The_Patriot21

Id leave them someplace where the only way to get to them is through a loaded 12 gauge.

Humor aside, if the thieves are indeed violent, truth be told a car isn't worth anyone's life and leaving the keys outside would save on property damage. Shame the Canadian government can't crack down harder on the thieves though.

Haha lower utility bills. They've done nothing but skyrocket since he took office. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

On 4/13/2024 at 11:15 AM, Henry_iain said:

Let's try this one:

 

 

"And the head coach wants no sissies,

So he reads to us from something called Ulysses"

 

 

Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh by Allan Sherman.

Now, let's try something from this century and see if anyone can get it.

All the promises and lies
All the times I compromised
All the times you were denied
You have forgiven

15 minutes ago, Jayne said:

You are precisely right.

Getting "wet" for ceremonial cleanliness/purity was well known by Jews of the Old Testament.

The tvilah and mikvah were well known.  Baptism would not have come as a surprise to Jews.

The meaning behind baptism was certainly new, but not the act itself 

13 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Don't forget that there were many false Messiahs at that time that may have used baptism for initiates. This makes John's baptism all the more significant, and was emphasized often by the Lord.

Acts 5:

34 Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people, and commanded them to put the apostles outside for a little while. 

35 And he said to them: “Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men. 

36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. 

37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed. 

38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 

39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

Note: Gamaliel was Paul's teacher. Acts 22:3

 

Again I think your misunderstanding my point. But I won't argue further.

Hence the issue with centralizing everything into one system

50 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

The Lord would disagree with you.

And it was the Pharisees who were made to look silly.

Matthew 21:

23 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”

24 But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: 

25 The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”

And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 

26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” 

27 So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”

And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

The scribes and Pharisees contradict your notion that John's baptism was cultural and common to the time, or related to the Law of Moses. In fact, their belief was that if John was baptizing, he must either be Elijah, that prophet or Christ Himself. 

His baptism was ordained by the words of the prophets, not Moses.

John 1:

19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”

20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

And he answered, “No.”

22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”

23 He said: “I am

‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
“Make straight the way of the Lord,” ’

as the prophet Isaiah said.”

24 Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

26 John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. 

27 It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.”

28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Well, seeing as it was a practice that did indeed take place then, I'd say the Lord wouldn't disagree with me, as it's historical fact.

I think you misunderstood my intention. I never said what the pharisees did with their baptism was levitical law, nor even right (it wasnt) just that they did it and passed it off as levitical law (it wasn't) the pharisees did a lot of things that weren't the law but claimed it was.

Johns baptism wasn't for the same reasons as the pharisee baptism obviously, but it also wasn't "new"

You all are arguing over something silly, and your both right, and wrong.

Ita true that baptism is not part of levitical law.

But it was practiced culturally at the time. What John the Baptist was doing wasn't really "new"

5 hours ago, RdJ said:

No I rather pray that the christians there and other innocent people can flee to the West. I'm not going to pray that people go to these murderers to get killed. I'm not going there either, so why would I pray someone else gets killed there? What a horrible country.

Christians have no duty to flee unless God tells them to, but rather go where people need to hear Jesus. I would say Sudan needs Jesus.

Sounds like political rhetoric to me to get people talking about him. It's a good tactic, as it gets people talking about him wondering just who it might be, but that doesn't mean it's not anything more then a publicity stunt.

2 hours ago, Marathoner said:

In keeping with extolling the virtues of snakes --- the animal that God created --- allow me to share an example of how snakes control the population of other snakes. I'll never forget the non-venomous bull snake in the mountains of New Mexico. Yes, this particular snake can reach over 7 feet long when fully grown, but they were rather docile around me and my adopted mother. Her plot of land had the distinction of being entirely rattlesnake-free, which was noteworthy in that region where rattlesnakes were ubiquitous. I understood why: bull snakes drive out the rattlesnakes from their territory. They are sometimes known to prey upon them as well, though not to the extent that legends claim. King snakes (another non-venomous reptile) are the premier predators of other snakes, particularly venomous varieties like copperheads. 

Indeed, bullsnakes are a fan favorite of farmers and ranchers in Wyoming for the same reason. They will usually chase out the much smaller prairie rattler we deal with.

Though I have run across a couple aggressive bullsnakes. I was fishing at a local reservoir with my dad and one of my brothers last summer. We were in a little cove. A 3 1/2 foot bullsnakes swam straight across the cove to where my dad and brother was, came ashore and proceeded to attack them. They even stepped away from it and it followed them. At least until I came along and beat it to death with a pry bar.

