Steve_S

Servant
  • Content count

    3,172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Steve_S last won the day on November 13 2013

Steve_S had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,504 Excellent

About Steve_S

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    stevespeig26j

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    AL
  • Interests
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,721 profile views
  1. According to what I am reading ICE claims that the woman had already been in federal custody for a year prior to the discovery of the tumor and she was removed from the hospital after doctors deemed her condition stable. Her family and lawyers are claiming that she was about to undergo emergency surgery. I don't know, we will probably find out soon enough how legitimate this is. If she is truly waiting to undergo emergency surgery this weekend, that is time enough for her lawyer to get her surgeon before a judge.
  2. I'd just like to remind everyone that this is an English only forum. I have removed a couple of statements in a different language from a couple of posts.
  3. This just shows where we are at as a country. One politician from one party makes a blanket statement like this against an entire senate confirmed cabinet of a president from the other party.
  4. There are some provisions for this specific class already, as I understand it.
  5. I agree. His ability to get what equated to virtually free advertising was very helpful. Even in their attempts to cover him negatively, they were still presenting his policy ideas and much of the time, in their negative presentation, particularly during the primary season, probably sold them in ways that helped him even more than had they just reported on them in a non-biased fashion. CNN and MSNBC coming at you hard during an early primary campaign is not going to hurt you with the republican base. If anything, it could help endear you to it. I have always thought that, if their goal was to do damage to him, the best approach the media could take to him would be to ignore him. I still think that now. They have been working their current strategy for approaching two years and it has done nothing but make him president. They are stuck in the old mentality, though, that you take out a republican by attacking him relentlessly until he caves, which has been their modus operandi for decades. Trump is no generic republican and his stewardship of the republican party will probably, at least partially, ensure that over time this strategy will not functionally work in the same way that it has in the past. There are old guard guys who are still around and will be around that are not going to change. However, there are younger guys and even some of the old guard guys who are willing to change who are probably taking notes.
  6. In the US anybody can run for president and, furthermore, basically anybody can run for president in either party. He had media exposure because he was already famous, so when he announced, there was mass coverage of it. He said what some would consider to be some very controversial things during his announcement, which caused it to basically be the only thing in the news for a couple of days. Also, money talks, yes. He had enough liquidity to functionally finance the entire primary/caucus portion of his campaign. Even so, he still spent less than most other candidates during that period and far, far less than some others that didn't last nearly as long. He ran a different kind of campaign than anybody has ever ran here, directly appealing to voters through social media, personally posting his thoughts, not canned political statements that were ran through 5 or 10 advisors and public relations employees. Above all else, though, he did not play the political correctness game. I think it's likely that this, at the core of his candidacy, was responsible for his initial rise. He did not look or sound like a politician and in the current environment here, that was not a bad thing for him.
  7. The establishment lost their chance at an anti-establishment candidate that would've been more amenable to compromise by always gaming the system towards establishment candidates. Both parties did it this time, the republicans towards Bush and the Democrats toward hillary. The main difference is that Hillary had a staunch partisan running the DNC while bush did not in Priebus. Priebus just wanted to beat the democrats and when he recognized trump was that vehicle, he went all in. The democrats did not think it was possible that they would lose with hillary, seemingly. Even still, she was almost knocked off by a guy who pretty much everybody, including myself, assumed to be a glass-jawed shill, but ended up actually trying to win by taking the anti-establishment route. We very nearly had two anti-establishment candidates from both parties in the presidential race, though with obvious political differences between the two specifically. I think that a trump type was always the only sort of anti-establishment candidate that could actually wrest power from the RNC, because the republican party as it had been constituted valued process above all and it took somebody who completely tossed the idea of political process out the window to break it apart. Simply put, in my opinion, they were unable to adjust rapidly enough to stop trump because, even while he was taking their party over, they literally did not believe it was possible, which meant that they didn't actually believe it was happening, that eventually it would even itself out, surely he would make a mistake and fall off, etc.
  8. OOTS has been banned from the thread and issued a warning point for the above statement.
  9. The bible basically lays out specific contexts and procedures for accusing the brethren. Doing so without evidence is not a line i would cross personally. It's really not about being right or wrong, it's about the fact that we are so polarized that we just numbly assume any person doing anything that may not actually have a nefarious motive, has a nefarious motive. We are supposed to treat people as individual people and situations as individual cases, not just make raw assumptions based on expectations.
  10. It wasn't a campaign rally though. It was just basically a speech given to supporters. He won't be campaigning for years, in the traditional sense. Also, I don't find that to be "likely." That's an assumption with no evidence. Perhaps she thought it would be good to pray for the simple reason that prayer is a good thing. I see no reason to ascribe motive to anything. Trump did not run a rigorously religious campaign that had a big focus on Jesus. He got the evangelical vote mostly with promising supreme court pics, not by praying his way through campaign rallies across the country. She mostly stayed home with their son while he was out doing rallies, so there's not much in the way of previous experience with her being at events like this. I see no reason to impeach this woman's motives with absolutely no evidence, particularly being as she professes to be a follower of Christ. We are supposed to have more evidence than simple inferences to make such a claim as this.
  11. Yes, but there's no proof that's what she was doing, that is an inference. There is no reason to believe that she was doing that. Without evidence that she was doing it for that reason, I see no reason to take offense. A Christian is a Christians when at bible studies or church meetings or prayer meetings or at political rallies or at the grocery store.
  12. That's not what was going on here though, nor was I suggesting that. All that was going on here was a woman said a prayer. I see absolutely no reason to ascribe a nefarious or political motive to it, whether it was a campaign rally or not.
  13. Jesus' words are relevant to any believer at any time. Perhaps interjecting more Jesus into politics, particularly prayer, would not be such a bad thing, seeing the direction our country seems to be going.
  14. I'm not going to quote all the posts, but due to the exchange between MG and OOTS, they have both been banned from the thread and will be issued a warning point each. This is from the Terms of Service: When these threads derail into just arguing with each other and discussing each other's motives and intentions, we are going to remove people from threads. Please take this to heart. There is no need for people to treat each other this way. You can rigorously debate a topic while simultaneously being respectful to the people you are debating with.
  15. transgender

    We discussed this thread and we are locking it and decided to remove all the discussion posts. We feel it would be better to start a relevant topic in the political or controversial issues forum for the discussion and anyone who was posting here is free to do so if they haven't already. The one caveat I would have for that is that at times a poster may post a link to another site with good intentions, but we may find the link objectionable. I would ask that if it has anything to do with satanism or the occult, that this be cleared with a moderator first.