Mark 13:32 But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Argue with Jesus who spoke these words, Susanblange! God didn’t reveal that day to Jesus, the greatest of all prophets. Do you want people to believe you are greater than he?

The scripture also said that God would keep you lest at any time you dash your foot against a stone, and the devil used that verse to try and tempt Jesus not to keep the whole word of God; but he did! Therefore, you are the one who needs to hear, not act like you are a prophet!

And let it be known that God did reveal his “secret” to Jesus, just not the exact day of that secret! (People, especially false prophets, are always expecting God to comply with their understanding rather than let their understanding be molded and conformed to God’s!)

Mark 13:21-26
21 Then if anyone tells you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there!' don't believe it.
22 For there will arise false christs and false prophets, and will show signs and wonders, that they may lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones.
23 But you watch.
"Behold, I have told you all things beforehand.
24 But in those days, after that oppression, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light,
25 the stars will be falling from the sky, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.
26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

:thumbup:

...And that's the t***h!

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Not exactly the words I would use :wink: , but nonetheless...xactly!!!

:thumbup:


Exactly my point, right?

The difference here, DJRich, is that I'm talking about what you did actually say that began this thread. On the other hand you are talking about what "other people" have said, that I never said and you obviously have no idea of my thoughts on the matter.

However, I have stated in a different thread (not that I'm holding you accountable for knowing I said it, but that I'm telling you now)...



So, why don't you quit playing "I can get away with it because so-and-so-does-it-to" and let's deal with what you did actually say. Or do you want me to hold you accountable to everything a liberal says first, like you are doing to me, before you can be taken seriously at all?

Now, Are you willing to walk the walk you talk and give us your home address or not?

Hey DJRich,

Would you mind telling me what your address is?

I'd like to migrate myself through your back door into your house and help myself to your groceries. And do please show me where you keep your wallet at night because I'm sure l will need some extra cash. Please prepare for my visit by getting a bed ready for me; my own bedroom would be really nice. And while I'm staying there, I fully expect to be allowed to offer my 2 cents on how you run your family, how much you spend on your cars, house, children's education, recreation pretty much everything that's important to you, or that I feel should be important to you; I want to have an equal say in all of that while I'm staying in your, excuse me, our household. Since you think it is crazy thinking to want to prevent people from joining themselves to your family uninvited, then you obviously won't mind. And, since you have this open door policy, you obviously won't think it would be wrong of me because that would be discrimination on your part (since we're all just one big happy family already anyway), right? Now I know you won't complain like those "crazy right wing conservatives" who "are always yelling about i*****l i*******ts v****g." I'm also sure you won't worry at all if I eat up all your favorite snacks and run up your water, grocery and electric bills; after all, you can always go over to your neighbor's house and reappropriate wh**ever they have for your needs whenever you feel you need to. Ain't this socialism thing great?

Thanks for being so liberal with your generosity, buddy! I can't wait to come stay with you and share your sustenance; and by the way, I have a family of about 10 that likely will be coming along that you've implied you will also willingly make accommodations for…or at least let me send my poor, innocent, unfortunate children to come and rummage through your pantries and do all the rest of the above I've mentioned. And of course once we're all there, you won't mind us exercising our rights in your family to invite more of our extended family and friends along, right? After all, you wouldn't want to discriminate about who gets to have a say-so (v**e) in who more will now be welcome to join "our" family, would you? Thanks again! Surely you won't mind, after all you wouldn't want to be known as a hypocrite, or uncaring, thoughtless, selfish and worst of all prejudiced and discriminatory, and far from you to say any " vitriolic hatred and bigotry" against those who would help themselves to your generosity like those evil conservatives do, right?

You liberals just don't get it, do you? All we i***tic "Common-Sensers" are asking is that immigrants come to the front door and knock, and we'll gladly provide all the hospitality we may feel motivated to give out of our own free will, but not by coercion. But you don't hear that part do you? That's all just "vitriolic hatred and bigotry" to you, isn't it? Golly, you seem to think we must be the most insensitive people in the world to expect people who want hand-outs or a helping hand to come by it legally and honestly without our being forced or guilt-tripped into providing for them. At least that's the view you've given me of your position here, so don't blame me if I take you at your words.

