fauxlaw

The Democratic Party's "Big Tent" is ripping. Three big rips, in fact, at least, and there are tributaries from the main rips as divergent as are the Party factions. 

One rip dates from the day the Party decided to put Biden out to pasture one month prior to the National Convention, in July of '24. Not to mention that one month before the party's dismissal was Biden's disastrous debate against his expected election opponent, Trump.

The Democrats offered their intent, after the '24 election loss, to do a complete autopsy of their loss. The autopsy never happened. Or, if it did, they fired the scriptwriter and hired a cartoon character to write a serious script that blamed [and still does] everybody but a Democrat. Chiefly, the blame lands on Trump, who is the decided villain [who used to be a Democrat!]. And their election loser, Kamala Harris, currently leads the pack of pre-Primary and pre-Convention candidates for the '28.

That leads us to the second big rip. It's called "Democratic Socialists of America." You already have my honest opinion of that organization ion 23 parts elsewhere on this Forum. No need to say more, except that as of now, the DSA is the voice of the Democratic Party. The naysayers within are a couple of mice. Usually, donkeys do not have the legendary fear of mice, as is the elephant meme. The Donkey meme is brave and territorial against smaller animals. Mice are so small, however, that the donkey kick lands far above the level of a mouse, so... mouse survival, but not necessarily mouse victory. 

A third rip is becoming a thing just when we thought its demise was final. It's called Woke 2. But, since woke is past tense, no need to describe it generatively any further. It goes the way of all MeToo's; down a dusty road to oblivion. MeToo was just the downfall of a once very strong feminism. Now, feminism doesn't know the definition of a Woman. That's a little over half the population of humanity. There's a tent rip for you!

The current occupation of the Democratic Party by DSA is an association of convenience, because DSA is, by design, a one-generation animal. Since Communism does not know how to create wealth, but only spend it, along with its weaker cousin, Socialism, it will spend all available money made by others, and will crumble as all C/Sisms do. But that leaves donkeys still kicking too high at mice. What attempts to infiltrate Demcratism after the Socialists fail is, as yet, unknown. Whoever it is, it's just another big rip.

re: your #1

Would your mathematics exposé of perpetual motion of repetition possibly allow equally repetitive, or regenerative big bangs over a potential infinate display of the universe?

One being wrong does not imply the other is correct, which is what he seems to be missing

The belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago has even less support than the Big Bang.

Two excellent points. Well done

Debby:

The Big Bang is not part of Christian theology.

Curious that it was a Roman Catholic priest who proposed the concept of an ever-expanding universe in 1927, which became the kernel of the eventual theory of the Big Bang, so you ought to be careful about what you claim without taking a bit of time to research. It's so easy to ask questions and obtain scholarly support for your theories. What's a priest doing asking questions of universal theory? Father LeMaitre must have been a guy unafraid of answers. Who says anyone can't ask questions? You might take a hint and stop expecting that if it isn't in the Bible, it must not exist. By contrast, I even ask questions about what the Bible contains, and what it doesn't, because it is not and should not be a singular source, even though I have read the whole thing more than once, and am currently engaged in a fifth read.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Georges-Lemaitre

In your #181, you criticized FLRW: "Your magical, mystical math calculations are your belief system, not a scientific method explanation, so astronomer astrologers deceiving vulnerable people."  Magical, mystical math is a curious accusation, but then you go off the rails with "astronomer astrologers." Show me, please, a present-day-practicing astrronomer astrologer. It is well known that some astronomers of the past practiced astrology, producing charts and other paraphernalia of astrology, such as Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe produced horoscopes, but today? No. I suppose anything is possible, but the practical fact is that no well-educated astronomer today is known to practice astrology except in a theoretical closet. That one takes away any credibility you've been trying to establish in this thread.

I have a stool in a corner, and you have a double-cone illustration one can print and give you to roll into that shape and wear...

Either that, or have some proper respect for science and religion.

No, your only problem was that at 6, you were likely not yet aware that your older brother could have used quantum entanglement to climb the light beam, and still survive even if you did turn off the flashlight.

The top 5% pay 60% of income taxes in spite of your claim.

The top10% pay 70%. The top 50% pay 97%

That’s already in excess of fair share

El Saed el said billionaires should not make money on their money. Really? Really. Granted, investment is a privilege, not a right. Got to have money to invest it. But no current law of the land prohibits anyone from investment. Do you think otherwise?

Does Sharia law prevent it?

Asking for a friend.

Debby,

you did not understand anything I wrote re: domicile, did you? That is standing law from 1790 and does not need to be repeated constitutionally to remain in force.

