Vendtre

As I was saying about Yahoo, they care about making money, not being pro-Muslim or pro-Christian. They are pro-money. That is why the story was moved so quickly, no other reason.

Let me ask you. If those people that were killed in Pakistan had been Muslims would your level of caring be the same?

I don't think it is cynial, I think it is realistic. In 2006 National Geographics did a poll and only 30 some percent could find Iraq on a map, and that was in the middle of the war there. Less than 25 percent could find Israel on a map. Yes. I do find a correlation between knowing the basics of a country (I.e. Where it is) and caring about the people of that country.

It is my opinion based on interactions with people all over the country and from paying attention to the country. We (as a country) have a short opinion span and care little about what happens outside of our borders, if not outside our own little world. It is my opinion we (as a country) care more about who is doing well on the voice and who Kylie Jenner is dating than a bombing in some Muslim country.

Seriously? Most people could not find Pakistan on a map, let alone care about the people there. I would even suggest you care because they were Christians killed, had it been a large group of Muslims I am betting the terrible feeling would be missing. I don't recal seeing anyone complain when Yahoo does not run stories about terrorist killing Muslims.

I would say you are very much in the minority on that.

It has nothing to do with defending Islam, it is basic business. People in the US do not care about dead people in Pakistan. We can relate to people in Europe, not so much those in Pakistan

Being idle is not the same as being a sluggard or slothfulness. Idleness is akin to anger, neither is a sin but both can lead one to sin.

There is no sin of idleness.

It is true. There is no such thing as a "Christian Nation" unless that nation is also a Christian Theocracy.

The problem I have with the KJV is that the English language has changed mightly since the 1600's. So now I not only have to rely on the fact the KJV translators did a good job but I have to find a trustworthy source to tell me what a word meant a half a century ago in a different country. That is if I even find a reason to look a word up. The joy of digital bibles is I do not need to have a single favorite, I have multiple versions at my fingertips. My most often used are the RSV, the ESV and the HCSB

A nation of Christians that built our nation on the backs of slaves and the bones of the local inhabitants.

America has never been a Christian nation.

Your first article said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. This is verifiable false and has been verified as false. The irony here is that I asked you not to blindly accept what the NRA said and your response is to say "well the NRA said", thus proving you have blindly accepted what they posted. As for reading skills, the first one is what this whole discussion is about, and the 2nd one, all of the Supreme Court agreed with, even the guy they are now trying to replace.

Can you love someone that you cannot stand to be around?

Same thing happened to Rubio a couple days ago. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marco-rubios-dc-campaign-office-evacuated-due-suspicious/story?id=37670418

But the NRA said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. As you noted, I have shown this to be false. And it ignores that one of the most conservative judges in the land also voted for the en banc. I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I am saying nobody has given a shred of real evidence that he is. The guy has been a judge a long time, you would think he would have lots of evidence if he were truly anti-gun. Yet the NRA has to resort to lying to make him look like he is. Ask yourself, why is that?

I have posted them, but why is that even necessary. Why is it that people cannot do such things for themselves? Why do people blindly believe organizations?

I am wrong? are you kidding me? I have given you an example of what en banc is for, and I am not wrong. Please provide your source that shows that the only reasons for an en banc review is to overturn the ruling. Failure to do so will be enough for me to know you are just making things up like the NRA did.

I am attempting to show that you can love someone and not really like them at the same time. Let me give you a real life example. I have a cousin that is 1 year older than me (so early 30s), we were friends growing up as much as seeing each other 3 times a year allowed. Since we both became adults he has become a womanizing drunk. He is on his 3rd marriage and brags about cheating on his current wife after an afternoon of him drinking beer like water. I do not like him, he is rude, foul mouthed sexist pig. But he is my family and I do love him and I try to help him when we are together and have even pulled out butt out of the frying pan when he was about to go to jail for writing bad checks (though I wont do it again if he did not learn his lesson). This is a case of loving someone I do not like.

Do you need to like someone in order to love them?

I am not asking you to trust me, I am asking you to not blindly trust the NRA. A simple 5 minute search of "en banc" will show you what it means and how it is used. Then I would ask you to take 5 minutes and look up Judge A. Raymond Randoplh and see if he is "anti-gun" or a liberal judge. The information is out there for anyone willing to step outside their comfort zone and look for it.

I cannot agree with this, you can surly love someone that you do not like. Jesus told us to love our enemy, and one does not like their enemy.

No, I was not wrong. You might not have noticed, but I rarely am.

I did not drag Trump's name in to anything. The leadership of the GOP has many factors they must weigh and plan for. The first being is how sure they are of winning the White House, next how sure are they of keeping control of the Senate and third, if they win the White House, who will Trump pick. You might have noticed that the GOP leadership does not really care much for Trump, thus they will take that into consideration. I realize that anything that is even perceived as a negative against your man Trump sets you into attack and defend mode, but my comment was not about Trump as much as it was about the game of politics and the GOP