Flames of Liberty

Historically, the losing of seats in Congress by the party in power in an off year election is the expected outcome. How did you come to the conclusion that the electorate is against the Iran deal?

This will be a non issue come election time. The number of people who care about this is minimal at best. And you know this.... How? I pay attention to what is going on around me. Polls of election issues come out often, the Iran deal is never even a top 10 issue. Foreign affairs is general are low compared to domestic issues, and the Iran deal is at the bottom of the pile. Let me ask you....two people to choose from they are in agreement in all areas but two, gay marriage and the Iran deal.... For someone who supposedly pays attention to what's going on around you, how did you manage to miss the recent Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage a moot political point? That decision has not stopped candidates from talking about it, and I was told on this very forum that the fight was far from over. I used that particular issue because I had spent many days discussing gay marriage with that individual.

Then I would have to ask what method should an elected official use to determine what the electorate supports. And how did you come to the conclusion the electorate is opposed to the actions of the Democratic party?

Two things came to my mind when I read this. First, our elected officials are not supposed to govern by opinion polls, they are to do what they think is best even when it is unpopular. Second, 7 in 10 Democrats support the deal, so they would be listening to those who elected them.

When they have ICBM's that can reach us tipped with nukes, then yes they are. One huge mistake people make is in underestimating their enemies. They don't need ICBMs to hit Israel. They need ICBM's to hit us. One thing we should have learned from the Holocaust is that when a mad man says that he intends to kill you, believe him. The polls right now reflect the fact that we have become a low information culture. People can tell you everything you never wanted to know about the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore and every sports statistic out there, but don't know anything about current events, or even how our country works. But that should not be the barometer by which we judge the seriousness of the situation. Though I disagree with you on the dangers of Iran, I agree about the low information voter. That is why the Iran deal will not be an issue that affects the election, whether it should be or not. It also explains Trump's popularity.

I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but yes Saddam was a dictator. And as we have discovered, there are things far, far worse than a contained dictator whose mail goal is to maintain power and keep his lavish lifestyle. This was well understood by most, sadly not by Bush II. There would have been no SOFA to bungle had he just heeded the example of his father and true military leaders.

Was it the world that drew and then disowned a "red line" ultimatum for Syria and also claimed ISIS was just a JV terrorist team, or were both done by Barack Hussein Obama? ISIS is a world problem, not that of a single country. It is not our responsibility alone to deal with them. If you wish to point fingers at a single person, the person who removed Sadam Hussein would be a good target. There would be no ISIS if he were still in power. you can't possibly know that..... His sons were some pretty weird guys and one or all of them could have killed him and set this whole thing off even before now. I would agree with the PM, the world has failed in Syria and with ISIS. Was it the world that drew and then disowned a "red line" ultimatum for Syria and also claimed ISIS was just a JV terrorist team, or were both done by Barack Hussein Obama? ISIS is a world problem, not that of a single country. It is not our responsibility alone to deal with them. If you wish to point fingers at a single person, the person who removed Sadam Hussein would be a good target. There would be no ISIS if he were still in power. you can't possibly know that..... His sons were some pretty weird guys and one or all of them could have killed him and set this whole thing off even before now. Other one you are absolutely right, I was in Iraq during OIF 1 (2003-2004) and our company was all for going into Iraq and getting the WMD. As time dragged on and we weren't finding the WMD my men starting getting irritated and wondered why we were there. The war was getting to my men and they started fighting among themselves, it is hard to be a platoon sergeant when you must give out disciplinary action. Then we started going out on humanitarian missions, we started rebuilding schools that were neglected by Saddam Hussein, this is when I seen the real reason God wanted us there. Forgive my choice of words but Saddam and his two boys were SOB's. We seen people of all ages (specially children) who were crippled for life because there weren't proper medical facilities for them, I seen kids playing their number one sport (soccer) and there were kids on the sidelines that couldn't play because they had broken legs that never mended properly, they couldn't run. So here we had a leader that spent the country's money on beautiful palaces and the military and wouldn't do a thing for his own peoples well being (not much of a leader in my book). Then we had Saddam's two boys (grown men) who went about as they wished, killing people, abducting girls to be used for their own entertainment (they raped them) sometime even killing them after they were done with them. After all they treated women like third class citizens, men thought more highly of their livestock then they did of the women, can you just imagine the fear women have in countries such as this? Actually I think the Iraqis feared Saddam's two boys more than him (that doesn't mean Saddam was a choir boy), the boys were out right sick #%*&#%$. I was there when the boys were killed and the Iraqis feared them boys so much they said it wasn't them, they couldn't believe we could get to them. Now Saddam he was my neighbor (but never stopped by to visit, don't know why), Saddam was caught about twenty miles from where I was at, when he was caught the people cheered with joy because they knew the reign of terror was over. The fault for Isis being there now is none other than Barack Hussein Obama, he wanted to get us out of Iraq to make himself look good. Yes it was long overdue that we pull out of Iraq, but Obama went about it all wrong. Obama was too hasty and he should have done it more tactically, we left the door wide open and we should have kept a strike force nearby in case there was a uprising such as Isis so we could nip it in the bud before it got stronger. Oh I forgot Isis is a JV team, how thoughtless of me. I'm not picking on anybody, but it is easy to be an armchair Quarterback when you never been on the field. Oldzimm I certainly appreciate your service, but nothing you said changes my point. Sadam ruled with an iron fist and his boys would have been worse. But there is no way that ISIS exist in Iraq with either Sadam or his sons in power. The first president Bush understood the role that Sadam played, his son was too arrogant to follow his father's example. In no way defending Obama, but the withdrawal plan was the plan of the Bush I I administration.

