Jump to content

RazeontheRock

Members
  • Content count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

RazeontheRock last won the day on April 26

RazeontheRock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

682,865 Excellent

1 Follower

About RazeontheRock

  • Rank
    Member

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Denomination

  • Den
    Christian

Recent Profile Visitors

264 profile views
  1. RazeontheRock

    Opinion - Trump at Helsinki

    Amazing how people try to turn the Helsinki meeting into something. It was just for show. Posturing. Nothing more could come from it. Russia's offer to help us investigate those we indicted is a huge achievement! Not that anyone would serve time or pay any fines, but the cooperation and chance to see how they work would be valuable. I take it that offer was rescinded because we won't help them prosecute our own?
  2. RazeontheRock

    Images worth 1,000 words

    We knew daesh had gone to the dogs
  3. I think we need to be a little more British here; these sides need to break out in a fistfight, lol. There's only clearance Strzok deserves, and that's to clear the uprights, right off the end of my boot ...
  4. He's always top flight! Trump can't afford to lose him. Have him replace Sessions ... What criminal in their right mind wants to face Gowdy?
  5. This shouldn't be limited to embarrassment. This should define who is "the swamp" in this organization.
  6. RazeontheRock

    Strzok

    Heh. Gowdy's a man we want working for government. Trump better offer him a position he finds meaningful ...
  7. RazeontheRock

    Unmasking antifa bill

    Yeah, little bratty antifas are tweeting up a storm about how their panties are all in a knot over this, lol. (What, you mean I can't go around intimidating people and depriving their Constitutional rights, while concealing my identity? You fascist!) If the "money people" don't care about this, that just means it's more likely to pass. We NEED this! I've read what my State University system has put in place to supposedly take care of this problem; it's not NEARLY enough. They're either all idiots or it's designed to fail. Trying to reason with them isn't the solution, we need to go over their heads ...
  8. RazeontheRock

    The U.S. Supreme Court and "precedent"

    We agree that cases of rape, incest, or the Mother's likely death in childbirth are a small minority of legal abortions in the US. And I suspect there are solid statistics for this, so we don't have to guess. And it wouldn't surprise me that the number proves to be less than 10%. My point is that by vocally glossing over these rare exceptions and loudly going for the jugular of "illegalizing abortion," the goal is obstructed. It galvanizes the opposition. Is that wise? Are we winning every battle by so much that we can afford to be foolish? Why don't we leave that for Pelosi? And Maxine Waters. And Elizabeth Warren. And Chuck Schumer. One should think they'd self destruct and sanity would prevail; the fact that this isn't happening should inform us that the values and morals you and I share do not have clear majority support. Since that is true, what difference does it make that you and I agree morally? Scripture is the source of such things, and I find it has great clarity. And yet, we don't live in a theocracy. Our secular government means Biblical sentiment does not automatically prevail, legislatively. For the sake of academics, Biblical precept separates murder from killing, with murder being both sin and what we would label today as criminal. That the unborn "lack personhood" before the eyes of the law is a travesty of injustice, in proportions that dwarf Hitler's holocaust. (Btw the first soldier into battle on D-Day was my great Uncle, and he inspired his troops to plunge headfirst into that suicide mission in terms of fighting for the oppressed. I come from a long line of people that are impossible to kill and I've proven that many times myself; I'm telling you the battle plan currently engaged in sucks, that's all) It's sleight of hand that the unborn isn't recognized as a "person;" you know it, and I know it. This difference means that before the eyes of the law, abortion kills babies but doesn't murder anyone. God is not impressed with such technicality, nor is He fooled. That doesn't change the fact that loose lips sink ships, and tipping your hand to such a fierce opponent isn't wise. We could've all kept mum about the abortion issue and seen SCOTUS stacked with a 6-3 majority, passing pretty easily because ALL of Trump's 25 possible picks are highly qualified. "Godliness with contentment is great gain." Wouldn't that be FAR better? Yes. Yes it would. That's what I've said in this thread, and I don't see how there can be any possible confusion about that. We still might see Kavanaugh confirmed. We can hope, pray, and fund the legal (and media!) fight for that. His confirmation will now only come via the fiercest opposition "the swamp" can muster, solely due to being so vocal about 'illegalizing abortion' when that isn't even really the goal. (We're all reasonable enough to allow for the exceptions that probably don't amount to 10%) And that particular victory won't accomplish anything more due to the ferocity of the fight. It simply diverts resources away from other areas where it's needed. It's bad strategy. We shouldn't be looking to win a battle of attrition when the "coastal elites" have so much wealth. We should be saavy. It's too late for that on this issue, but the same principle may pop up again.
  9. RazeontheRock

    Unmasking antifa bill

    This is so needed! Bonus: it demonstrates the commonality antifa has with both the KKK and the Democratic party New bill has "alt-left" leaders panicked - The Horn News Please call your Congress critters, phone number right in the article
  10. RazeontheRock

    Is the witch hunt finally about over?