As much as I hate snakes I generally leave bullsnakes alone because they are a good snake most of the time (as far as snakes go) but this one certainly didn't like us. 

Lot of people rooting for the lady pear in here...she must be bribing them. Someone should probably arrest her for fraud, as obviously she can't be last as last has always been, and always will be, mine.

2 hours ago, ladypeartree said:

but you still wouldnt be last  

My last is iron clad. Don't be jealous, it's not good for you.

Chances are even if no animal spoke eve wouldn't run...there was no death and no reason to fear anything, so a talking animal probably wouldn't be anything more then a curiousity. In fact, that maybe why eve chose to take the time to converse with it instead of moving on.

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Absolutely no reason for this. If anything, it should have been steering to ship to the left, away from any proximity to the pillar.

No obstacle in sight shown in the videos. No reason to veer toward the pier shown in the videos. The moon was low in the east, meaning the tide was was not coming in, so no side-current from it. The ship was in a river channel, without anything flowing into it crossways, so no reason for the ship to veer into any non-existent heavy cross-current.

In short, nothing that you have provided makes any logical sense.

Which gets back to the same old question I raised: why was the ship veering toward the right when the power went out, when it had been cutting it close to the pillar before that turn even was initiated?? There was a vast amount of open space between the ship and the other pillar even before the turn to the right, so there was no reason to bear further right.

That you see. Obvious flaw in your argument. That you see.

You just admitted that you don't have all the information, and your jumping to conclusions. 

One can't tell what's behind the camera. There could be other vessels.

He may have been trying to get under a certain point of the bridge (I've already mentioned this) to obtain clearance.

He may very well have just been nothing more then a minor course correction, boat may have been veering off slightly due to current or whatever. Unlike the small little speed boat or dingy that your used to, you can't just turn the wheel and get a instant response, it takes a bit to turn a boat like that, even for a minor course correction, and if the rudder is In the wrong spot when you lose power the minor correction needed to remain in a straight line becomes a major course change into a bridge.

Personally I like to stick to the facts until I have all the evidence, and not conjecture based upon lack of knowledge, which so far is all you have presented.

Until such time as I see that, I won't be discussing this any further as I don't see the point.

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

First link is the track with time stamps 11 minutes apart. Second link is the timeline, showing the power loss occurred 2-1/2 minutes before the collision. Pro-rating that last 2-1/2 minutes to the 11 minutes shows me that the ship was already veering toward the pillar before the power outage; and also that the ship's original heading was way, way to the right of the middle of the channel between the pillars.

https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/03/26/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-map-view-the-path-of-the-cargo-ship-dali/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/within-minutes-departure-faltering-container-ship-crashes-into-baltimore-bridge-2024-03-26/

What have you got?

Never said you did.

The rudder was probably aiming that direction before loss of power, doesn't mean it was aiming for the bridge. 

Ships have the ability to steer. They don't just go in a straight line. There was a lot of different reasons for the ship to start a turn, usually to avoid an obstacle. It may have realized it wasn't in the spot it needed to go under. It may have been fighting a current.

And the thing about modern ships is their rudder is no longer mechanically controlled, at least not on a ship that size. You don't turn a wheel and that wheel is connected to the rudder by some gears like the pirate ships of old. They won't straighten out on their own.

no, on ships that size they're hydraulically controlled. Which means, to put I simply if the power goes down, the rudder will remain wherever it was when it lost power. So if it was beginning a turn, even if it was just a minor course correction when it lost power that's where the rudder stayed. 

and restoring movement to those hydraulics isn't like starting a car...it needs to get power then the pumps need to start getting that hydraulic fluid moving again. 

In any case, according to the videos you just posted, I don't see ANY indication that it was intentionally aiming for that bridge, at all. It looked like it was following a pre assigned course to the letter when it lost power at an inopportune time.

I found a fully functional $280 DeWalt air compressor In someone's dumpster. Yes, in the dumpster. In almost new condition. 

The absolute only thing wrong with it was the fittings you attach the air hose to were clogged up. Those cost $10 bucks at the local bomgaars (local farm supply store) and five minutes of my time to replace.

Trip to the store took me longer then the repair.

The things people throw away.

I mean it's not like the moon is way closer then the sun so that obviously can't have anything to do with it.

