fauxlaw

That still presupposed it passes the Senate without alteration, so, you're still pre-supposing

dri                   neset                         urt         er  t'a            pa         maàti

to make  the bark of the sun    great  to sail forth  the  right and truth.

[the last line of Plate XXXVII of  The Spells of Coming Forth by Day [The Egyptian Book of the Dead], pg 242. Resources

Because they inherit it from careless parents who have sloppy diets and careless health risks? We are what we put in the pie hole, or otherwise consume, and that may cause inheritable mutation, such as cancer, or it is inherited from more distant family cancer risks, or environment.may have a hand in it. No, God is not to blame, nor the universe. Neither are the total cause of anything.

"They?" Who's they? Do you understand this bill is only through the House, and it doesn't see the president's desk until the Senate also renders their say-so? What's this fire drill all about y'all are setting your hair on fire for?

Can't' wait? Do you want to wait, at least, until the bill is on the president's desk before you set yup hair on fire? It has not yet passed in the Senate, yet? 

Do presidents sign bills before they are approved by the Senate? No. Why are you rushing the calendar? Got a house fire?

Do you want to remember that fiscal 2025, for which the Biden budget, already over-spent, is responsible for government spending, until 9/30/2025 at the stroke of midnight, and, until then, Trump bears no responsibility. That's just the way government set up its fiscal house, ordered, or not, and long before anyone ever heard of Trump.  

Add to that that during the last quarter of any fiscal year, the government sends over-spending into the stratosphere. Remember?

Do you also want to remember that generally, unless specified in the bill [which, remember, as well] has only passed the House, and not yet the Senate] otherwise, does not go into effect until 60 days beyond the end of the current congressional session, this 119th, which ends on Jan 2, 2027. Therefore, we're looking at 
March of 2027, boyo.

So keep your pantyhose on, okay?

There have been numerous debates on the existence of God on DebateArt, both in debate and in forum. I have participated, both by debate and by forum topics. 

For example, if the sentient universe is so smart, why did my house just burn down? A valid question, and what is the typical response relative to blame for the unfortunate event?
Worse, it seems to be about the only time people who believe in a sentient universe need to be reminded that they are supposed to blame the universe for such misfortunes, and not their typical blame-God-game, because, otherwise, they need to remember they have already decided the sentient universe is in charge because, they have also conveniently decided, there is no God. I am personally amused by that reversal of logic so easily entertained that God exists only to be blamed for our misfortune, but not credited for anything.

There is ontological argument that God exists by necessity, but if even that argument settles  justification on a convenience only for blame; that is shameful even for ontology. Ontology is the branch of philosophy which examines existence of entities. Does Earth exist? Do we exist? Does God exist? These are questions answered, among other methods, such as faith, by examining the classification and explanation for things, for entities. One explanation is in the necessity for an entity to exist. But that can be abused, as by considering the necessity only for purposes of blame, which entirely absolves personal responsibility in the equation.  That, I resolve, is entitlement, and nothing more.

Just wonder why you're bent on my paranoia? I'm a very happy guy, with many friends and a loving family. Not at all alone. Stick to your own paranoia, pls.

However, Smith ignores: 

1. Trump, as Exec branch "CEO" does not have authority to impose protection of the Capitol Building [that's the Speaker's responsibility] Whatever she was anticipating was obviously not sufficient. But my observation of Pelosi is that she may be a brilliant fundraiser, but of practical decisions, she is derelict. Hence, the on-camera, deliberate for effect, her tearing of Trump's SOTU Speech. or her decision to have a "do" at the salon, closed for business on her own directive due to Covid. Not a good look in either case, just for decorum's sake.

2. Trump offered Nat. Guard assistance in Capitol security to the Speaker,  anyway. Pelosi refused it.

3. What was in Trump's head, without his direct testimony, is out of bounds to the prosecutor to assume, and that is all Smith is doing with the latter baffoonery of this section of his report. It is said that a good prosecutor needs to acquire the head of a criminal to know what's in it. Jack gets that, but I don't think he has a lot of skill in that realm; evidenced by his poor efforts of prosecution of Trump, who  is not in prison, and nowhere close to it. This, from a department that brags of a 90% plus rate of conviction...

Brevity is the soul of wit. The rest are witless.

Seems the one person who can i.d. all of those types has been all those types at one time or another. But, then again, sitting on a fence, one does see the parade go by without having to participate.

On the other hand, no one gets anywhere fence-sitting, do they?

As Teddy Roosevelt once said [paraphrase] only the one who comes down off the fence and into the frey have any personal knowledge of victory and defeat, and usually experience both.  And perhaps it is only they who ought to be heard.

