"No one likes Bernie Sanders": Hillary Clinton


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I decided to put it on my arm instead. (Pinochet for those who don't know).

Leonardo-5825fa2ab8eb1-tattoo.jpg

That doesn't look like the guy from Perfect Strangers.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why? They are two utterly different things. Extending your logic immediately leads to the idea that an 18-year-old should be able to be the POTUS.

Denying the 18 year old the opportunity to run for President dilutes the quality of a democracy because it lessens the range of choices available to the populus. One would sincerely hope that the 18  year old does not win the election, and perhaps strongly campaign against him, but if that is what the majority of the people want, and its a fair election then let the 18 year old become President. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I hear you budget, and I'm worried too. 

However, McGovern thought that the youth vote would push him into office overwhelmingly, especially because the voting age was just lowered to 18. Half of them voted for Nixon, and McGovern was crushed. Polls said that 65-70% of the youth vote would vote for him. So while I'm concerned about socialisms popularity, I'm not overly pessimistic. 

No doubt you remember it well :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Not really. Wars are merely politics by other means as described by Clausewitz.

Nonsense. This is taking a figurative statement literally, and badly misapplying it at that. "War is politics by other means" is no justification for allowing fighters to vote. Shall we also give the franchise to non-American military? Hey, they're fighting for us! You might as well say that a fourteen-year-old who delivers newspapers or a four-year-old who buys a candy bar should be allowed to vote because, you know, they're paying taxes.

21 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

If some old guys in Washington

What if they're young women in New York, like AOC? Then is it okay? Or is the "old men in Washington" just another tired, hateful statement meant to make the issue "us vs. them", where "them" is those horrid, uglyl old white guys in Washington?

21 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

If some old guys in Washington have the right to send me (generic) to my death, I should have to right to choose which old guys are in charge.

Do you know what a "right" is, MLDS? Hint: It's not something government gives you.

21 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

My (generic) life is at stake.

So what? The three-year-old's life is at stake when making policy on vaccination. The non-American green-card holder's life is at stake when discussing traffic safety. The fetus' life is at stake when discussing abortion. Should we therefore extend the vote to three-year-olds, non-American residents, and fetuses?

21 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Unless and until we want to change things up like @NeuroTypical and @Just_A_Guy have suggested, 18 year olds deserve the right to help shape the political landscape. 

You have done nothing except to appeal to emotion, with no rational argumentation to establish your point.

Eighteen-year-olds are not emotionally, psychologically, or mentally mature enough to vote. They are far too easily swayed by teachers, media, and peers. This is the reason we prohibit them from holding many political offices.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Denying the 18 year old the opportunity to run for President dilutes the quality of a democracy because it lessens the range of choices available to the populus. One would sincerely hope that the 18  year old does not win the election, and perhaps strongly campaign against him, but if that is what the majority of the people want, and its a fair election then let the 18 year old become President. 

The Constitution of the United States of America disagrees with your assessment. (In this case, I do, too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

So taxation without representation is fine.  Because 18 year olds can work. And pay taxes. 

I guess it doesn't matter. 18 year olds can vote, so....

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why stop at 18, MG? Why not 8? Your argument applies equally well.

No it doesn't. You obviously are having some trouble grasping that an 8 year old can't legally work. Or pay taxes. Or be drafted. Or enter into a marriage. Or a land deal. And that an 18 year old can. Because an 18 year old can be legally accountable, they have a right to choose how the system works.  

All taxation is theft, but demanding someone pay into the system without giving them a vote is particularly disturbing. Thank God it'll never change. The American revolution was partially fought over that. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No it doesn't. You obviously are having some trouble grasping that an 8 year old can't legally work. Or pay taxes. Or be drafted. Or enter into a marriage. Or a land deal. And that an 18 year old can. Because an 18 year old can be legally accountable, they have a right to choose how the system works.  

All taxation is theft, but demanding someone pay into the system without giving them a vote is particularly disturbing. Thank God it'll never become law. 

How about a 14-year-old, MG? Can you grasp that a 14-year-old can legally do all those things, except for being drafted (which—NEWS FLASH—no one can be drafted now)?

So we should lower the legal voting age to 14. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nonsense. This is taking a figurative statement literally, and badly misapplying it at that. "War is politics by other means" is no justification for allowing fighters to vote. Shall we also give the franchise to non-American military? Hey, they're fighting for us! You might as well say that a fourteen-year-old who delivers newspapers or a four-year-old who buys a candy bar should be allowed to vote because, you know, they're paying taxes.