So let's see if you're ready to walk the walk you talk so boastfully of…post your home address…and don't start whining now, you know what that will make you, you've said so yourself: "crazy…yelling about i*****l i*******ts v****g, but…really trying to…to prevent legal immigrants from gaining citizenship and v****g rights" in your own sovereign little domicile! Or are you so bigoted that all you want to do is "gerrymander…wherever you can" to keep your little family unit "small, of the same family gene pool, and un-included" by those outside? Now if you hesitate, and try to keep us from coming in your back door, then obviously, the only reason you could have would be because you want to keep any and all people from becoming part of your family!

If you can understand how this won't work on a family level, how in the world can you not see it won't work any better on any larger scale other than to compound the problem that many times over? It could only be because you feel you have more neighbors to reappropriate their resources from, right? And that's why it has been said that socialism is great until your run out of other people's money! Do you get it yet?

Bottom line: You're an utter hypocrite if you don't post your home address right now for all of us to see and then be nothing but positive and welcoming when any of us or anyone else comes to live with you and expects to be treated just like anyone else in your family.

Yeah, right!



:thumbdown:

Straw man alert! Subterfuge alert! Prove where “conservatives” here on this board or in this conversation are against “LEGAL immigrants” seeking citizenship. Kevyn, you need to read what he said. He said that conservatives are concealing something by denouncing illegal immigrants v****g. Any immigrant who is here legally has documentation!

:thumbup: :D Thanks again, Tasine!

Christianity, like America, gets a bad rap mostly by the pretenders who are so in name only, but not indeed! There's RINO's and DINO's, but CINO's have been on this earth a lot longer! And secondly by those who really do understand it (in both cases) but want nothing to do with it other than tear it down and make it conform to their corrupt, narcissistic world-view. One thing I'm pretty sure of, is that you know exactly what I mean. :wink:

If you can think of God as love (as the Bible defines him) and Jesus as the human representative of God's love that was able to physically "lay down his life for his friends" with God inside of him and working through him, then you wouldn't be too far off of true Christianity. The word Christ means the Anointed One...in other words, something that was given to someone. It means, explicitly, that he did not take his honor or authority upon himself, rather it explicitly means honor and authority was given to him. None of us meet the criteria for being true Christians other than the Anointed One himself...the rest of us just want to learn from him. Wouldn't it be something if our secular leaders weren't people who "anointed" themselves as worthy but just went about serving people until others who recognized their character encouraged and practically begged them into leadership? I don't mean to preach to you, just wanted to throw out a tidbit or two so you know I'm not your typical "Christian" of today. At least, God I hope not!!!

Looking forward to more chats with you Tasine! Just that I don't always have time...

Thanks to you, too, Tasine,

That’s an interesting way of viewing things. Mine is similar, after a fashion I think, and hopefully only a difference in semantics. Being as I consider myself a Christian first and above all, I would call “our case” the common plight of fellow mankind.

I agree with you that on a higher moral level borders are artificial; they are certainly not the line in the sand where my compassion for others stops.

On the other hand, I like to use the analogy of my home with our country. Certainly I’m given to hospitality, but that doesn’t mean I want freeloaders breaking in the back door whenever they please and against my wishes…so with America and its borders. Same with dealing with the poor or anything; I’m willing to give in my own way and amount; but taking from me against my wishes is thievery, whether from the government or my next door neighbor or my closest Christian brother. Liberals and collectivists should stop and think about that...unfortunately, it seems, not many seem all that interested in thinking about things like that. Funny how it seems to me that everything liberals accuse conservatives of are what liberals do as their modus operandi! Is that one of the Alinsky rules for radicals...wh**ever you get caught doing or are otherwise guilty of, blame the same thing on your opponents? It seems like it.

I agree with Tasine’s post that c*******m has infiltrated America by stealth. And not to take away from that, I wrote the following before I saw Tasine’s post, but I’d still like to post it. I think this adds to the discussion by showing what the attitude is that enabled such c*******tic sentiment by Americans.

So I’d like to post my response to PeterS’ question:



Answer: when you lost site of where tyranny really comes from.