Unless it's changed since I spent time in Singapore in the 80s and 90s for weeks at a time in a dozen or more trips there, they didn't even sell chewing gum to keep used gum off the sidewalks. Toilets were mandated to be flushed, always. Some places in the world [I've been to about 30 countries in my business and pleasure travels] habitually don't flush. I started calling Singapore "Disneyland," because it seemed to represent Singapore's version of a sanitized Main Street, USA.

Justice was swift there, too. I once flew there for a 9-week stay, going through Hong Kong. On my flight was a Chinese woman who boarded in Hong Kong, and in customs, I watched Customs agents take her into custody when she went through carry-on baggage check. A saw later on the news that she'd been arrested with a kilo of heroin in her bag. I continued watching the news reporting on her daily trial. She was tried, convicted, and ultimately executed within 6 weeks of our arrival for possession with intent to distribute in Singapore.

All the ancient prophecies of Apocalypse,

Yes, I understand what you mean, but that concluding "book" of the Bible was unknown to John to be the concluding "book" of any collection of writings of the Gospels, etc, that was not assembled to be any collection in his time. That assembly was effected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE at the behest of Constantine, who wanted peace and order in his Empire and figured a unified religion would help accomplish that. It was the Council who decided John's Ἀποκάλυψις should conclude the assembled books. Any discussion by John that none of it should have any word added or removed spoke to his Ἀποκάλυψις and to no other book. Certainly not an assembly he did not envision. So John may have been referring to the end of his own age with the fall of the Roman Empire, thought by many, no doubt, to endure as long into the future as any man had reason to assume it endured from the past. Nope.

I agree, when Jesus returns, there will, indeed, be a massive restructuring of governments of the Earth to pass on in favor of the government he, Jesus Christ, will establish, worldwide. That will, no doubt, cause many who will lose their power and prestige to gnash their teeth, at the very least. Not that it will do them any good; Christ will prevail, and those who believe on him and act by his Word.

No, I don't claim to be a qualified translator. I can do some, quite a lot between English and French, but not as a professional. And my vocabulary isn't sufficient in Greek, though I can read it with a handy dictionary for vocabulary I don't know.

No doubt, BAS happens.

Sidewalker,

Nope, not about you. I don't even remember where the article was from that prompted my post, but it didn't cite its source material, either, so this may not even be real.

Or, is you "me" Baron Trump. No indication in the article it's about him, but I've seen enough evidence of affection between Melania and Trump.

Thanks a lot for your help. This site keeps you busy, I'm sure. In the meantime, it's probably best to use standard practice of writing out a long post outside and copy/paste it in.

The 6-3 SCOTUS decision in Trump v. Barbara [2026], the case re: Trump's E.O. to end birthright citizenship misread the language of the 14th Amendment's clause 1, called the "citizenship clause." The 14A was ratified in 1868, after its introduction to the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard [R-IL] in 1866. It reads

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

They also ignored that their interpretation is based on a misinterpretation by the Fuller Court in the case, United States v Wong Kim Ark [1898]. Both the Fuller and Roberts Courts misunderstood what was domicile law from the Naturalization Act of 1790, and older English common law shortly developed after the Magna Carta in 1215. This is truly ancient law, but still binding law as of 1868, and until the flaws 1898/2026.

And many of you are schoolchildren who think historic law is, well, histrionic, but not relevant today. In a word: you're wrong.

In English common law, citizenship of England was coincident, virtually identical to domicile; the legal term for having a permanent residence, a "home." If one had a permanent home in England, one was a bona fide citizen of England. As the early colonists of what became America were primarily British citizens, they were citizens of the same, having started a colony by the immigrants of the Mayflower in 1620, and they brought this common law with them to govern the Colonies: domicile = citizenship. They were, in every way, "subject to the jurisdiction of" the English King. Advance to 1776, when the Colonies declared their independence from England. They became their own sovereignty: the United States of America. All white men who had a permanent domicile in a Colony/State were citizens. 

Advance to 1790, the declared States were near the close of their effort to establish the Constitution. In that year, the Continental Congress established the 1790 Naturalization Act, which had three primary statutes:

1. All white residents with a permanent domicile of at least two years of residence therein, and of good character, were citizens of the United States.

2. All naturalized white residents with a permanent domicile, of at least two years of residence therein, and of good character were citizens of the United States.

3. All children of white citizens, and naturalized white citizens with a permanent domicile and of at least two years' residence in the U.S., and of good character, were citizens of the United States.

Observe, again, the necessity of a permanent domicile. In 1795, the two-year minimum was extended to five years. 

Advance to 1866 and Jacob Howard's introduction of the 14th Amendment, only the fourth since 1790's coincident ratification of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, so this amendment business was still relatively revolutionary congressional action. However, Jacob Howard was well aware of the conditions of necessary permanent domicile as a necessity for citizenship, and the newly ratified 13th Amendment, freeing the slaves, allowed them to acquire permanent domicile and gave citizenship to them not even one year previous. Congress did not need a description of these necessities of permanent domicile, nor a clarification of what "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant in composing the 14A. Both were settled law for 76 years, at least. 

Let's review, again, since the Fuller Court ignored it, as well as the recent Roberts Court with three exceptions [Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch] earlier this year.

The 14A citizenship requirement was stipulated as a two-factor requirement, not just one:

1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

2. subject to the Jurisdiction thereof"

This is a matter of understanding detailed English grammar, namely, the function of those damn little conjunctions, like "and." Speed reading easily overlooks them, but, legally, they have value and precedence of their own. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only Justice on the Roberts Court with an English degree.

In 1866, because the necessity of permanent domicile was still an active legal statute to earn citizenship, along with a residency minimum and naturalization for immigrants and their children, these details were not deemed necessary to include in the amendment. As said, it was already codified federal law. 

Advance to today. The 14A is still in force as originally ratified. Federal immigration law still stands, based on the necessity of permanent domicile as in 1790. Illegal migrants are subject to U.S. law for violation of law upon entry into the U.S. However, by breaking the law by their illegal entry, they should not be considered "of good character," nor do they have a permanent domicile. If they have an American sponsor with whom they will live, the permanent domicile belongs to the sponsor, not the migrant[s]. And, having no domicile, their country of sovereignty is that from which they came, not the U.S. Therefore, children born to these migrants while in the U.S. are also subject to their parents' nation of sovereignty, not the U.S. Birthright citizenship is not the law of the land. Whew! I beat the school bell.

Debby,

Are you going to keep repeating that lie? Trump, the man, has never filed personal bankruptcy. And 7, now? Do you have any scholastic citation other than MessNBC, or Cartoon News Network for the claim, or is it out-of-butt?

Trump Org [not Trump, personally, and no, it is not the same thing] has filed only Chapter 11 on several occasions, which is not a personal filing category.

Get it. Yet?

Thanks, Kohai.

Yeah, sometimes I write a piece before posting in DA/DC, but this time I did not. Lesson learned.

I just read an article online about a new "thing" among twenty-somethings, whatever generation that is. I haven't a clue, and don't really care. The idea is non-romantic child raising. Both married and unmarried couples are bearing and raising children with no romantic association between the "parents." One or the other, or both may not even be the parent.

It is a wonder to me that these "parents" think the children are not adversely affected by not seeing and experiencing a romance between the "parents." This is worse than a child being raised by a television or the Internet, let alone anything/one else doing the raising care. The Greeks have seven words that detail the definition of the one English word, "love," but in this case, the children have no clue of even the Greeks' seven words, let alone our one. At least we who are native to English know there are adverbs and adjectives to further define the root word, but where the root, itself, is denied by the parents, how can they possibly think they define and represent "family?"

Sounds like pure communism to me. Ever read Marx? If not, "family" is a primary target, to be replaced by an equally insufficient and unloving parent, spelled g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t.

This isn't new, after all. This aspect of "parentage" has been around since the Tree of Knowledge.

I was writing a post I just researched for two hours before composing it, wrote it, and clicked to publish, and I was told I had to be signed in to post. I was signed in already. Now the text is gone to smithereens. Much appreciated. This has happened to me before. Why should my time in the site be terminated while I am actively on site? I understrand being signed in only lasts for a certain period of time that appears to count down in days. But can't the system first determine if one is currently on site before closing the connection? Please see about correcting a needless interruption.

According to the prophecies, [your #32]

What prophecies? When? By whom?

Debby:

But with Trump having declared personal bankruptcies over times. 

You need a lesson in personal research; Do it. https://www.abi.org/feed-item/examining-donald-trump’s-chapter-11-bankruptcies

All of Trump's bankruptcies have actually been Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcies, not personal. Chapter 11 is only business, not personal. Trump Org is a business, not him, personally. Since the 1880s, corporations have been their own entity; they are legally persons, not things. Get it? Trump Org is over 530 separate companies, of which 4 or 6 [there is an argument over the number] filed Ch. 11. That is still, worst case, a 99% success rate. Can you claim as good a record?

Debby;

It is Trump that wants to remove birthright citizenship. That violates the constitution.

There is no constitutional violation by wanting to seek to change what is vague language in the 14A. He knows that rewquires an amendment for clarification. Just is there is no violation of law to question the outcome of an election.

