Posts: Blade_Runner | One Political Plaza

Biden Told Bibi to 'Take the W' and Not Retaliate After Iran Attack, But It Looks Like It's Still Coming

Lily wrote:

There is no leader in any country who cares more deeply for their country than Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is embarrassing our resident of the White House does not care as much for America as Netanyahu does Israel!

Wonttakeitanymore wrote:

Exactly! Gotta love bibi! He’s prorating for Trump to be back

Everyone should read this book:

And, this Israeli soldier has a message for Creepy Joe Biden.

(Main)

Joe Biden Makes America Safer

TJKMO wrote:

If you or anyone will not turn over the weapons they will be FELONS subject to the fullest extent of the Law.

(Main)

Why Christianity Must Be Destroyed - And Why Liberalism Must Do It

crazylibertarian wrote:

Thank you, LogicallyRight. I don't often doe leng... (show quote)

Gary North is full of s**t. At least he was, he died two years ago.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, why would he be upset when he read what he had written?

The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

by Stephen E. Lucas
The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most masterfully written state paper of Western civilization. As Moses Coit Tyler noted almost a century ago, no assessment of it can be complete without taking into account its extraordinary merits as a work of political prose style. Although many scholars have recognized those merits, there are surprisingly few sustained studies of the stylistic artistry of the Declaration.1 This essay seeks to illuminate that artistry by probing the discourse microscopically--at the level of the sentence, phrase, word, and syllable. By approaching the Declaration in this way, we can shed light both on its literary qualities and on its rhetorical power as a work designed to convince a "candid world" that the American colonies were justified in seeking to establish themselves as an independent nation.2

The text of the Declaration can be divided into five sections--the introduction, the preamble, the indictment of George III, the denunciation of the British people, and the conclusion. Because space does not permit us to explicate each section in full detail, we shall select features from each that illustrate the stylistic artistry of the Declaration as a whole.3

The introduction consists of the first paragraph--a single, lengthy, periodic sentence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.4

Taken out of context, this sentence is so general it could be used as the introduction to a declaration by any "oppressed" people. Seen within its original context, however, it is a model of subtlety, nuance, and implication that works on several levels of meaning and allusion to orient readers toward a favorable view of America and to prepare them for the rest of the Declaration. From its magisterial opening phrase, which sets the American Revolution within the whole "course of human events," to its assertion that "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle America to a "separate and equal station among the powers of the earth," to its quest for sanction from "the opinions of mankind," the introduction elevates the quarrel with England from a petty political dispute to a major event in the grand sweep of history. It dignifies the Revolution as a contest of principle and implies that the American cause has a special claim to moral legitimacy--all without mentioning England or America by name.

Rather than defining the Declaration's task as one of persuasion, which would doubtless raise the defenses of readers as well as imply that there was more than one publicly credible view of the British-American conflict, the introduction identifies the purpose of the Declaration as simply to "declare"--to announce publicly in explicit terms--the "causes" impelling America to leave the British empire. This gives the Declaration, at the outset, an aura of philosophical (in the eighteenth-century sense of the term) objectivity that it will seek to maintain throughout. Rather than presenting one side in a public controversy on which good and decent people could differ, the Declaration purports to do no more than a natural philosopher would do in reporting the causes of any physical event. The issue, it implies, is not one of interpretation but of observation.

<SNIP>

(Main)

Joe Biden Makes America Safer

TruePatriot49 wrote:

Well, MO, it's obvious that you don't own guns. If you did, you would know that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole. The only hole is in your head where your brains leaked out. Maybe Larry and Curley can help you understand this, but I doubt it. ALSO, FYI, all gun control laws are unconstitutional. Please sit down with Larry and Curley and maybe the three of you can figure out what the Constitution says.

TJKMO wrote:

I know what the Constitution says about a “well-regulated m*****a”.

OK, what does the Constitution say about a "well-regulated m*****a"?

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

This is what I call a Well Regulated Militia.

(Main)

Who were the Bad Guys in WWII?

currahee506 wrote:

The "bad guys" were Hitler, Quisling, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, and Mao. The weak one who caved to the wishes of Stalin was FDR. The one who caved to the wishes of Hitler was the Pope. The ones who were consistently right about the dangers of both N**iism and C*******m (socialism) were MacArthur, Patton, and Churchill.

LiberalGrammyD wrote:

There is a difference between C*******m and Socialism A Big Difference! Google It...If you can read past 3rdgrade.

There is no difference between c*******m and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: c*******m proposes to ens***e men by force, socialism - by v**e. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
Ayn Rand

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Vladimir Lenin

The goal of socialism is c*******m.
Vladimir Lenin

(Main)

Joe Biden Makes America Safer

Radiance3 wrote:

============ br I It is you whose brain and sku... (show quote)

TJKMO wrote:

I started laughing at
“ I think these are all coming from Barack's Kenyan head. Barack is a Muslim, no matter how he hides it. His action speaks louder than Biden's mouth.”