If Congress allows it, then shame on them.

The people are asked every two years during elections. In a representative democracy that is the only time the people are asked. From then on the elected officials make the decisions. Opinion poll governing is not a good way to go

When multiple polls by multiple organizations with very different ideologies produce the same results for months on end, it is ok to trust them. And do you really believe the US is so weak that Iran is a threat to us?

We were challenged by one of my professors to read the book Fragile by Design. She could not assign it officially because the school had not approved it. Eye opening is an understatement. http://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Design-Political-Princeton-Economic/dp/0691155240#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1441910950639

This will be a non issue come election time. The number of people who care about this is minimal at best. And you know this.... How? I pay attention to what is going on around me. Polls of election issues come out often, the Iran deal is never even a top 10 issue. Foreign affairs is general are low compared to domestic issues, and the Iran deal is at the bottom of the pile. Let me ask you....two people to choose from they are in agreement in all areas but two, gay marriage and the Iran deal. Candidate A is for gay marriage and against the Iran deal Candidate B is against gay marriage and for the Iran deal. Which gets your vote?

This will be a non issue come election time. The number of people who care about this is minimal at best.

Indeed we all do make decisions every day based on limited information. Some of us have learned not to rush to judgment. And please I would respectfully ask that you not pressume you now what my days are like or that you know how well i understand what happens within them. I would also appreciate it if you would avoid conflating the specific with the general and then using the general to justify action in the specific. Also, thinking on the fly and being able to quickly process information is not the same as rushing to judgment. The speed at which one is able to take in information and process it is not what rushing to judgment is about. Rushing to judgment in the context of our discussion is about making judgments about others when one does not have enough information. There is really no point in continuing to beat this dead horse any further either. Putting you into a group that I did was the absolute correct thing to do based upon the information at hand. You used a term that is used daily by many people. I had to make a judgement of what you meant by that term. Based upon the available information, which is that 100% of the people in have heard or seen us that term prior to you using it all used it in the same manner. The only reasonable judgment for me to make was that you used it in the same manner. I made this judgement while allowing for the possibility further information could change my view. There has been no new information, and as such I have had no reason to alter my initial judgment. I have even offered you the opportunity to provide more information. But instead you choose to prattle on about rushing to judgement.

I embrace the Lord. Do you? I do indeed! He is my king and my lord. He gave me an amazing mind and the ability to reason. These are truly gifts from God that we should not squander.

We all make judgments every day based upon limited information. You call this rushing to judgement, I call it life. You do it 100 times a day, you just lie to yourself about it. I embrace the power of the subconscious, the power of the brain to take in what I see even faster than my nervous system can relay that information back to me. The lawyers that I interned with stressed the ability to think on the fly, to make decisions based upon the current situation. Then when time permits or when new information arises you alter your initial judgment. Seems they used to call the inability to do this analysis paralysis.

