MLCKAA

Old Bay Seasoning

Parrot Bay

~sigh~ You’re being deliberately obtuse. That’s OK. I’ve never witnessed you be willing to have a genuine conversation about this. It’s a shame, but I’m leaving.

This in no way addresses my previous post. Paul didn’t claim he’d been moved by the HS. He said he was visited by the ascended Jesus and that he was anointed to extol the will of God to the world. You don’t want to discuss Pauline epistles and I can accept that. Have a good day.

It’s well-researched that Acts was written 75+ years after the crucifixion and Acts was authored by Luke. Neither man has any divine authority. Jesus was a guy you’d love to have as employee or employer because he was very clear and direct about what he was going to do. Yes, he taught with parables, but regarding himself he he said “I will” or “I have.” He directed his disciples to spread his gospel. He never tells us that he will visit anyone after his death or that his Father will anoint a man to further His divinity. Consider it this way: if a man came forward today and told the world he had been visited by Jesus and was henceforth speaking on behalf of God himself, would you be inclined to believe that man? Probably not, because that’s inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching. Even James disliked Paul. That’s JC’s own brother!

Yes, according to PAUL this happened. It is described in the book of Acts, which was authored anywhere from 75-90 years after the crucifixion. Interestingly, Acts was authored by Luke who was a lifelong friend of Saul/Paul and also someone who never met Jesus. The only credibility of these accounts comes from Paul himself. I hope you’re noting that I am not disparaging Jesus or the Father here, but merely questioning the Pauline Epistles.

You believe it is against God’s will, but do we know that? Timothy is a letter from Paul and we have only Paul’s word, and his word alone, that his writings are inspired by God. Paul never met Jesus, he wasn’t a disciple, was never mentioned by Jesus, was not endorsed by Jesus and Jesus never tells us in the bible that anyone other than his disciples would go forth and spread his ministry or that there would be any other man who acted on the authority of his Father. Paul was an educated former Christian persecutor who had knowledge of Old Testament writings and was never annointed by anyone who had Jesus’ authority. There is exactly nothing biblical that lends authenticity to Paul’s writings.

Marilyn was a doll.

I remember when my wife was good for this.

Abstractly, I’m fine with SC term limits and a code of ethics. The problem I’d anticipate is ever being able to achieve something non-partisan. Either “side” with their foot on the pedal will try everything they can to craft reforms that they believe will benefit their party. As for elections being a fine substitute for term limits, Feinstein, Grassley, Napolitano, Hoyer, Pelosi, Clyburn, McConnell and the rest of the geriatrics thank you for your support.

I think it means someone who likes to do it with bread.

No, but once I was running the trail at Southeastway Park and ran right past some dude banging a chick from behind against a tree. Classic.

Poverty, violence, high crime, gender inequality, government corruption, economic opportunity. These are the reasons that people violate American immigration statutes. If your thoughts on resolving illegal immigration don’t include these factors ahead dealing with climate change, then I don’t believe you’re serious about addressing it and it also shows that you don’t believe there is a humanitarian crisis in Mexico and Central America. I am fine with disagreeing, however.

If you disagree with point 1, I want to make sure you noted that I am referring to illegal immigration. Legal and procedurally proper immigration is just fine. Given that local, state and federal budgeting is based on predictable population levels, illegal immigration can only be a drain on domestic resources. If a flight is planned from Sacramento to Albuquerque, the fuel load on the plane isn’t sufficient to make the Sacramento to Nashville flight. Regarding point 2, why would we disagree on causes and solutions? My long-held belief is that if there is a humanitarian crisis behind the flight from Mexico and Central America, the governments there should be held to account for their policies and practices. The mass exodus from there to here is a problem for America and part of the solution should be improving quality of life in those countries. I bet good minds could come up with abundant answers for how to accomplish that.

I think you lose credibility with some here (though some of those same people have no credibility of their own to tout) by ignoring the nuance of these issues. The administration deserves scant credit for reduced apprehensions at the border given reduced enforcement coupled with increased vigilance from mexico to prevent would-be crossers from traversing their country. Illegals may commit a low overall rate of violent crime, but well-publicized violent crimes by illegals begs the question of what amount of violence by illegals is acceptable and why wouldn’t we want to take steps to prevent even a low rate. A focus on violent crime by illegals is an unfortunate distraction from the reality that 1) illegal immigration is an unsustainable domestic resource drain and 2) the international community continues to ignore Mexico and Central America’s malpractice in improving quality of life for their citizens.

It is true, though, that when Biden took office Harris was said to be tasked with addressing the border problem. Will I search online for links? No, I’m using my memory and it isn’t failing me. Why are people talking about it now? Harris was publicly given the job of dealing with that problem and many people assess that it has worsened. Footnote: as I believe I’ve said to you previously, I appreciate your civility in these threads. You have seen me many times championing for more civility from fellow posters and I am thankful for yours.

That last part is really OK.

Ok, I see what you mean. Got it. Thanks.

ALL very well understood and acceptable to me the vast majority of the time. Although rare, there can and should be exceptions. There were several alternatives in the situation on topic and a non-lethal shot was among them.

I wouldn’t know the details of your wife’s experience, but I do know that when water is aerated, such as by propelling a pot of water through the air, even briefly for a short distance, it cools rapidly. Of course, that officer couldn’t have known that. As an aside, does anyone want police threatening that they will “shoot you in the face” as someone here reported that he said to that lady? Even if he didn’t shoot, just saying that should be grounds for termination.

Unfortunately, and I genuinely mean that, there’s no way for that officer to know if the water is really boiling. And he is probably unaware, as most people would be, that the danger to himself from being splashed with boiling water was only superficial epidermal burns. I only know from work trainings. Most people would think “ermergerd, it’s gonna melt me like the wicked witch!” All that said, this is one of the very few scenarios where I will criticize the kill shot. There was line of sight and opportunity to make a non-lethal shot. In addition to many other things that warrant criticism here.

There are many police failures here, but it isn’t murder. But there are MANY failures by those two cops.

Porky’s and Stripes in the theater with the parental units. Way to go, Mom.

What I expect, though not what I want, is that Harris will be the nominee and win the general. It’s preposterous that either party could win with a last minute replacement nominee, but that’s what I expect to happen.

Ooof!