic as in short and to quickly the point. I'm not wired to speak that way, nor creative enough to figure out HOW...sorry, WYSIWYG. Ask my hubby how to shorten my sentences -- he will probably sympathize with you..

The "book" I am reading from is yours, specifically, Deuteronomy 22:5.

Okay, I see -- the whole Transvestite cross-dressing issue.
Except I grew up with the fashion industry. Ladies pants are NOT men's clothing pants (we have side zippers and elastic wastebands -- no "fly hole" in the u-know-where spot! Underwear probably falls into the same category.. like men wearing a frilly, feminine made bra, even tho some of them probably NEED one! A *style* is one thing, but to wear your dad's or mom's clothes when you are the opposite gender is an issue that is probably being presented here.

I have no need to wear men's pants or underwear. Caitlyn (Bruce) Jenner did (or still does). That is probably what/where such controversy is about on the deeper level. That whole transgender stuff should be left in the capable judgement hands of God, not man. If the verse is still subject to punishable judgement, God will ensure it in the ultimate end. Personally, it was NOT part of the original TEN Commmandments, so it seems to be a man-made rule that the Jewish priesthood enforced (the original *fashion* police).

It's your bad you got lax with YOUR gods laws, not mine.
. . .
You might be OK with it, but GOD is not.

So blame the Catholic Church and all the other denominations for ignoring the Jewish scriptures that were written before Jesus of Nazareth was even born..

Also, if Jesus allows Gentiles to live under "grace and mercy" and I think it was Peter who declared the blessing of eating formerly restricted animal creatures, or wearing synthetics with cottons, etc., why should I (and others) be singled out as being disobedient to something that has now been approved as being "blessed"..? Christians are not subject to the 613 or whatever # Jewish Laws. ONLY the TEN Commandments count -- Priority #1.
Otherwise, this is where people end up causing all sorts of legalistic issues into things that don't need to be punished.

You rail against the Muslim dress code, but create excuses for your violation of your own gods dress code.
-that- is my issue.

That is also *my* issue with the Muslim dress codes. It's NOT fair to women having certain health issues -- something many of you males in this entire world just do not seem to comprehend. Women who haven't suffered those items I mentioned are also apathetic to the health problems I presented. So, the men set the rules down and that's it or punishment is given to the disobedient female dresser.

It's oppressive and wrong, IMO and the worst part is that some of the men enforcing such rules *know* it is oppressive, but that is what some of them want, because they believe it keeps their "females" in an obedience line. Modest dress is one thing, but why the excessive covering-up of the neck on HOT, humid days?? That's insanity. When my ears start turning blood red, my head fries with an extreme fever during the worst hot flashes. It has become a thyroid imbalance, where nothing has helped to ease the hot/cold problem, and that can lead to exploding arteries if not promptly brought into some sort of rebalanced mode.

Jesus never claimed to change the law of GOD

Jesus "lived" to forgive "original sin", for mankind to have the right to choose and accept the consequences of -their- actions, not their forefathers.

I didn't say Jesus "changed it" -- I said he FULFILLED and Satisfied the LAW, because no other human could or would ever do it.. as it was *required* (established to be enforced).

Does the Holy Spirit care about me wearing pants to stay warm or be comfortable (since skirts and dresses bothered me at various times for different reasons)? I think the Holy Spirit is more concerned about my treatment of compassion towards other people God has set forth to live within this universe.

I did not set the rules, GOD did.
Do you know better than GOD?

I think you missed the point between obedience of the Ten Commandments, which GOD wrote into stone, and the 613/whatever Jewish Laws, etc., that the Jewish leaders wrote up to be enforced within their communities.
Is the believer a *Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block*..?
What are you wearing or eating?
Hey, the Mosaic law system said "blah, blah, blah...!"
However, when legalism dictates how we live and causes problems around the world, it takes a miracle of God to sort out what is really important and matters.

Key point narrows down to---Are you "saved" (and ready to go at any moment) with your eternal destiny sealed, or what are you eating or wearing today..? (this is not referring to cannibalism, as part of the *norm* for eating, tho. ) Could bring some weather factors in too, that would dictate the whole clothing issue, and drought conditions affecting your daily meals. But is what you are wearing or eating going to seal your eternal destiny with Jesus or a simple "I believe Jesus lived and died to atone for my sins, (etc.)"

Sorry about the length; info is *as I understood it*..

[SGalisa]

Don't forget the threat of being drafted if you didn't go in either. Everyone (male AND female) have lived under that annual political threat, ever since the 1970's. The threat of bringing back the mandatory "draft" became more real during Bill Clinton's presidential reign, tho. My nephew has been fortunate to have escaped what his dad did as duty. His dad is a sworn Democrat, now, or at least strongly holds to the liberal and Democratic political POV.. he even married a devout Democrat -- so we avoid discussing politics as much as possible. Sci-Fi discussions are okay, but NOT politics.

Women are NOT and have never been subject to the draft in the U.S.

To which I (and a few other ladies I know) have been *eternally* grateful for.
That's why I mentioned it was presented with threatening undertones -- that such a system just might change and force women to get involved in something they don't want to get into.

But it was men who decided that women were too delicate to be included in the draft.

Some women would prefer NEVER to be drafted. There are too many issues on the battlefield (like being killed, or captured and tortured!) that some of us would very much like to stay away from. TYVM (*thank you very much!*) Maybe some women don't mind acting masculine about fighting in battles, etc, (which are NOT just a "proverbial cat fight"), but the rest of us females would prefer the solitudes and quietness of staying away from those sorts of events.

Cases in point--- fantasy series like Wonder Woman and Xena-Warrior Princess come to mind. Real Life wars are not fiction with those ladies (usually) always having the winning edge, and escaping their whatever their worst nightmares might be.

[Gatecat]

Women are NOT and have never been subject to the draft in the U.S. I've always found this to be rather hypocritical on the part of the women's rights advocates. If they want "equality", why haven't they demanded equality on this and other aspects where society favors the female? Gotta take the bad with the good.

Sweden gave up drafting in 2010, but reinstated it again this march with the first drafting starting in July. Not only for men, but also for women this time. I'm totally ok with that, and wouldn't mind this also happening in Austria. And honestly, basic military service wouldn't harm some girls either... Not explicitly weapons training, but rather sports, first aid, general behaviour and discipline.
If my eyes weren't so bad I'd have joined immediately...