So, as someone who is studying to be lawyer you make a practice of just lumping everyone together like this and rushing to judgement? I make judgments based on my experiences. As I stated, in my experience activist judge is code for " I don't like that decision". This has been the case in 100% of the time I have seen or heard the term used. I suppose it is possible you have a whole list of cases you agreed with the outcome of but still consider to be judicial activism. But until I see such a list I will go with what I have experienced. Sorry you misunderstood my words. When I said "you" I was speaking in a general sense of those who throw around the term activist judge. I have never seen that charge used when someone agrees with a ruling. So, as someone who is studying to be lawyer you make a practice of just lumping everyone together like this and rushing to judgement? I make judgments based on my experiences. As I stated, in my experience activist judge is code for " I don't like that decision". This has been the case in 100% of the time I have seen or heard the term used. I suppose it is possible you have a whole list of cases you agreed with the outcome of but still consider to be judicial activism. But until I see such a list I will go with what I have experienced. Since I am speaking with someone who isn't yet even in law school, let alone well advanced in his law degree studies yet, who is telling others they are wrong and basing that declaration on the fact he plans to be a lawyer someday, it's hard to take such statements seriously. I'm sorry, but the way you threw your weight around with the claim of becoming a lawyer when you aren't even in law school yet really puts a pale on everything you say. If you think it's perfectly fine to rush to judgment and lump everyone together, then I hope that law school puts some sense into you, or if that fails, that you that never become a judge. Feel free to show me how wrong I am. Give me a few cases that you agreed with the decision, yet still consider to be examples of judicial activism. So far all you have given is false accusations. It is always wrong to rush to judgment. This is incorrect. We all rush to judgment 100 times a day, in a split second we make life or death decisions. We are hardwired to do so. It helps us to survive. Please reread what I said. Are we not speaking about legal issues here, and so, logically speaking, should not then "rush to judgment" in this thread be understood in that context? Are you suggesting that because we all do something, that makes it right? I am suggesting we all do it because it is the right thing to do, it keeps us alive, those that excel at it excel at life .

So, as someone who is studying to be lawyer you make a practice of just lumping everyone together like this and rushing to judgement? I make judgments based on my experiences. As I stated, in my experience activist judge is code for " I don't like that decision". This has been the case in 100% of the time I have seen or heard the term used. I suppose it is possible you have a whole list of cases you agreed with the outcome of but still consider to be judicial activism. But until I see such a list I will go with what I have experienced. Sorry you misunderstood my words. When I said "you" I was speaking in a general sense of those who throw around the term activist judge. I have never seen that charge used when someone agrees with a ruling. So, as someone who is studying to be lawyer you make a practice of just lumping everyone together like this and rushing to judgement? I make judgments based on my experiences. As I stated, in my experience activist judge is code for " I don't like that decision". This has been the case in 100% of the time I have seen or heard the term used. I suppose it is possible you have a whole list of cases you agreed with the outcome of but still consider to be judicial activism. But until I see such a list I will go with what I have experienced. Since I am speaking with someone who isn't yet even in law school, let alone well advanced in his law degree studies yet, who is telling others they are wrong and basing that declaration on the fact he plans to be a lawyer someday, it's hard to take such statements seriously. I'm sorry, but the way you threw your weight around with the claim of becoming a lawyer when you aren't even in law school yet really puts a pale on everything you say. If you think it's perfectly fine to rush to judgment and lump everyone together, then I hope that law school puts some sense into you, or if that fails, that you that never become a judge. Feel free to show me how wrong I am. Give me a few cases that you agreed with the decision, yet still consider to be examples of judicial activism. So far all you have given is false accusations. It is always wrong to rush to judgment. This is incorrect. We all rush to judgment 100 times a day, in a split second we make life or death decisions. We are hardwired to do so. It helps us to survive. You might find it useful to read the book Blink by Gladwell. What is wrong is to not adjust your judgment based upon new information. In this case you could have given me more information, and then I could have adjusted my judgment of you. But instead you make post after post without showing where I was incorrect. Thus my snap judgement was obviously correct.