It seems there is an entire crew on board our ship of state who claim to have evidence of Trump misconduct, not just on 1/6/2021, but from 1/20/2017 to 1/20/2021, and again from 1/20/2025 to the present day [we're 5/22/2025]. "Evidence," mind you, not hearsay, they claim. So, after two failed impeachment convictions, a re-election defeat, and daily gagging to the gagging media, for the last 8+ years, what have they to show for their gagging? And, no, not even just from 1/20/2017, when. the Washington Post declared in headline font that Trump's impeachment had begun, when all he had done since his inauguration. since an hour before the issue of the paper, was to walk in a parade hand-in-hand with his wife, clearly an impeachable event [to a fool]. No, the impeachment began in 2014, when Trump was fired from NBC, and he began public banter that he might run if no one else was going to fix D.C., badly, tragically in need of being fixed. That is how long the S[c]hi[ff]p of Fools of Democrats have expressed their waterlogged hate of Trump, and have yet to give a coherent explanation; not from NBC, to the Cartoon News Network, to Al Green, and all the Pequod shipmates inbetween, from Nancy Pelostomy to Adam Schiff to JoeBiden [with the hand of Oba'a rammed up his blowhole to move his mouth] to Kamalala to AOccasional Cortex to Al Green.

Anyone care to offer justification, because no one seems to have evidence.

Interesting article, thanks for the reference. But I found a commentary within it at the start of Blackman's fourth point, that "...but there was evidence that he [Trump] gave aid and comfort to an insurrection..." but Blackman does not bother to define what that evidence was, and I find the exclusion not to be in his favor. I don't see that this was Jack Smith's own opinion, either. That neither Smith, nor Blackman speak any further to it is curious to me. If someone has that "evidence," why is no one presenting it? Smacks of my favorite idiot, Adam Schiff, who also maintains having all manner of evidence of Trump misconduct, but has yet, after the years since the 1st impeachment conviction attempt, to reveal exactly what it is. If it is legit evidence against Trump, and he continues to hold it within his vest, is he truly the spear he envisions himself to be? What's he waiting for? God's final judgment? I suspect that will shine more light on Schiff than on Trump.

No, there is an ideal type I have already identified and I do encounter, once in a while. It is the standard to which I aspire, and expect of others to do so, as well.

I repeat my #74 post: 

Yes, in Canada, too, both examples, as I have everywhere else. Human nature does not have borders.

I know for a fact that about a dozen of some 800 people charged with various crimes for J-6 actions at the Capitol were charged with insurrection on fed. statute 18 USC §2383, but none were convicted for it.

 I have looked deeply into this whole affair because I am a student of the law, though retired. And, I am skilled in linguistics, by college degree, plus a PhD in history  and in English lit. and have analyzed Trump's J-6 speech, and the statute of 18 USC §2383 [rebellion and insurrection] and find no corollary to make the charges of insurrection the prosecution charged to multiple people, and lost all of them. That was a multiple wing-and-a prayer they hoped would fly, but didn't. And Trump's language was in no way inciteful, not when he says "Go peacefully to the Capitol" A lot of wishful media thinking to the contrary, but journalism rarely teaches linguisitc syntax, but a linguistics program does. Words mean things, and there are fully eight definitions of "fight," and only one of them involves physical confrontation. Trump's syntax was not that, but. saying "fight," journalists, and political pundits will automatically assume the one "fight " definition that fits their own bias on the event, and not what the event actually was. 

Actually, the same goes for Trump's speech in which he allegedly said he would "eliminate the Constitution," but, everybody misses that the whole section of his speech sets up a conditional situation in which if things went south because of rampant misunderstanding and outright violation oof constitutional principles, he would move to replace it, but, the conditions have not yet reached that threshold. Journalists don't know how to diagram sentences anymore, or they would understand what he said. Political pundits, too. We're a nation of dwindling academic skills, in spite of the rising cost of education. We are now educated to accept nonsense concepts, like gender fluidity, let alone climate change. Sure, it changes, but nowhere will we evert find a worldwide climate that stays within plus/minus 1.5 degrees C.

I  prefer to think by  the charges prosecution brought and which they thought they could win. I presume they know what they're doing, and not what they would like to see happen according to the narrative, including the prevalent belief of incitation to riot by Trump, which they did not even charge. Scared rabbits. They failed in their attempt in even in what they hoped they could win, because they buy into the errant belief that they cannot charge a sitting president for crimes. That is just DOJ policy for the last 50 years, not the law of the land.. Cases closed; done deal.