What if they're young women in New York, like AOC? Then is it okay? Or is the "old men in Washington" just another tired, hateful statement meant to make the issue "us vs. them", where "them" is those horrid, uglyl old white guys in Washington?

Do you know what a "right" is, MLDS? Hint: It's not something government gives you.

So what? The three-year-old's life is at stake when making policy on vaccination. The non-American green-card holder's life is at stake when discussing traffic safety. The fetus' life is at stake when discussing abortion. Should we therefore extend the vote to three-year-olds, non-American residents, and fetuses?

You have done nothing except to appeal to emotion, with no rational argumentation to establish your point.

Eighteen-year-olds are not emotionally, psychologically, or mentally mature enough to vote. They are far too easily swayed by teachers, media, and peers. This is the reason we prohibit them from holding many political offices.

You know @Vort I'm typically on your side when it comes to political issues, so your attempt to make me sound like some crazed liberal is amusing ☺. I said "old guys" just as a generic example, I could use specific politicians I just didn't want to. To the rest of your arguments, I reject your assertion that my opinion is an appeal to emotion. You need to be 18 to sign up for or be drafted for the military. We don't use 14 year olds to fight, and the fact tht 4 year olds pay taxes is irrelevant, you are creating strawmen and moving the goalpost.

I do know what a right is the question is do you? It sounds like you don't. The right to life is the ultimate right. If a government has the right to order me to give it up in the name of some political objective (whether that objective is stopping Nazi Germany, holding back Communism in Vietnam, or keeping Iran in check) then I have the right to have a say in whether or not we pursue those objectives. Life is the ultimate right along with liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't necessarily disagree with you about 18 year olds not being 100% emotionally mature, and if we change our draft laws or laws about when you can sign up for the military than I'm ok changing the age we gain the right to vote. Until then no.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

How about a 14-year-old, MG? Can you grasp that a 14-year-old can legally do all those things, except for being drafted (which—NEWS FLASH—no one can be drafted now)?

So we should lower the legal voting age to 14. Right?

Not true. Selective service is the draft. It hasn't been used since Vietnam but the draft is still very much in effect if the government decides to reinstate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Well, I guess all those young people who are pro-life, pro-gun, anti tax...just stay home until you are older. We don't need your vote anyway. In fact, they shouldn't really be involved in politics at all. Until they are older. 

Fight on my friend. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

You know @Vort I'm typically on your side when it comes to political issues, so your attempt to mae me sound like some crazed liberal is amusing ☺.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. If you don't like my responses, the fault lies in the reasons you gave, because that's what I'm responding to. And the fact that you normally agree with me on politics simply makes me more surprised that you are so willing to succumb to a knee-jerk response and take the opposite political side with apparently zero attempt even to consider my arguments.

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I said "old guys" just as a generic example I could use specific politicians I just didn't want to.

In other words, you used "old guys" for exactly the same reasons that leftists use "old guys". Us vs. Them. Nothing at all to do with rational policy discussion, but a blatant appeal to emotion and social hatred.

2 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

To the rest of your arguments, I reject that my opinion os an appeal to emption.

Your rejection doesn't really establish anything. What you do speaks louder than what you say, and what you are doing is appealing to emotion. You old white guy, you.

7 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

ou need to be 18 to sign up or be drafted for the military.

Irrelevant. There is no draft. And the draft is based on physicalk ability, not mental acumen or psychological maturity. I'm 57 and will never be drafted, because I'm too old and physically unfit. Does that mean that I should no longer vote? Hey, I can't be drafted!

Why won't you respond to the specifics I give to gut your arguments? Why do you continue to pile on irrelevant emotional appeals?

10 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

We don't use 14 year olds to fight, and the fact tht 4 year olds pay taxes is irrelevant you are creating strawmen.

How so? If "taxation without representation" is the shibboleth used to establish voting rights, why shouldn't a tax-paying four-year-old get the franchise? Please demonstrate the strawman nature of my argument. I claim it's not there. You claim it is, so show us.

11 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I do know what a right os the question os do you? It sounds like you don't.

Sure I do. I'm not the one making the claim that government grants rights. That would be you.

12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

The right to life is the ultimate right.

A debatable point, but for the sake of argument, let's grant it.

13 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

If a government has the right to order me to give it up in the name of some political objective (whether that objective is stopping Nazi Germany, holding back Communism in Vietnam, or keeping Iran in check) then I have the right to have a say in whether or not we pursue those objectives.

This is non sequitur. If we believe your statement above to be true, then all members of the US military who are not citizens should and must be allowed to vote.

(By the way, the government doesn't have any rights. I thought you knew what a right was.)

