GOP truly has become a parody of themselves

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
May 4, 2011
3,605
1,624
1,743
Charleston, SC
So tell me how being moderate is just a republican failing. We have extreme policy on climate and fluid sexuality "rights" from the dems with no willingness to bend. If big Joe Manchin hadn't stood up we would have some of the most liberal policies ever passed by congress.
We'll see what happens next time around, but the democrats did nominate one the most moderate candidates in the field. Not Bernie, not Warren, Booker, or Harris. Gabbard and Bloomberg were the only candidates clearly to Biden’s right with some other heterodox people who are hard to classify (Yang). Arguably Obama was the progressive choice in 2008, but even he wasn't a full blown progressive of the day (his stance on gay marriage for example). I would argue that 2016 was the first time in my lifetime that a nominee wasn't at least somewhat centrist/moderate, meaning at least in the middle for their own party. The democrats got close that year, too, but whether you chalk it up to the Clinton political machine or something else, Bernie still lost. When someone like Bernie or Warren wins the nomination, which could very well happen in the next election cycle, I think that argument will hold a lot more water.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
6,983
3,025
743
36
tractor
It’s really this simple:

“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, and a man has sexual relations with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she remains undiscovered, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, if an attitude of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if an attitude of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, because it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of reminder, a reminder of wrongdoing. ‘Then the priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before the Lord, and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware container; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it in the water. The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let down the hair of the woman’s head, and place the grain offering of reminder in her hands, that is, the grain offering of jealousy; and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. And the priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has had sexual relations with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, as you are under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; if, however, you have gone astray, though under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had sexual intercourse with you” (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “may the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh shriveled and your belly swollen; and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, to make your belly swell up and your thigh shrivel.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.” ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness. And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its reminder offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then it will come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her belly will swell up and her thigh will shrivel, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be immune and conceive children.”
‭‭Numbers‬ ‭5:11-28‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬
I should have tried that with my ex-wife, she might not have had any thigh muscle left if it shrunk after just one defiler.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
6,983
3,025
743
36
tractor
We'll see what happens next time around, but the democrats did nominate one the most moderate candidates in the field. Not Bernie, not Warren, Booker, or Harris. Gabbard and Bloomberg were the only candidates clearly to Biden’s right with some other heterodox people who are hard to classify (Yang). Arguably Obama was the progressive choice in 2008, but even he wasn't a full blown progressive of the day (his stance on gay marriage for example). I would argue that 2016 was the first time in my lifetime that a nominee wasn't at least somewhat centrist/moderate, meaning at least in the middle for their own party. The democrats got close that year, too, but whether you chalk it up to the Clinton political machine or something else, Bernie still lost. When someone like Bernie or Warren wins the nomination, which could very well happen in the next election cycle, I think that argument will hold a lot more water.
When Biden was nominated he was moderate next to Bernie and Liz. It didn't take him long to blow them out of the water.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,751
2,529
1,743
We'll see what happens next time around, but the democrats did nominate one the most moderate candidates in the field. Not Bernie, not Warren, Booker, or Harris. Gabbard and Bloomberg were the only candidates clearly to Biden’s right with some other heterodox people who are hard to classify (Yang). Arguably Obama was the progressive choice in 2008, but even he wasn't a full blown progressive of the day (his stance on gay marriage for example). I would argue that 2016 was the first time in my lifetime that a nominee wasn't at least somewhat centrist/moderate, meaning at least in the middle for their own party. The democrats got close that year, too, but whether you chalk it up to the Clinton political machine or something else, Bernie still lost. When someone like Bernie or Warren wins the nomination, which could very well happen in the next election cycle, I think that argument will hold a lot more water.
Both Bushes and Bill Clinton could fairly be labeled moderate ....comparative to the political party. Our last three Presidents (Obama, Trump, and Biden) are not and were not classic moderates.

However, Biden is certainly not an extremists pushing socialism like Bernie.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
31,874
14,492
1,743
Cozy's Bar
You know I’m not a Democrat, that’s why you chickened out. If I’m on any team, it’s pro-democracy. That would make “the other team” pro-Anarchy or pro-Fascism. Which one am I afraid of losing to?