Yes, that is my argument, based on court case results. And the fact that of the several thousand Supreme Court cases ever tried, a mere 10% have been overturned by subsequent Court cases. That's a relative acceptable percentage of success, 90%, to figure the Court, overall, for dealing with what amounts to human frailty of adherence to absolute truth, is flawed. So, you  accept the "fact" of insurrection by hearsay? I would say you're supposed to be smarter than that.

and...? Does that change the facts? Socialism is a failed enterprise because it does not know how to create wealth. Never has, never will, because the foundation is flawed.

Thanks. Socialism does not help itself by throwing bombs ir cannot afford

An irrelevant argument is just that.

My personal sojourns in N. America include Canada, specifically, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal. I observed what I've noted in all four.

Let’s dispel the rumor that Social Security, initially set up in the 1930s in the Roosevelt administration for the benefit of retirees, is a socialist program. It is not “an entitlement,” because all the money paid into the S.S. Trust Fund is out of private industry, not public money. The paycheck stub calls these payments “FICA,” [Federal Insurance Corporation of America], and consist of payments we make out of each personal paycheck from our employers to cover future retirement expenses in the form of monthly Social Security and Medicare payments. Our employers match our paycheck FICA contributions  over the course of our careers, which should be considered as additional income, but slated for investment purpose rather than in-pocket, like a private savings account. 
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33028
So, none of the input is public money, so the payout from the government is not an entitlement; it is our private money, earned by working [ours and our employers’ money]. It is therefore not a socialist program, as many today accuse.
The government is often accused of robbing money out of the Social Security Trust Fund that our private contributions, and those of our employers, feed. The government denies the “theft,” but, they do acknowledge “borrowing” money from it.  To date, as of the end of fiscal year 2024 [September 30, 2024], the government owes the Trust Fund $2.5 trillion dollars. The robbery accusation appears to be a reality given the size of the debt; it is just called “borrowing.” By the way, the congress.gov reference from above stipulates that, by law, the borrowed money must be reimbursed by the government. Past time to pay-up, and given the size of the incurred debt, Congress is, once again, dragging its feet. How about changing the law that allows government to “borrow” from the Social Security Trust Fund in the first place? It is patently unfair to impose this debt on taxpayers whose own future access to Social Security they are currently paying into is at risk to be utterly lost to them.

You totally missed my comment that Joseph ["as was supposed" being the father of Jesus] was known to Luke to not be the son of Helis, but rather, his son-in-law, because Luke knew that Helis was the father of Mary, and was also the descendant of David, therefore, so was Mary. Luke therefore knew that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Get it? Yet?

I have literally lived in 21 separate neighborhoods in five US states and in 30 different countries in N.America, Europe, and Asia. These are my findings in all of them, individually and combined. Where, exactly, would you suggest, is "normal?"

The only profanity I use is $#@%!% or A.I.

oh, and premature efactulation.

Homogenous  is not what I would call humanity, I celebrate our diversity, even if it doesn't fit the paradigm of whatever  ebuc/FLRW are conjuring. Isotropy? Sounds like flat-earth theory, re-imagined as an AI nightmare.

That is precisely what I was thinking. We don't need two of ''em.

Ra, you're ok in my book. Be well, my friend

I wouldn't pass that off so casually. When Noah was alive, as a child, his was the last generation blessed by the Ancient of Days - Adam - before he passed on to the great beyond. And, at that time, there were no doubt fewer nasties messing with our DNA that has had the effect of reducing lifespan. There are just too many nasties now in and around our environment, and too many stupid things we put in the pie hole, or in any number of orifices, or direct into the bloodstream that can cause mutation... 

I have observed in a few young children [very few, but they exist] of 4-6 years of age who have a very high, and apparently innate sense of the divine. I figure they are very old [i.e., experienced and have been around a long time] souls. And I have observed adults, [many, unfortunately], who are petulant children  of 8-10.

You now have me confused, too. In what post io=n this string have I said you're wrong on morality?  I have only made 3 posts in this string, and none mention your being wrong.

I'm. not your paid research tutor, you know, but here:

Luke 3: 23 / 31

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

I seriously doubt God is either a Democrat or a Republican, nor a backstop Justice, so, what betrayal?

Neither you, nor me is his judge. It is his burden to bear, ultimately, isn't it? So we should not get in the way of it. And no criminal court is dealing with thatg matter anyway, so, why are we?

This is why Luke performs his ruse in listing Joseph as the son of Heli in his genealogy of Jesus, because Heli was Mary's father, and only Joseph's father-in-law.

our language problems may result from using bogus English dictionaries. I use the OED, which actually lists, in its unabridged edition, all definitions of all words, not just a few of some words. It's unabridged edition, which I have, is 20 volumes; occupies an entire shelf of my library.

Why toss around race? I find that a useless argument, too. 22 years ago, the Human Genome Project declared genetically, there is no race. It is a social construct, only, having no DNA basis whatsoever.  When are we going to catch up, anyway?