14 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you about 18 year olds are not 100% emotionally mature, and if we change our draft laws or laws around military age than I'm ok changing the right to vote. Until then no.

A purely, 100% emotional argument. The fact that an 18-year-old is physically mature enough to shoot someone and follow orders does not imply that said 18-year-old is therefore psychologically mature enough to select reliable leaders or decide important matters of public policy. And that is the only relevant consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Not true. Selective service is the draft. It hasn't been used since Vietnam but the draft is still very much in effect if the government decides to reinstate it.

I said nothing about Selective Service. That's your addition.

Rounding people up and putting them in concentration camps is also "still very much in effect if the government decides to reinstate it." So what? That proves exactly nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm doing nothing of the sort. If you don't like my responses, the fault lies in the reasons you gave, because that's what I'm responding to. And the fact that you normally agree with me on politics simply makes me more surprised that you are so willing to succumb to a knee-jerk response and take the opposite political side with apparently zero attempt even to consider my arguments.

In other words, you used "old guys" for exactly the same reasons that leftists use "old guys". Us vs. Them. Nothing at all to do with rational policy discussion, but a blatant appeal to emotion and social hatred.

Your rejection doesn't really establish anything. What you do speaks louder than what you say, and what you are doing is appealing to emotion. You old white guy, you.

Irrelevant. There is no draft. And the draft is based on physicalk ability, not mental acumen or psychological maturity. I'm 57 and will never be drafted, because I'm too old and physically unfit. Does that mean that I should no longer vote? Hey, I can't be drafted!

Why won't you respond to the specifics I give to gut your arguments? Why do you continue to pile on irrelevant emotional appeals?

How so? If "taxation without representation" is the shibboleth used to establish voting rights, why shouldn't a tax-paying four-year-old get the franchise? Please demonstrate the strawman nature of my argument. I claim it's not there. You claim it is, so show us.

Sure I do. I'm not the one making the claim that government grants rights. That would be you.

A debatable point, but for the sake of argument, let's grant it.

This is non sequitur. If we believe your statement above to be true, then all members of the US military who are not citizens should and must be allowed to vote.

(By the way, the government doesn't have any rights. I thought you knew what a right was.)

A purely, 100% emotional argument. The fact that an 18-year-old is physically mature enough to shoot someone and follow orders does not imply that said 18-year-old is therefore psychologically mature enough to select reliable leaders or decide important matters of public policy. And that is the only relevant consideration.

Neither am I. If you recognized my wording it comes directly from the Declaration of Independence which credits the Creator with granting these rights as do I(life liberty pursuit of happiness etc.)  I find it amusing that you credit 18 year olds with the maturity to learn how to kill someone, lead men in combat, and make life and death decisions on a split second basis, but not with the ability to decide who has the best tax policy. 

I did not use it as an us vs them example. I used it as a generic example. You spend way too much time overanalyzing a rather basic idea I dropped in a discussion with a completely random person on the internet. I'm not setting up an us vs them I was just describing politicians in Washington. If it makes you feel better, I'll say those young women in Washington the pronoun is irrelevant to me. If anyone is setting up an us vs. them argument it's you by claiming that 18 year olds should happily march off and die for those people who understand politics better than they do anyways. You do not "gut my argument". Maybe in your own mind you are, but your arguments are merely a collection of non sequiturs, strawmen, and goal post moving. You still haven't answered the basic crux of the question. Why should 18 year olds be denied a voice in the political process? Your argument centers around their emotional immaturity. I've acknowledged you may have a point but you refuse to acknowledge that I have a point about them being eligible for the draft. You claim the draft isn't in effect so it shouldn't matter just like there are no concentration camps, and yet there are  lists of names and addresses set up so that young men can be called at a moments notice into the military There are no concentration camps or plans to set them up again (at least in this country, and God willing there won't be). 

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The Constitution of the United States of America disagrees with your assessment. (In this case, I do, too.)

Perhaps, perhaps not. If we define democracy as the process whereby people get to vote to choose their government, then its hard to argue against the proposition that barring any particular group the right to participate in the choosing of their government is a dilution of that particular democracy, even if you are a framer of the US Constitution. But purity of the democracy is only one concern of many, to be weighed and balanced against many other concerns when you are framing a constitution. Perhaps the framers willingly and knowingly opted for a dilution of their democracy as a trade-off against the benefits of avoiding an unstable and foolish President, which you might get if you had an 18 year old President. Or perhaps not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

Neither am I. If you recognized my wording it comes directly from tjhe Declaration of Independence which credits the creator with granting these rights (life liberty pursuit of happiness etc.)

