Jump to content

Steve_S

Servant
  • Content count

    3,550
  • 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

2,716 Excellent

About Steve_S

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 10/29/1980

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

11,432 profile views
  1. I just cleaned up this thread. Anymore personal attacks here will result in thread bans or time off.
  2. Countries with central banks go to war with each other all the time. You can say "well they do that just for profit" but then that sort of destroys the idea that countries without central banks would be targeted, simply because you need a definable pattern to make a claim. If the definable pattern is that "countries with and without central banks end up going to war with countries with and without central banks" then you basically have no usable data that can prove anything.
  3. There are two issues here. The first is constitutionality. It is blatantly unconstitutional in my mind. Keep in mind, this was virtually the same supreme court that just a few years later gave blanket rights to kill unborn children to anyone who wished to do so. You can say that's not the same thing specifically, but the ideology behind both are the same thing indeed, that ideology being that the court can decide, based on politics, whether or not to block the states from doing something (such as banning abortion) or allow the federal government to do something (such as pass civil rights laws) if they can only find a vague constitutional excuse. That is not how our government was designed, not at all. Our government was designed to specifically prevent that sort of thing, actually. In actuality, there is no vagueness or ambiguity at all in the constitution regarding the right of the government either enact civil rights laws or protect abortion in a blanket manner. There is no vagueness or ambiguity simply because neither idea exists in the constitution as a function of the government. The constitution is silent on them, which means, per the 10th amendment, that neither function is something the government should be involved in. In fact, one could make a good argument that, constitutionally, civil rights laws infringe upon liberty, which is a guaranteed right in the 10th amendment. Being a business owner does not abrogate your right to associate with whom you choose for any reason of your choosing, period. Free association (and dissociation) is one of the core principles of liberty itself. If the government forces you to associate with people that you don't want to, for any reason, you end up with a slippery slope situation. In a slippery slope situation, the first thing that you did, such as the civil rights act, may have been morally just and even necessary. However, many of the things that follow will not be. Civil rights has been extended to suing Christian shop owners who simply refuse to attend an event that they find reprehensible morally. In other words, either go associate with these people at this event or you will not be legally allowed to have a business that you want to have. That is the slippery slope and it always happens with legislation such as this. That's one of the main reasons that the framers of the constitution told the government what it could do and instructed it to do nothing more. Simply put, there is nowhere in the constitution that gives the federal government the power over individuals' associations, no matter *what* the reasons. It doesn't matter whether the law did good or bad, the fact of the matter is that it is being used for bad and will progressively be used for worse. This brings us to the second issue, amending the constitution for purely moral reasons. Morally one could argue that it would have been a just thing to amend the constitution in a narrow manner to provide protection for minorities in the civil rights era. If it were *that* important, simply pass a constitutional amendment. That is the way the constitution is supposed to work. The amendment process for the constitution was devised specifically to avoid slippery slopes that gave judges and legislators wide leeway in their enacting and interpretation of policy. If the civil rights act had been a constitutional amendment instead, it would've had to be far more narrow in scope and far more specific in its language. It would've also prevented it from being expanded upon tirelessly in the coming years through nothing more than judicial activism and bureaucratic regulation. There are states that use the civil rights act as a basis for their own state laws, which allow for forming commissions that can fine individuals based on discrimination without a single day in court or due process. That is what happened in at least one of the baker's cases. This is where the slippery slope leads if you ignore the constitution and, again, it is going to almost certainly go even further. Read the opinion from John Roberts or some of Scalia's comments on the gay marriage ruling. They both basically agreed that it, to put it very succinctly, was going to eventually be used persecute the church. That is what precedent does. If the precedent had remained "you need a constitutional amendment to abrogate or extend rights that are not mentioned specifically in the constitution," then the gay marriage ruling would've never happened. However, that's not the case. There is a long 20th century set of precedents where the supreme court basically decided that the constitution doesn't matter as it is specifically written and it goes back to before the civil rights act. There is a fairly well directly traceable line of erosion of rights and liberty over that time period. The civil rights act is not at the beginning of the line, but it is a point on it. I'd have much rather had it be a short, succinct constitutional amendment.
  4. I'm undecided. He may be trying to force china into cutting them off more and more in a progressive manner in order to force them into a negative negotiating position. If that is what he is doing, it is working to one degree or another, because china has increased restrictions on them more in the past three months than in any other period I can remember. I think that, ultimately, china is the key for negotiations. China wants north korea on its border, not a unified korea under the same system that exists in south korea now. If trump sells to china that he is legitimately going to attack north korea if they do not rid themselves of their nuclear weapons, then the likelihood of them ridding themselves of their nuclear weapons peacefully becomes a whole lot higher, because if anyone can affect change in how north korea acts, it is china (though that is not a guaranteed thing).
  5. Some people feel disrespected, some people don't. This is ultimately a free-market situation. Being as how this is a business that provides a service (entertainment in the form of football) to the public, they have to decide whether or not it is detrimental to allow it to continue. It being public matters because they are trying to convince people to give them money through both advertising revenue and merchandising. The advertising revenue doesn't matter at this very moment, but those contracts will eventually come due. They certainly wouldn't want a snowball situation that devalues their brand overall when it is negotiation time a few years down the road because the NFL is dependent on tv contracts above any other single thing. You are correct that they and their employers have to hash it out, but the fact that their actions may be costing their employers money is going to have pretty much everything to do with that decision for the most part.
  6. What that means is that the federal government is not empowered to do more than what the constitution specifically delineates. The constitution did not specifically grant the federal government the power to regulate business transactions based on the personal decisions of business owners, for any reason. Therefore, the government, constitutionally, with a plain reading, would not have that power. The constitution is not a document that was designed to tell government specifically what it could not do, but specifically what it could do. Anything outside of those specifications was not intended to be an assumed power of the federal government, but left to the states. They also ruled the ACA constitutional, which was signed into law by a president. Nowhere in the constitution is power over healthcare specifically enumerated, at all. The point is that the supreme court more often than not rules regarding what is either politically popular at the time or within the political interests of specific justices. Gay marriage nor abortion would be legal in every state were that the case.
  7. I doubt the nfl starting down this road had as much to do with trump as it does with the fans, but, trump casting even broader light on it probably hurt. He's definitely going to claim it as a victory though and, politically, he should.
  8. Yeah, no doubt, this is probably about to be a straight cave in to the demands of the fans and the president on the part of the nfl. Jerry Jones probably set the template when he set his team rule on this. My guess is that they were seeing it actually cut into revenue or something along those lines, because just a week or so ago they were doing a lot of self-back-patting about how awesome they were for being tolerant.
  9. Trump: "Nobody could have done what I’ve done...."