3 hours ago, WilliamL said:

It was not in any ways heading toward the middle between of the bridge pillars, which safety would require. Those pillars are far apart with respect to the width of the ship. It only turned slightly, for what reason now unknown. If it had maintained a straight-line course, it would have been a near miss.

But certainly wind played no significant factor. The physics of the situation says that the huge vector (magnitude of the momentum, which was huge because of the mass, along with its direction) dwarfed any wind vector. From what I've read, the draft of the ship was 40+ feet. So not at all comparable to your pontoon boat!

And you are assuming wrongly that I am "assuming it is a conspiracy." One of three, not two, possibilities. The other two are 1) accident and 2) gross malfeasance, that being causal; therefore not an accident, which is incidental.

It is also worthwhile to note that the lights came back on after the collision. Doesn't it sound a little strange that the power only failed at the particular instant that it did?

You must be watching a different video then pretty much anyone else has watched, because it's original course was safety between the pillars before the loss of power.

You keep arguing wind. I never did. I agree it wasn't windy enough on that night to affect a boat that size. For it to go into the pillar like that it was either a current or the rudder was stuck in the wrong spot when it lost power. The rudders on that ship are hydraulic, which means if the engine loses power they don't move.

As far as to the lights....you can see them make at least two attempts to regain power before it hit...do you not think they would keep doing so after they hit?

I certainly would. Because there's something else ships use power for-and that's water pumps, to keep water out of the inside of the ship. Why? Because the ship just hit something very very large. Which means there's a possibility of a hull breech. And you know what's worse then hitting a very large bridge? 

Sinking your 400 million pound ship after hitting the bridge. So it makes sense to keep trying to restore power even after the point of impact.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God...but it also comes by seeing.

It always astounds me people who say they see no evidence of God.

Like really? The evidence is all around is. The evidence is in the Bible. Yes, the Bible can defend itself!

If you started with blind faith, without seeking the evidence and are now losing it, was it really faith?

It's ok to to ask for evidence. Gideon tested God by laying out a pelt, not once, not twice but three times!

So let me help you...what area specifically are you struggling? What part of scripture do you find inconsistent? Name one part and let us pull out scripture together and strengthen your faith!

A ship that big vs a bridge like that....yeah it's going to go down hard, especially getting hit from the side like that.

It was never ever designed to take a hit from the side from a 400 million pound boat. There are very few bridges that could. The golden gate bridge.... maybe, but even then I wouldn't want to try it.

It's simple physics. It's a bridge...not a wall. You want it strong enough to handle the traffic that goes over it and major weather, but cheap enough that it doesn't totally bankrupt you and you can maintain it. To make a bridge that is high enough to let ships through, strong enough to fit those requirements is tough enough.

But, no engineer in his right mind is going to be able to plan for something 5 times larger then he's ever seen in his life smashing into it. 

No one can account for everything, especially the things they don't know, save for God.

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Not at all. The facts they had, and still have, is that the ship collided with the bridge pillar. Period.

Calling it an accident is an opinion, pure and simple, and must be stated as such by any legitimate media outlet.

An opinion based on the evidence at hand. 

The reason you don't see it, is your going into it with a bias in the other direction. Your assuming it's a conspiracy before knowing all the facts, which ironically your doing the exact same thing your accusing the media of doing, just on the other side of the issue, and without any actual evidence to the fact.

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Certainly not.

Question: why was the ship headed toward the pillar when the power went out? That alone arouses my suspicion.

1000-foot ships don't get blown around by a modest wind. Too much inertia.

 

Did you watch the video? I did. The ship was aimed to go under the bridge under the pylons when the power went out. 

I agree with you, again judging by the video and weather reports there wasn't enough wind to push it anyway. But that doesn't mean there wasn't other natural forces acting on it. A river has something called a current...and currents don't follow a straight line and could change course of the ship-especially if the ship had the rudder in the wrong spot when they lost power.

A ship like that without power is largely dependent on the currents.

49 minutes ago, FJK said:

Well, time will tell.

At least to someone, maybe someone unwilling to share it with others.

Unlikely. Notice I said I didn't blame the journalists for their initial reporting, as it lined up with the facts available at the time.

I also said it doesn't prove it wasn't a terrorist attack.

While I agree with the initial assessment I don't trust the media to report honestly if new information comes to light showing it was terrorism. If evidence comes to light that it was indeed intentional, I suspect the media will never report on that unless it helps those in power in DC.