And yet you talk about government having the "right" to do this or that. What do you make of that?

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I find it amusing that you credit 18 year olds with the maturity to learn how to kill someone, lead men in combat, and make life and death decisions on a split second basis, but not with the ability to decide who has the best tax policy.

Whether or not you're amused is irrelevant. Being able to follow orders and carry and use a rifle (there are few or no 18-year-old officers, by the way, so your "lead men into combat" example is a non-starter) is an utterly different mental skill set from being able to adjudicate policy implications. Surely even you will grant this obvious truth. So therefore, your above statement is non sequitur, as I have pointed out approximately seven million times.

5 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I did not use it as an is vs them example. I ised it as a generic example.

Please explain how "old guys in Washington" is in any way generic. Be sure to use small words so I can understand.

5 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

You spend way too much time overanalyzing a rather basic idea I dropped in a discussion with a completely random person on the internet. I'm not setting up an us vs them.

Of course not. Because everyone knows that "old guys in Washington" actually just means "anyone anywhere". Bravo.

6 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

If anyone is doing that it's you by claiming that 18 year olds should happily march off and die for those people who understand politics better than they do anyways.

Now you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument. I said nothing of the sort. This is openly dishonest of you.

7 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

You do not "gut my argument". Maybe in your own mind you are, but your arguments are merely a collection of non sequiturs, strawmen, and goal post moving.

I have demonstrated the non sequitur nature of your arguments. You have yet to demonstrate any non sequiturs, strawmen, or goal-post moving arguments in anything I have written. You just talk, then act as if your claims alone establish themselves.

Poitically speaking, that sounds familiar...

8 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

You still haven't answered the basic crux pf the question. Why should 18 year olds be denied a voice in the political process?

Another blatant untruth. I have answered this several times. You, in contrast, have not replied to any of my criticisms of your arguments. I wonder why not?

9 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Your argument centers around their emotional immaturity.

Waaaaaaait a minute. Didn't you just claim I haven't answered "the basic crux pf [sic] the question"?

10 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I've acknowledged you may have a point but you refuse to acknowledge that I have a point about them being eligible for the draft.

That is because you do not have a point. For one thing, THERE IS NO DRAFT. For another thing, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE DRAFTED DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THAT PERSON THEREFORE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. Your connection of the two issues is purely emotional.

Why haven't you yet addressed that?

12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

You claim the draft isn't on effect so it shouldn't matter just like their are no concentration camps,

Actually, no, this was not my claim. But it is quite telling that you think it was.

12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

yet there are  lists of names and addresses set up so that young men can be called at a moments notice. There are no concentration camps (and god willing there won't be). 

There is a list of names of people who might potentially be drafterd, so therefore 18-year-olds should be allowed to vote? Perhaps you can make that logical argument just a bit clearer, because I'm not seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Actually, A&A, there is no "perhaps, perhaps not" about it. The US Constitution does indeed prohibit 18-year-olds from being President. It's not a matter of debate or interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your word that it does but I maintain that barring any particular group from participating in the formation of their government is a dilution of democracy. I'm also making the point that diluting a democracy by barring certain groups from participating in the formation of their government is not always a bad thing. And perhaps the framers of the constitution deliberately chose to dilute democracy by barring 18 year olds from voting in the interests of stable government. Or perhaps they had some other reason for doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I take your word that it does but I maintain that barring any particular group from participating in the formation of their government is a dilution of democracy. I'm also making the point that diluting a democracy by barring certain groups from participating in the formation of their government is not always a bad thing. And perhaps the framers of the constitution deliberately chose to dilute democracy by barring 18 year olds from voting in the interests of stable government. Or perhaps they had some other reason for doing so. 

Not sure I agree with the idea of "diluting democracy", but I can't otherwise really disagree with much that you've written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm hearing conservative voices more and more, hoping Bernie becomes the democrat nominee.  Because then America will have a genuine clear choice between capitalism and socialism.

These voices are assuming the voting populace will have a certain level of education and familiarity with socialism.  Not sure if I'm as optimistic, given the number of people with which I argue online.

I am one who likes Bernie.  I think he's probably the most honest of all the candidates out there, Republican or Democrat (which actually isn't saying much) in that he truly believes what he is preaching.  The others are just after power.  He is too, but he also believes that what he is saying is the best way forwards.

To a degree, I think he is at least addressing the problems in our time and world.  I am one hospital visit away from bankruptcy.  This idea is foreign across much of Europe.  You get sick and you go bankrupt?  What type of society allows that?