I believe Jesus best identified the problem, which many people seem completely blind to, or at least unable to grasp the concept:



Human nature in Jesus’ day had not changed by the time of the American Revolution, nor has it changed between then and today. What made Jesus a truly great leader, and model for other leaders just as he implied, was that he liberated his followers out from under the oppressive man-made religiosity which the Pharisees and Sadducees had reduced Judaism to. What made George Washington, called the father of our country, a great leader, is that he refused to become an overlord and was satisfied with becoming a public servant.

What truly and actually “made America great” was the Declaration of Independence that recognized, and explicitly declared that, tyrannical governments and/or leaders are totally antithetical to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



Jesus’ quote above and the Declaration of Independence are virtually in harmony; one speaks spiritually, the other secularly.

Both speak of the tyranny of those who “pretend” to be benefactors, but are, in fact, lords over, or at least effectively “lording-it-over” their subjects.

The pretense that these over-lords take is that they are doing what is best for their subjects, their underlings. But that is mere pretense. The very fact that they view and present themselves as “benefactors” betrays the fact that they are actually “overlords” of the exact type that this country, at least secularly, at its commencement, attempted to rid themselves of.

It appears to me that liberals can’t seem to discern the difference between overlords-in-the-guise-of-benefactors and true servant-leaders!

Yet that is what made this country great…when its leaders were true servants, not overlords pretending to be benefactors. Here’s the simple equation that escapes liberals (but overlords use to their advantage):

Nanny-state Entitlements = benefactor-over-lords

The opposite equation is this:

Personal liberty = personal accountability and responsibility (an honor for some, a burden for others!)

By promising to relieve personal accountability and responsibility, over-lording benefactors promise (and deliver) Nanny-state Entitlements at a direct ratio to the cost of liberty.

Unfortunately, there are many nominal “Christians” who believe that Jesus and his apostles supported such socialistic “benefactoriness” but such is far from the case. To the exact contrary, the following was written by one the apostles of Christ:



(BTW- “Busybodies” in the above are in parallel with self-made politicians, from either end of the spectrum, in the secular world of today).

The problem with liberals, in general from what I’ve seen, is that they equate a nanny-state with “Christ-like” helping out the poor when in fact what “benefactors” actually administer under such false pretenses are programs that perpetuate the servitude of the underclasses; which is something that Jesus clearly loathed and both spoke and acted against! What makes liberals truly i***tic and un-American is that they believe that tyrannical overlords, hunh-hum, excuse me, “governments,” are the solution to America’s “problems” of personal liberty, accountability and responsibility. In other words, they want to reverse the original “American Dream;” they want to sell out our personal liberty so that government can “benefactor” us (ie “ens***e” us). That is the liberal blindness: they don’t even see they are doing this; and thus the question, “When did we start hating America?”

Democrats showed their h**e for America when they created the Ku-Klux-Clan. You continue to h**e America as evidenced by the fact that you make the likes of Bernie Sanders one of your front-runners in the p**********l race! You continue to h**e America because you continue to believe that government and/or its overlords (and it or their handouts) is the solution and by accepting the lie that benefactor-politicians are anything but overlords! In other words, you just don’t “get” America! (I daresay in the same way that most “Christians” don’t “get” Christianity!)

On the other hand, there are conservatives that do the same thing. If you t***spose “big business” with “governments” in the above, one should be able to tell what I mean. Perhaps that could be the key to mending the rift between “We the People” in this equation: that we should start calling things what they are instead of hiding behind the deceptiveness and lies of political correctness; which just seems more and more to be a an Orwellian new-speak tool by the overlords to help keep us all in the dark!

Of course, that’s just my opinion based on personal observations and I reserve the right to revise my opinion in the face of reasonable correction.

P.S. How can anyone who states officially and unequivocally that “We hold these t***hs to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” ever, ever be construed to be r****t! In fact, those words can only lead to eradicating r****m! But, in making such a false accusation as Mr. Sanders has done, what else would you expect an overlording benefactor to proclaim if he was seeking to be your overlording benefactor?

The operative word in the above here is “personal.” The first sentence coupled with the last sentence do *nothing but* clearly and obviously totally condemn Ms Clinton’s actions leaving no need for further argument, let alone room for continuing the discussion.