And I have friends and family laughing along with me.

B. Hussein Obama's mentor was a card carrying C*******t. When Barry O was a teen in Hawaii,
Frank Marshall Davis (C*******t Party USA) took him under his wing.

When Davis was prepping him for college, Barry asked what sort of education he should get.
Davis told him, "You're not going to college to be educated, you're going there to be trained."

In an NYT interview, B. Hussein Obama said, "The Muslim call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

(Main)

A 'storm' is going to bury trump

American Scene wrote:

And the trump lies will be flowing like raw sewage.

Hope melania attends the trial, and then beats trumps c***ting, lying a$$, and reworks her pre-nup to

get even more of trumps assets

(Main)

If the Indians could have seen the future

American Scene wrote:

Only stupid people cannot understand the cartoon, especially those with child like brains

I understand it very well,
it is a message from an ignorant, h**eful, hypocritical Misanthrope.

(Main)

And so, Roe became law of the land.. thank the GOP

permafrost wrote:

rick, this is not about babies.. It is about cell... (show quote)

Why a Human Being Begins At Conception

Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception

By Randy Alcorn

Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the c********e pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-a******nists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National A******n Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest a******n clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand a******ns.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”4

In his film, “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the a******n rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, I oppose a******n. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

The First International Symposium on A******n came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8

Footnotes:

1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.

3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.

4Bernard N. Nathanson, “Deeper into A******n,” New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.

5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

7John C. Willke, A******n Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.

8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

Human Conception: The Beginning of Life

(Main)

The Death Penalty Must Be Banned in the USA

Blade_Runner wrote:

Since you are failing so miserably to obey Him, apparently Jesus' "most enlightening response" is a far greater challenge than you are able to face.

TJKMO wrote:

No.

I have repeatedly stated my commitment to Love, T***h and Justice as embodied in both the Divine and Human manifestations of Jesus Christ.

You are no more a disciple of Christ than the man in the moon.
With very poor communication sk**ls, you have revealed yourself in such a way that you've confused a lot of folks here about your g****r and sexual orientation.

Some, like me, believe you when you say you are a man, others think you are a woman, some think you are gay, even a t****y.

In this instance, your g****r and sexual proclivities are irrelevant.
Out of all the confusion, one thing is clear, you are just one more l*****t SJW with a humongous chip on your shoulder and a very nasty bone to pick with at least half the American people, and most shamefully, you are using Lord Jesus as a crutch to justify your Crusade.

Your demonization of those Americans who embrace the long overdue concept of making America great again is wickedness on steroids. You do not have the power or authority to pass such judgement.

(Main)

Joe Biden Makes America Safer

Blade_Runner wrote:

0.24% of criminals get their guns through the loop hole, wh**ever that is in the minds of gun hating fools who don't know a muzzle brake from a trigger guard.

T***H IS America has never been in greater danger than it is right now.

billlingle wrote:

You are spot on with your statement "America has never been in greater danger than it is right now". Fat Donny the F*****t is planning to do away with the constitution, e******ns and democracy. How do I know? He told me and you and the world hundreds of times and he will tell you hundreds more. What a shame it would be to lose the American experiment and experience at the hands of those who think that he is just blabbering.

The danger to our nation has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

You l*****t low lifes have accused Trump of being an inveterate liar, the count is probably up to 50,000 lies,
yet suddenly you believe every word he says.

T***h is, Donald Trump is, by no stretch of the imagination, a f*****t, he has absolutely no intention of "doing away" with our constitution and e******ns, and regarding democracy, our founders soundly rejected that form of government.

Speaking of "doing away" with our constitution,

for the record,
it is the democrats - the Biden Clown Show - who are hell bent on "doing away" with our 2nd Amendment,
the E*******l College, the border, our currency, the nuclear family, Christianity, unborn babies, our freedom,
and our American nation.

Article IV, Section 4, US Constitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

(Main)

Joe Biden Makes America Safer

billlingle wrote:

If Fat Donny can claim that the 14th amendment does not apply to him because it does not mention presidents then the 2nd amendment does not permit the owning of machine guns, assault rifles, bazookas or cannons.

(Main)

RINOS THINK THEY ARE SAFE

TJKMO wrote:

Different word.
Different species.
Different spelling.

You aren't very bright, are you?

(Main)

The Death Penalty Must Be Banned in the USA

TJKMO wrote:

Your questions are not questions.
They are like the questions the PHARISEES presented and are based in straw men and hypocrisy.
The classic example is when they asked Jesus “What is the Greatest Commandment”.

Jesus did not answer their question with a number.
Instead, he gave a most enlightening and challenging response for us all.

Since you are failing so miserably to obey Him, apparently Jesus' "most enlightening response" is a far greater challenge than you are able to face.

(Main)

RINOS THINK THEY ARE SAFE

TJKMO wrote:

RINOS THINK THEY ARE SAFE