You go to college and you are in debt for the rest of your life?  Just to get an education?  Much of the Western World has public education.  The US used to for most jobs as well, until jobs elevated the requirements for most of them.  Now, to get a decent job you have to go in debt for most of them in the US?  What type of society allows that?

I'm not saying Bernie has the correct answers or the right way (and face it, most of his ideas, even if he got to be President, would never make it through congress.  Even if the democrats owned congress wholly he wouldn't be able to get most of his ideas through it.  That might actually be encouraging to some conservatives I'd think) to go about it, but he at least is thinking and trying to find solutions to problems that I feel everyday US citizens are facing.

I know what socialism is...we passed that line a LONG time ago (welfare, social security...how basically our entire military runs and pays it's folks with BAH, free medical...etc) in whether to have socialist type programs in our nation.  The question is HOW we manage those types of programs in society with a balance between helping and freedom.

It's not so much that I think Bernie has the best approach, but that he is the ONLY one addressing the ideas with some sort of coherency and getting people the truly think that we don't have to live in such a way that we go into debt or bankruptcy as our only options in life...that there may be some other way to a free society where debt and bankruptcy don't threaten us constantly.  He's the only one that isn't all about the power, and more about what he is trying to think is best (whether it is actually the best approach or not).  The others, they'll lie about anything just to get our votes.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

I think he's probably the most honest of all the candidates out there, Republican or Democrat (which actually isn't saying much) in that he truly believes what he is preaching.  The others are just after power.  He is too, but he also believes that what he is saying is the best way forwards.

I disagree. Sanders is just as much a liar as any of them.

I remember in 2016 that Sanders made a huge deal about how he "had a plan" that would cover everything, and that it was all paid for, and that he had made it all explicit on his web site. I remember that the news agencies all reported this, though not one of them actually followed through and looked at (or at least published an analysis of) the documents he referenced.

So I did. (Note: It wasn't hard.)

The supporting documents were literally laughable. His main document was a speculative idea that the authors themselves took great pains to point out was speculative and would not stand up to scrutiny, and were intended as a first step toward figuring out how to finance the socialist utopian dream. The authors then proceeded to give a hypersimplified, grossly incompetent analysis using laughable estimates and utterly unrealistic models.

This was what Sanders was claiming as bona fide proof of ability to finance his idiocy.

No, Sanders is not a truthful man. Whether or not he actually believes his own press and the absurd ideas he propagates, "honest" is not a word that accurately describes him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

And yet you talk about government having the "right" to do this or that. What do you make of that?

Whether or not you're amused is irrelevant. Being able to follow orders and carry and use a rifle (there are few or no 18-year-old officers, by the way, so your "lead men into combat" example is a non-starter) is an utterly different mental skill set from being able to adjudicate policy implications. Surely even you will grant this obvious truth. So therefore, your above statement is non sequitur, as I have pointed out approximately seven million times.

Please explain how "old guys in Washington" is in any way generic. Be sure to use small words so I can understand.

Of course not. Because everyone knows that "old guys in Washington" actually just means "anyone anywhere". Bravo.

Now you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument. I said nothing of the sort. This is openly dishonest of you.

I have demonstrated the non sequitur nature of your arguments. You have yet to demonstrate any non sequiturs, strawmen, or goal-post moving arguments in anything I have written. You just talk, then act as if your claims alone establish themselves.

Poitically speaking, that sounds familiar...

Another blatant untruth. I have answered this several times. You, in contrast, have not replied to any of my criticisms of your arguments. I wonder why not?

Waaaaaaait a minute. Didn't you just claim I haven't answered "the basic crux pf [sic] the question"?

That is because you do not have a point. For one thing, THERE IS NO DRAFT. For another thing, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE DRAFTED DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THAT PERSON THEREFORE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. Your connection of the two issues is purely emotional.

Why haven't you yet addressed that?

Actually, no, this was not my claim. But it is quite telling that you think it was.

There is a list of names of people who might potentially be drafterd, so therefore 18-year-olds should be allowed to vote? Perhaps you can make that logical argument just a bit clearer, because I'm not seeing it.

Here's the thing @Vort. Obviously I disagree with you on this one issue (I was serious when I said usually we are on the same side), but I did not intend to offend you (not by my beliefs, but the way I presented them). I was in the middle of doing multiple things while I was responding to you and I'm not as good at writing out my thoughts as I am at speaking them. Unless I'm completely off base, I apologize if you felt I was questioning your intelligence. At the end of the day, even if we are on different sides of an idea, we are still brothers in Christ and I should have been more careful with my word choice and my presentation of my thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share