I hope this helps with your answer.
I don’t actually remember quoting you. But you jumped right in like someone personally attacked you
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,896
381
213
59
Broken Arrow
Ask my step sister who has late stage Huntington’s. Like most things in life, it’s not that simple. We’re in trouble when we oversimplify things just to avoid the nuances and fail to acknowledge every person’s reality is not the same.
From someone who has witnessed an uncle die from it and a church friend who is currently in late stage, I'm really sorry she, you, and your family have to experience that process.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
8,119
3,319
1,743
47
DFW
From someone who has witnessed an uncle die from it and a church friend who is currently in late stage, I'm really sorry she, you, and your family have to experience that process.
Thank you for that. I’m OK, but she and her mom deserve all the sympathy. Her dad died of this decades ago (genetically inherited) so her mom has gone through this twice. It puts huge emotional, mental, and physical tolls on those closest to her. It’s hard to witness, as you obviously know.

I’m sorry for your uncle and your church friend. Whew. That caught me off guard. Life, man. :(
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,154
1,743
Earth
No, it is not simple, not even kinda.

What about the 40-50% of conceptions that never make it to birth due to nature or God or whatever you believe. Did they matter? Where is the anger about those? Do you ask God why he thrashes 50% of innocent life before it has a chance? Why would the creator make a death rate so obscenely high relative to all of the other 3 month periods of life right there at the beginning if he wanted us to believe that all life matters? If the creator made that death rate and also gave us simple technology (now as easy as taking a pill) to do the same, how can you possibly know that his intent wasn't for us to use it? If he wanted us all mortified about it like you are, why isn't it mortifying to the rest of us? 99.9% of us think killing a baby after birth is mortifying. There is NO controversy there. If his intent was for us to be equally as mortified about the termination of an embryo, why does the majority not feel it?

You certainly have your right to your feelings about this complex subject. I am certain that you will respond with your rationale about the above, which is fine. I'm not claiming that I am right and you are wrong. I would never force a woman to have an abortion against her will even if I thought it was the best outcome. What I am claiming is that this is a controversial unanswerable question and nobody has the answer. And, the rest of us have a huge problem with unanswerable questions being answered by some with their opinion and feeling that their opinion gives them the right to establish dominion over another person's body. Talk about a slippery slope.
This is just my view:
1. The creator never intended death at all...we made that choice out of free will.
2. The creator however wanted us to choose his ways and love him out of our own choice...just as we don't force our children to love us when they rebel but want them to love us for being their parents.
3. The parodical son is my favorite story. I'm sure you know it...but it's really not about the son's but more about the father...How to love, how to allow freedom of choice, and how to deal with it when the right and WRONG choices are made. This is why I don't protest or fight for things I may think are right and wrong. I'm not in control. I can only control my own actions and treat others in love and grace even when I disagree with their choices.
4. I'm conflicted about this issue as much as anyone else is, but see a need to make it harder to abort by law...however, from the story above I think it needs to be dealt with using grace gloves (unconditional love).
5. I do however see this more as a protection of innocence than an infringement on someone else rights if the right laws are in place that allow sometimes and not allow others.
6. As you, I don't believe in laws that lack exceptions.
7. As far as natural embryonic death cycles I understand that is a natural process...I'm more interested in protecting that life once life is at a point in the cycle that it clearly is extinguishing a life. I think this is where compromise can and should happen and be done by the states.
8. I believe that we are 50 little nations with a national government out of necessity for our protection...NOT to make overreaching laws for each state. This is why I think that this particular law should be state by state just as we are doing with things like Mary Jane.

I appreciate the way you addressed me in this question...However, I don't like statements like "establish dominion over another person's body" ...because that is irony and what we have been allowing since Row v Wade. Can you understand why I would think that it's irony? It upsets those I know and me that we celebrate the taking away of the most fundamental of all rights which we see as Row v Wade doing...we don't see it as establishing rights for women and mothers, but actually taking them away from children and our future. It's a paradox to us that Row v Wade would be not only allowed, but celebrated.

I think you have known my stance for years and can see that I'm now willing to compromise...Like I have any say in the matter...sure wish our leaders were also willing to do same. I think there is room for constructive compromise here.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2020
1,896
381
213
59
Broken Arrow
With the condition that "unless personal circumstances change due to life", I have a high degree of confidence that pretty much every single adult in this country with the capacity for thought have their respective minds settled on the matter, and no other person or law will change that.
 
Last edited: