All Activity

"Notice it says God was manifest in the flesh... This is a critical verse to prove to Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus is God." You've explained why you believe the KJV reading is theologically stronger. You have not demonstrated that it is textually original. Those are different questions. "A vast number of manuscripts use the word God and only a few... have the word he." That's the Majority Text argument. It is not proof that the minority reading is corrupt. Critical Text scholars argue that an earlier reading preserved in fewer manuscripts can still be original if later scribes expanded or clarified the wording during transmission. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that is the debate. "There was no excuse to change it." That assumes the conclusion. Critical Text scholars would say they didn't change the text. They believe they are restoring an earlier reading based on the manuscript evidence. You haven't demonstrated that their conclusion is wrong, only that you disagree with it. "This makes it far more difficult to convince a JW that Jesus is God." Whether a reading is more useful in defending a doctrine has no bearing on whether it is the original reading. Theological usefulness is not evidence of textual originality. "Acts 8:37... Modern versions leave this verse out." Again, you've explained why you believe the verse is doctrinally important. You have not demonstrated that Luke originally wrote it. Critical Text scholars omit it because they argue it was added later as a baptismal confession and is absent from many of the earliest Greek manuscripts. You may reject that conclusion, but that is a textual argument, not evidence of corruption. The discussion isn't whether these variants exist. The discussion is whether your preferred readings are demonstrably original and the alternative readings demonstrably corrupt. So far you've argued why you prefer the KJV readings, but you haven't demonstrated that the competing readings are corrupt rather than simply different conclusions reached through a different textual methodology.

Sure, like I said I see dead ghost trees multiplying hereabouts on a scale that's never been seen in the historical record. It doesn't seem to faze you in the least when other people do the same as you.

I'm sure all 13 of you cucks are enjoying the new infowars.

Not in 1867. You're not.

Uh-uh. No self respecting American is going to buy that shit when you have border laws and the Naturalization Act of 1790 already in place. We KNOW what the founders wanted, and it's not this. Everything connected to leftism needs to be criminalized, immediately. No more anchor babies, no more endless hordes of refugees and asylum seekers, no more bullshit citizens like Omar and Mamdani. In this country, leftism should be just as offensive as murder.

If it was only yesterday I said these things it should be a snap to point at one so we'll know what you're babbling about.

What will be assured is that Corporate profits will soar, whether or not this will result in cheaper costs for the consumer is the real question.

Wait a minute, roboreich; don't you see the connections? Hitler was also a socialist, and he too hated normal people. That flag is more relevant than your woke brain can comprehend.

Love it! They all belong together in hell.

I'm sorry, comrade, but I don't have the time or the bandwidth to study this shit in order to fight the pseudoscientists at their level. I rely on history and what I see with my own eyes. That's all anyone needs to put you lunatics behind them.

It's not Indonesian cooked rice.

You mean like open borders, the second amendment and free speech? All things the left has tried to change without amending the constitution before getting violent when we did not accept. You guys even tried to kill SCOTUS because they didn't rule your way on abortion. Before you try to get all high and mighty, maybe actually try being reasonable and respectable first.

Oh, please! 🙄 You guys have been predicting the end of the world for decades now. Just own it.

A good decision delayed is still the right thing to do for all that. Now we all know obsessively frugal people among our number who hate spending money, even government money. I often think it’s a great pity they are never called upon to oversee projects like this. If a particular staircase is going to help blow a, say, 50 million budget, maybe we don’t need to restore it?

If Republicans don’t like something in the constitution they should campaign to amend it. That’s the normal way to do things. Further eroding the restrictions on campaign finance is a very bad idea for ordinary people of any political stripe. It paves the way to oligarchy. The megarich will become even more influential than they already are. Political arguments should be won on their merits, not on the size of the wallets supporting them.

Laws are below SCOTUS decisions. They do not carry the weight of laws and they do not regulate individuals. You keep equating rulings to laws and that just is not the case. If a law is passed and signed, it does go into effect, even if SCOTUS rules against a similar law or EO. Remember Biden's multiple EOs giving away money to buy votes? He disguised it as a loan forgiveness. SCOTUS said no, he just changed a few words and did it again. Trump could do the exact same thing. But Kavanaugh set forth a better path. Laws are being crafted today. They will show up soon.

[Another facepalm image, because holy shit...] Library of Congress Each branch of government produces a different type of law. Case law is the body of law developed from judicial opinions or decisions over time (whereas statutory law comes from legislative bodies and administrative law comes from executive bodies). SCOTUS decisions absolutely have the force of law--law that is binding on the executive and legislative branches. Has been since Marbury. You could argue that they don't create "new" law, since they are interpreting existing laws, but those interpretations in a majority opinion do define what is legal and what is illegal. No, Kavanaugh's opinion is not important. Nor does he lay out a path to comply. He lays out a hypothetical of how his thinking could be changed. A proposition which 5 other justices just smacked down in no uncertain terms. That's not a path forward. Nor should it be.

Why do you support Nazis?

I am not defending something I did not say and you cannot quote. Wow. Ok. Do you need lessons on reading for comprehension? Nope. SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of a law (or in this case an EO). Their interpretation of why it is or is not Constitutional colors how laws are created going forward, but it does not create a new law. It creates precedence for lower courts to interpret laws going forward. The ruling is not law. This is why Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is important. He laid out a path to comply with the ruling. I am sure it will be challenged. But it is a path that the court would approve. We can modify 8 USC § 1401 and comply with this ruling.

Yes, you did. It's literally the opening premise of this thread: "Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional." Five supreme court justices just signed a majority opinion that very clearly states that the constitution means exactly what it says. Kavanaugh mused that maybe if they passed legislation to XYZ. (But nope, see majority opinion.) You then claimed that Kavanaugh's musings made the end of birthright citizenship constitutional. Because you don't know what a majority opinion is--or didn't at the time. It's an incorrect statement. And yes, a majority opinion does have the weight of law. Not just the decision of the case, but the opinion itself. That interpretation of becomes the binding interpretation that is then used by every other court and state and federal governments must follow. Again, this is just an absurd question to begin with. No legal thinker anywhere is unclear about what the constitution says or what it means. But there are some who don't like it and are twisting themselves into pretzels looking for any possible way to misinterpret plain language and overturn 160 years of common understanding.

Please quote where I said "it's a crisis". You think you can win debates by lying about what the other side says? I'll quote myself. "It's a serious but not a Doomsday scenario".

So you're saying people haven't been mating and procreating for for as long as we have existed? Or did you simply not get the point, as usual?

Sober up!

No. You believe it all and don't understand the difference. WTF are you talking about? Every day. It's called salt. And I need a big helping every time I read one of your posts. Mirror much? SO WHICH IS IT? You don't watch it at all but you know what Rosemary Barton said 'just this morning'!? Are you really that self-unaware? Or you watch CBC on FB and just parrot someone else's opinion about it? We're all laughing at you.