    Personal insults through a lot of this, locked.
  10. Pauls thorn in the flesh

    I removed a couple of attacks from this thread. Anything further will likely result in a thread ban and warning point.
  11. Hello All :-)

    Welcome to Worthy!
  12. 9/30/17, Rev 12:5, Jubilee etc..

    Good question. I don't remember the bible speaking to multiple rapture dates!
  13. new user on the forum, found the original gospel

    The nestle aland is a greek amalgamation of texts from alexandria. The byzantine text type are texts that were preserved mainly in asia minor and greece, usually called the majority text. It has more agreeing fragments than the alexandrian, but is not as old. I'm not sure why this follows. As ome states above, there are many copies of the US constitution, probably hundreds of millions, but it is not a translation of the original text. In fact, the massive number of copies would indicate that it is more likely to be the original. Usually the originals are by far more copied than translations, at the time of publication, anyway. How many copies of the US constitution do you think exist in russian or nigerian compared to how many are in english? Even if they are translations, that is not really relevant. The septuagint was a translation of the tanakh, which is basically the old testament bible as you and I know it. Jesus Himself and the new testament authors mostly quoted the septuagint. This goes to show two things for sure. One is that God's word can be and is preserved through translations, because Christ, nor the apostles in writing in an inspired manner, would never have quoted inaccurate text. The other is that it was perfectly acceptable to use greek language texts as teaching tools at the time of the writing of the scriptures themselves. This leads one to ask - why would the greek old testament be quoted in an aramaic writing of the gospels? I'm not saying that it couldn't be, just that it doesn't seem very likely. The new testament authors were primarily writing to an audience that largely spoke greek as a primary language.
  14. The moral answer to the NK threat; take them out!

    As far as I can see, there isn't really anything that clinton, bush, or obama could've done more to stop this from happening, short of starting a war. Clinton tried a deal with them. They broke it. At that point giving them anything else on bush or obama's part would've almost certainly have been met with the same result, them having nukes. The only real option that clinton, bush, and obama had to realistically stop them from getting nuclear weapons is the same one trump has, which is to attack them and physically remove their abilities to do so. I'm not advocating this, just speaking to the fact. If a country is determined to do something in spite of everything else, including basically crushing economic sanctions, then the only way you're stopping it is if you actually physically go stop it.
×