Let’s make this simple: A) She did have the authority to delete *PERSONAL* emails (as does anyone else in government or business), however; B) She also had a moral, procedural and legal obligation to move all official governmental emails to a record *KEEPING* system.

By what stretch of logic does the wording in point A justify the negating of point B? Answer: it doesn’t. Well, that is, apparently, except in the minds of liberals and their attorneys.

Yet that, my friends, in a nutshell, is the liberal’s whole position in defense of Ms Clinton’s illegal actions as Secretary of State of the United States of America (one of the highest levels of leadership in this nation and thus in this world)! And boy, are they adamant about defending her illegal actions…to the point of belligerence! And yes, they are and were “illegal” actions just as much as undocumented aliens are by that same fact “illegal” aliens!

It is incredulous to me that liberals can’t see the t***h of this…obviously because they choose not to. But then they accuse conservatives of being blindly loyal to their party’s agenda! Wow! What utter hypocrites and disgraceful liars the liberals in this thread have shown themselves to be!

Question: Exactly which official emails did she move to said record *KEEPING* system? Answer: apparently none (or nearly none). That is, at least, apparently until she was subpoenaed to do so and then only after stalling and making excuses (for years?), and even lying in claiming there never even were such, and even then by claiming if there were they were sent to her; which is to obfuscate the fact that as Secretary of State she was among those very few that are ‘the’ ultimately parties that are responsible ‘for’ identifying and determining such information as classified or top secret on first sight…at least certainly more so than those under her authority who she claims sent them to her!

And yet still liberals defend her actions; when in fact they were either completely illegal or utterly irresponsible or both- take your pick.

As soon as ONE official (get it? Nonpersonal) email was found to have not been turned over, on her own initiative, Ms Clinton’s integrity, or at the very least competency, should have been held in question, not justified! We’re talking about the handling of national security secrets that are very likely detrimental to national security here, of which the same careless actions by others have landed them in some serious jail time, let alone stripped them of their security clearances. We’re talking potential treason here, but liberals either don’t get it; or worse knowingly condone it. It seems to suit them just fine as long as someone’s on their page of politics.

What else can we conclude besides that they apparently have no sense of loyalty to this great country and the constitution which makes it great? (Sorry soldiers, as valuable as you are to its protection, the constitution is by far the ultimate source of American greatness, not you or your service. Recent discussions with soldiers have led me to believe they are willing to submit to politicians since they “were v**ed in by the people.” Ergo I conclude that the constitution alone would make this a great country even in the absence of any hostility against it. I’m not at all discounting the service of America’s soldiers to their country; just categorizing it).

So how is it that anyone can view the position that started this thread as anything but a typical, underhanded political deception? By what stretch of a corrupted imagination could Ms Clinton’s actions be considered model, upstanding, open and honest behavior of anyone in public office, let alone one seeking the highest office in the land? Is that what defines leaders in a liberal’s estimation: those who can get away with the most bad behavior across the legal range no matter how wicked? That definition certainly sounds like the qualifications for leaders of desperados, outlaws, gangs and the mob; but certainly not for any, let alone THE, leader of the free world!

Certainly Ms Clinton should be able to delete her personal emails; but that is simply not the issue that anyone seems to be making against Ms Clinton. The issue is her official emails; you know, her “NON-personal, official-capacity-as-Secretary-of-State-US-governmental-business” emails aand/or those of any sub-category thereof. It seems telling in itself that we have to explain to liberals the difference! (Does the quote, “no I did not have sex with that woman” come to mind here as an in anyway similar defensive tactic, namely question the meaning of words rather than comply with the clear intent of the law?) The very fact that both types of emails were on her server and she deleted all of them together at the same time should make it obvious to anyone with any sense of what is right and true that she disobeyed the law, knowingly, purposely and deliberately, end of story.