So, as someone who is studying to be lawyer you make a practice of just lumping everyone together like this and rushing to judgement? I make judgments based on my experiences. As I stated, in my experience activist judge is code for " I don't like that decision". This has been the case in 100% of the time I have seen or heard the term used. I suppose it is possible you have a whole list of cases you agreed with the outcome of but still consider to be judicial activism. But until I see such a list I will go with what I have experienced. Sorry you misunderstood my words. When I said "you" I was speaking in a general sense of those who throw around the term activist judge. I have never seen that charge used when someone agrees with a ruling. So, as someone who is studying to be lawyer you make a practice of just lumping everyone together like this and rushing to judgement? I make judgments based on my experiences. As I stated, in my experience activist judge is code for " I don't like that decision". This has been the case in 100% of the time I have seen or heard the term used. I suppose it is possible you have a whole list of cases you agreed with the outcome of but still consider to be judicial activism. But until I see such a list I will go with what I have experienced. Since I am speaking with someone who isn't yet even in law school, let alone well advanced in his law degree studies yet, who is telling others they are wrong and basing that declaration on the fact he plans to be a lawyer someday, it's hard to take such statements seriously. I'm sorry, but the way you threw your weight around with the claim of becoming a lawyer when you aren't even in law school yet really puts a pale on everything you say. If you think it's perfectly fine to rush to judgment and lump everyone together, then I hope that law school puts some sense into you, or if that fails, that you that never become a judge. Feel free to show me how wrong I am. Give me a few cases that you agreed with the decision, yet still consider to be examples of judicial activism. So far all you have given is false accusations.

If you are going to present yourself as an authority or having some level of expertise associated with the profession, then you should be prepared to have your personal claims examined and challenged. This did not "turn personal", you created a personal element by presenting yourself as having legal expertise - 'a future lawyer' leading people to assume you are in law school - which you are not. We noted reasons for questioning your credentials and your presentation of them. The very first post I made on this website I gave all the information that I just gave with the exception of my degree field. I am a future lawyer, I have aced the LSAT and been accepted to my first choice of law schools. That you made unfounded assumptions about me is not due to me, you and others have decided to make this personal with insults and more. Is this your best Christ like behavior?

This thread has taken a very personal turn. I will remove myself from such things.

So you represented yourself as currently studying to be a lawyer by implication when you claimed to be "a future lawyer" BUT you're NOT a law student yet - you are waiting to start law school; you haven't started studying to be a lawyer yet at all? You expect us to take what you say about the law seriously, especially when you have no qualms over claiming something to make it appear something is true that's not true in order to appear to be more of an expert than you are? I am unsure where I have ever claimed to be things you say I did. I have been very open about who and what I am. Why must this become so personal?

She got saved 4 years ago. Her last divorce was 7 years ago. She has not divorced since getting saved. She is forgiven of her sins as a believer in Jesus. Yet liberals, especially those who are not Christians, choose to jump on this. Sorry, I guess I missed the " you just got saved" clause in Mark 10.

I have given this information in other threads. I am a recent Liberty University graduate with a BS in Government, specifically Political and Policy. I start law school in January.

Getting a divorce does not make one an adulterer. Jesus was addressing the frivolous divorces of the Pharisees who divorced women at any time they chose, for any reason they saw fit and women had no recourse. Since their frivolous divorces were not valid before God, and their former wife was an adulterer, as well as the man she marries. The Pharisees who divorce on frivolous grounds are also adulterers and as are their new wives. Are you saying that Mark 10 refers to only the Pharisees of the time and is not valid for Christians today? How many marriages does it take to become frivolous? Is 4 not enough? I am saying that Jesus was in Mark 10 and Matt. 5 Jesus addressed the issue of frivolous divorces. It would still apply to day if men were getting divorces because their wives didn't make the coffee or burnt the toast or whatever. The point is that divorce, in and of itself does not make anyone an adulterer. It is a bit more complicated than that. The number of divorces she has had is irrelevant. Jesus does not add the qualifiers that you have added. The verse is perfectly clear. "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery". How could that verse be any more clear and unambiguous?