    Have you seen this? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-mueller-reveals-tenuous-link-between-manafort-charges-and-trump?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180714141242
  11. RazeontheRock

    When Should Christians Use Satire?

    Pastor Hans Feine, the creator of YouTube channel Lutheran Satire, preached a sermon on this. I watched it last night on YouTube. If I can try to summarize his points I would say we need to determine who has "gone into the ring." The Jewish leaders Jesus railed against did, as did the prophets of baal. These people are fair game to "hit" with sound theology. I don't start out that way even with militant atheists, but after they demonstrate being unreasonable and uncivil over a length of time, I think it's weak to just walk away. I don't think satire's effective as a parting shot either, you have to be willing to go toe to toe with them and beat them at their own game. Jesus did NOT treat the woman at the well with satire! Compassion is appropriate there. These are some clear, wildly divergent examples. Rarely is our life so obvious.
  12. RazeontheRock

    Strzok

    So are our R reps inept? Disgraced FBI agent screams at Congress over bias questions - The Horn News Reading this I'm reminded of Snagglepuss: "I'll murdelize him, let me at him, let me at him" Why would our oversight committee let this fly? With Trey Gowdy still on it no less. Another read more along the lines of what I'm thinking was written by Chris Swecker on Fox News; my phone doesn't use a URL for that so I can't link it. Why was Lisa Page not sequestered so she can't match her answers to Strzok's? She wants to delay her hearing then fine; let her sit in solitary confinement. "Rather than uncover facts for their constituents, the hearing resembled a cross between “The People’s Court,” “The Jerry Springer Show,” and the trash talk between competitors at “WrestleMania.” The sad truth is that in the Republicans’ zeal to administer a public flogging of Strzok – and by extension the FBI – the GOP House members walked right into a trap. The hearing never had a chance of uncovering the truth. This is so because Strzok enjoyed the advantage of being able to shower the committees with self-serving protestations while hiding behind the restrictions on his testimony imposed by the FBI attorney hovering behind him. ... The Horowitz report described how Strzok, as the head of the Clinton email investigation, sat on his hands for well over three weeks after the New York FBI office reported to him that it had discovered new evidence relevant to the Clinton investigation. This – when matched with Strzok’s contemporaneous statements – appears to amount to, at minimum, obstruction of justice. It would not be a stretch to convince a jury of 12 that Strzok’s expressed intent to improperly change the course of the investigation was accompanied by actions. While Strzok’s testimony was uninformative, his arrogant and smug demeanor and feigned outrage during his testimony spoke loudly to anyone who observed it objectively. Does he really think we are so gullible that we would buy his absurd claim that his “we’ll stop it” text meant all of us – the American people – would act to stop Trump from becoming president?" Hanging's too good for this bad actor.
  13. RazeontheRock

    The U.S. Supreme Court and "precedent"

    I'm glad you asked that as a question because no, I didn't say that. That's already been accomplished, I don't see any need for more of that. That's a pertinent question to the issue. There are those that would like to make abortion illegal in all cases; that's not going to get broad enough support to be anything but dead in the water. The first thing that will get the most agreement is situations where the Mother's life is at risk. Please notice that this isn't the catch phrase of "a woman's right to choose," but it does legitimately fall under the umbrella of "women's health." The next most widely accepted case is rape. There are some that would like to illegalize abortion in the case of rape; can you consider that humane? Note that there are Mothers who would choose to give birth to their children in both these cases, or die trying. I think the word "choice" might have a reasonable application here. Incest is usually mentioned separately, which I think is pretentious. If a Mother wants to abort her baby due to incest, isn't it fair to conclude it was rape? On second thought don't answer that; the Biblical standard of 'an honor society' could apply here, whereby we consider she was raped. The real battleground is gestation period, and we've been making some considerable headway there! The ruling has been viability for some time, and that keeps getting younger. And some States are pushing it younger than that. That's good, but there's also a time when you legitimately don't know you're pregnant yet. 8-12 weeks as a cutoff point is going to meet more resistance than say 13-22 weeks, which is where the real debate is now. Then of course you have the other extreme of the spectrum, absolute monsters like Killary who are in favor of "partial birth abortion;" might as well just put them in front of a steamroller for their first birthday present. I also have been known to be an idealist, but pragmatism accomplishes more where the masses are involved. Absolutely! We live in a sin sick world. As part of Roe v Wade, SCOTUS penned that determining the unborn are ""persons" would make their ruling irrelevant. Nobody's followed up with that. A 6-3 majority in SCOTUS might revisit that, but shouting that fact from the rooftops helps nothing, and raises as much opposition as possible. That is ... not wise.
  14. RazeontheRock

    The U.S. Supreme Court and "precedent"

    I didn't say anything about approval, or Scripture. Just basic facts of a secular government.
×