The fact that liberals, regardless of these obvious facts, staunchly defend her illegal and immoral actions and instead accuse conservatives of bad behavior for even questioning her integrity really, seriously challenges the honor of said liberals to the point of totally nullifying their credibility and in fact exposing them as nothing but liars who have no interest in getting at the t***h, but only in furthering their agenda no matter the consequences. This attitude, not at all coincidentally in my mind, is exactly the attitude that empowers and enables any and all other illegal activities, from taking political contributions from foreigners, including national enemies of state to rape; all of which (and more) the Clinton team have been allegedly involved in yet which means apparently nothing to liberals. For most crimes “aiding and abetting” usually carries close to as much punishment as the actual crime; certainly defending immoral actions should likewise not be considered proper or commendable, as liberals do with each other around here.

I can’t imagine how this observation I’m making could have possibly been made more obvious than in this very thread where liberals have made such ridiculous and insidious claims as the following:





And after pages of legal statues in evidence provided by Doc110 against Ms Clinton’s actions, Jelun still manages to write:
Prove it.

This is as blatantly ridiculous as standing at high noon in open desert, on a perfectly cloudless, sunny day and asking for proof that the sun actually exists. That is, of course, for those who are willing to simply open their eyes and look for themselves at the obvious. But apparently not to a liberal; rather, something that obvious seems to mean, for them, and I guess, all the more reason to doubt it.

The saying “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” comes to mind. For those who don’t get the analogy let me make it clear: “You can put common-sense right in the face of a liberal, but that doesn’t mean by doing so it will fix their willful ignorance of t***h, justice and the ‘American way’.”

Y’all have been duped. Your credibility (with me, at least, and I believe most Common-Sensers around here would agree) is basically null and void at this point (not that it wasn’t long before this thread).

Let me spell out, therefore, one of the main and obvious differences between Common-Sensers and liberals (as has been seen around here at OPP at least, as I h**e to generalize): It is that when conservative politicians do immoral things or go against their promises, those with common sense certainly don’t defend them tooth and nail regardless; rather they jump right in line to condemn their actions right along with the liberals or anyone else for that matter. That is why you see Common-Sensers, (right or wrong but at least according to their conscience), raising issues among those in the “Republican” race (btw-I’m not a republican). That is because Common-Sensers have a better understanding of the saying of The Lord Jesus,

“3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s [party’s] eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own [party’s] eye?...5You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5) [words in brackets added by me for those who would otherwise not be savvy enough to catch the universal application of Jesus’ words. My apologies to my Lord Jesus for taking his words somewhat out of context; for the subject is, nonetheless, personal *and* collective accountability and responsibility which is in accord with the analogy.]

But let a liberal politician get caught in something illegal, and it seems liberals (as anyone else with little or no morals or sense of accountability do) will put up no end of fight to justify their immoralities and illegalities. Finding liberals that will decry bad liberals is about as difficult as finding Muslims who decry any and all terrorism. Apparently liberals can’t even begin to comprehend, let alone accept, that their attitude is reprehensible, and not by any means commendable like they think they are being. This “ends justifies the means” attitude is the only reason I can think of why they continue to commend each other for continuing their mutual reprehensibility in any and every new and creative way they can conceive. No wonder they display such outward show of compassion towards Muslims who have a directive to lie to their adversaries, without remorse, in order to further their cause! At least, that seems to be the main similarity I can see of any apparent accord between them which would justify the liberal’s distaste for identifying them as the unmentionable, (even when applicable) “T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S.” Since when is calling someone what they are a bad thing? If the shoe fits, right? Well, we’re back to “no I didn’t have sex with that woman” kinds of arguments that are really nothing more than subterfuges- deceptions- LIES made by liars (who, when you realize it, can just as easily justify lying TO you as FOR you)! And again the liberals applaud them (I guess) for their ‘progressive thinking’ rather than admonish them for their immorality and injustice against their fellow man! Ms Clinton was the biggest enabler of Mr Clinton’s indiscretions with women; how in the name of anything that is true is this woman then an example of a champion of the cause ‘for’ women? There’s a word for that: hypocrite (yet another word that liberals probably won’t think is being very “pc” no matter how applicable it is)!

And then liberals wonder why Common-Sensers have such a hard time hearing, let alone believing them; which of course they again applaud themselves for a having some sort of higher form of understanding and/or enlightenment.

Wow; God help us! In the name of your Son Jesus the Anointed One; truly the kingdom of God (now and to come) is the only and best Good News available to man! Forgive them Father for (of a certain) they know not what they do!