This discussion is all well and good, but as long as gov't spending outpaces revenue, the debt will never be reduced to zero. I don't care how much taxes increase on anybody, rich or poor, that increase will be eaten by interest on the debt plus rising spending. We fare far better economically, even the poor to middle class, when investment by the top third of the tax-paying population feeds the economy at the bottom line: GDP. About 37% of us - not enough - invest in various accounts outside of retirement plans. I participate in both investment and charity. The latter always exceeds in monthly commitment.

Is this to say that not any words or phrases in the bible are interchangeable?

No, that is way too broad a statement. However, we sometimes run into issues of language simply because no language shares an exact lexicon with another language. For example: "love." One word in English is seven in Greek. To equate to Greek, English must add adverbs or adjectives to equate to the variations extant in Greek. In the Bible, seldom are these qualifiers added to the text in translation, just the one word "love." Sometimes, the surrounding context does lead one to know of which type of love is discussed, but when that is missing, we're left to either ignore it, or, seek to find the answer. We are given, biblically, the means to try to find out, and it is best done on our knees in serious prayer.

Debby;

I am speaking to more than the practice of ideal thoughts and actions. I am speaking to the acquisition of knowledge gained by means not currently recognized by empirical science.

This post addresses only the Holy Bible, but the title is true, regardless of religion.

Simply put, belief is limited by function. In particular, no function is necessary with belief. We can believe whatever we want, mainly due to our literal free agency. I can believe there are Na'vi [tall, slender, blue-skinned humanoids] on the moon, Pandora, but I am not compelled to do a bloody thing about that belief, or any other. Belief can be a simple noun or verb, "believe."

However, the distinction of faith, as opposed to belief, is that faith demands our personal commitment to action, or it is not faith. Above, belief was shown to be, as for personal commitment, more noun than verb.

Both words are used in scripture. However, they cannot and should not be interchanged by random choice. In fact, in Greek, in the New Testament, at least, [Koine Greek is the apparent original written language], words are used to try to equate the use of one to mean the other. Examples:

1. Philippians 1:29 "For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake," In Greek, the bolded Greek word is: πιστεύειν [pisteuein], "to have faith." This translation is substantiated by the added phrase "... but also to suffer for his sake." adding action to the conviction by faith.
2. I John 4: 1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." In Greek, the bolded Greek word is: πιστεύετε [pisteuete], "do not believe." This translation 'believe" ignores the Greek root pisteu... which should have translated as "Have not faith," that is, do not act on the word of every spirit...
3. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "...because God chose you⁺ from the beginning unto salvation in the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" In Greek, the bolded Greek word is: πίστει [pistei], "[by] faith This translation 'believe" ignores the Greek root pistei... which should have been translated as "[in] faith."

All of these translations of the Bible where "faith" ought to be the word used, use instead "belief," or proper noun/verb distinctions of same. This is not correct, because the Greek root πιστεύ [pisteu] means expected action on faith in every instance. It is by personal action on the suggestion given that confirms the truth of that in which faith was applied.

if 1 religion is true another that directly contradicts can absolutely be true at the same time is an evil most heinous hoax.

Absolutes like this alleged philosophy disconnect can be shown to be a sleight-of-hand attempt. I have investigated over 20 of the world's religions [regionally, east, west, north, south] and discovered they all agree with what is often perceived as uniquely Christian: "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." aka "The Golden Rule." I have posted these direct comparisons elsewhere on this site, and will not repeat here. I find components of truth and error in just about every religion in the world. To claim a direct opposition in all religions is debunked just by this one comparison. There are literally many other comparisons. Neither philosophy nor religion is of such exacting language as you appear to expect, mainly because virtually all religious and philosophical texts are written by fallible men and women, none of whom were, are, or will be perfect while earth-bound. So, let me be precise; the claim that the Holy Bible is infallible is demonstrated in error just by reading the volume in full, cover-to-cover. Sorry, but that is so. Still, I believe the Bible to be the word of God, and can, by the admonition of Paul in Hebrews, specifically in Hebrews 11, and also James 1: 5, determine truth from error. It's a simple formula: read in faith [that word is a verb more than a noun] - ponder - pray in faith - wait for the gift of discernment from the Holy Spirit. It works. Period.

To Sidewalker:

a deceptive God.

Why do you think God is deceptive? Has He told you such? I'm sure other people have, but what is their source for that opinion? Other people? And their source?

Truth must be able to be demonstrated by empirical evidence. Science, to date, recognizes only 5 sources of information reception: our five senses. I have said in this thread, and others, that I am certain that other senses are available to us that science, one day, will acknowledge. What, then? Still a deceptive God?