Matthew's genealogy of Jesus traces by listing Jesus as Joseph's, son, whose father was Jacob [Matt 1: 1-16[ etc.  But Luke employs a misdirection. His lineage of Jesus is listed in Luke 3: 23-38, and verse 23 tells us "And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age being [as was supposed] the sun of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the sone of...."

But Heli was not Jospeph's father. Jacob was Joseph's father. Heli was Josph's father-in-law, but the father of Mary. Both Heli and Jacob's linage go through David, according to both gospels. But who bothers reading genealogies? Well, when I say I have read the Bible cover to cover, I mean every word, including genealogies.  By the way, it was Jewish custom by rabbinical law to list genealogies by matriarchial order, not patrilineal. Luke is argued to be a gentile by Paul, not a Jew [Colossians 4] Matthew was a Levite, not of the house of Judah, either.

I seem to remmeberr Obama telling Biden to stop the flow of migrants across the border illegally. Get it done? No.

I seem to also remember Biden telling Harris to stem the migration across the southern border. Get it done? No.

I see Trump rounding up and deporting migrants crossing the border illegally. Get it done? Getting it done.

Bottom line, these migrants who cross the border ignoring checking with  Border patrol, which notice is posted all across the border [north and south] are here illegally. period. Let them wait like others who are trying to enter the country legally, or doesn't anyone here respect the law, anymore?

Karl Marx was an unfortunate soul because he never ran a lemonade stand as a kid, which is the best free-market economy model there is for kids to learn the ins and outs of of running a business with innovation, competition, and success by going thorough a process of being ambitious, planning, and execution. Rinse and repeat. Marx never figured that out, thinking a business consists of management and direct labor, only. limited potential. It is so much more than that, but, having never squeezed lemons to sell a product, he never learned there are more innovative ingredients, and more necessary assistants than just direct labor.

He never learned that of course, you can use other peoples' money, but you're supposed to pay it back, with interest. You are not entitled to it.

Poor, poor, bitter Karl.

Yes, sounds just like Satan; another has-been.

Einstein is correct. What he didn't see is that the "manner of thinking" is hardly an unknown. It's called "The Sermon on the Mount," and it is, by those words alone, among other things, the most perfect socio-political platform ever given. By following its precepts, completely, we would solve every single social failure we currently suffer. We would achieve, in one generation, Jimmy Madison's dream: "...a more perfect union," let alone that of Jesus Christ: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."  By the way, that commentary is smack in the middle of the Sermon [end of Matthew 5] Maybe we ought to take it seriously instead of just talking about what nice words the beatitudes are. They're only two thousand years old. Has any better advice ever come along?

Whether there are sacramental miracles or not, there is no purpose to denying the effectiveness of that ordinance to return our thoughts to Christ.

From whence that notion? Who said there is no sex relations in heaven? In that regard, Islam has the better doctrine,; they're just a bit confused because virgins still need to be left alone until they marry. There is a way for that to happen. I believe the Catholics reject that possibility [I could be wrong - anyone, pls advise].  All things good and proper have a means of accomplishment, I believe without limit. There, we also can have children and raise them. What do we think after all, is our purpose in calling God "Heavenly Father? Because he isn't regally? Nonsense. We are literal children of God. And a Mother, too.

As Winston once said: "Great Britain and America are two countries separated by a language." We sure are. Boot, bonnet, and biscuits.

Aren't Brit "biscuits" what Yanks call a "wafer" or a "cracker?"

Because of his command to Adam and Eve, and the balance of the sexual life forms of Earth to mate, and to the asexual life forms to produce without mating, to "multiply and replenish the Earth."

As the Ian Malcom character in "Jurassic Park" [Jeff Goldblum] said, "Life finds a way."

Well...... there is a clear, biological distinction of asexual "reproduction," one segment of which is called patheogenesis; a type of asexuality. Some living forms can reproduce by parthenogenesis; an embryo is produced from an egg cell without fertilization, also called “virgin birth,” but the process is not possible in any mammal, including the human species. The birth of Jesus cannot be explained by pathenogensis [“virgin birth”] because of the mammalian restriction, and that process will only produce females of the few species capable of the pathenogensis. Further, no human has ever been born by asexuality because, in humans, and most other animal species, that is not a reproductive process, but asexual orientation. 

Yes. Heaven is a construct of kingdoms with an order of defining levels of perfection; the highest level being an infinite construct of all things in their highest level of perfection, and other kingdoms of lesser perfection. All kingdoms over which God's government prevails are better, gloried places than is Earth at its present state. Hell is yet another kingdom, held in its place of outer darkness, It is a kingdom that is in chaos, will never be ordered, and will never overthrow the kingdom[s] of heaven.