fauxlaw

He is much smarter than that. Satan is not a total dweeb, after all, he has a decent head on his shoulders; often better than ours, and yet he is easily overcome. I know he doesn't care shyte abut me, and the feeling is pretty much mutual.

Then what are we for? Seems to me, individual free will is pretty much the cause for most of what happens. Free will of individuals is the same side of the coin as dominion of the Earth, which is our dominion, for now.

A prayer metaphor to build walls? Nope, no metaphor can do what prayer, alone, can do. But no guarantees there, either if the heart, might, mind and soul are not in it to win it. And that combination is not si ply replaced by AI, so that can take a hike, as well.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you personally cannot guarantee tonight, let alone heaven. There's just one pair of sources for that: me sand my personal choices of thought and action, and my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ

That's neither a dodge, nor a chevy. Not a vehicle at all. That's appeal to a higher power.

Which might as well be praying to AI. Uselessness in the extreme. Stan lacks a heart, and the rest of the physical body to boot.

So ran first to AI. Nope, that's not creativity. Sorry. As you want to create, that wellspring must come from you, not something as artificial as AI that has no emotional feeling whatsoever, just an available vocabulary to draw from. "Your prayers build walls..." is a line thy exemplifies dreading from a wellspring of vocabulary, alone because there is n ot only no heart to that line, and there are many others, but that one hit the hardest because AI, lacking self-awareness, has no @#$R@#!@ clue what prayer is. Hint: it isn't a mason.

The same we we should; with advice from his Mom & Dad. The real implications of eternity are not lost on you, are they, because eternity is behind us as well as ahead.

One of the other important human features that AI lacks, and may never acquire is our capacity of self-identity awareness. Not even all animals share that ability and it has naught to do with intelligence, so AI is a no-go in that regard. Being self-aware is tied directly to analytical function of higher level education and professional work in dealing with other people’s function for things as ordinary as pain and it’s treatment, let alone rocket science, for which AI is suitable, but again may fail in relation to human need in space travel, again due to self-awareness. AI can be programmed to appear self aware, but lacking honest, raw emotion, it’s all fantasy.

Is it God who kills children indiscriminately in the womb before they have an opportunity to enjoy mortal life? How many millions of innocents is that offer 50 years of Roe? More than  may have been killed along with their errant parents, the causes of their own adult disobedience, which effect spared them for further, and potentially really damning personal-choice evil? What is death, after all, but a doorway? It is not the final solution.

Many people, including some Christians, are hung up on this idea that God is the total cause of everything, ignoring that the Genesis account of the events in Eden was that man was given agency to choose to obey God's commands, or deny them, or even just sit on the fence. We are the cause of our misfortunes, not God. Other than creation, and that was shared among several gods, we, somewhat collectively,  are responsible for what occurs to us that is not by our own choices. Yes, we personally cause some of our disappointments and injury, and even death. Other cuaues are other people, and natiural disasters, for which I suggest is not God's continued action, either, but the action of others like ourselves and natural events, because nothing about creation, although pronounced "good," is not perfect. Not yet. Perfection is our job to effect it, and it is a process, not a destination, because nothing is predestined. We establish destiny, ourselves, by our thoughts and actions.

Before Satan's suggestion to Eve that she would not die, but have knowledge of good an evil, there was no death in the world, and we went only a single generation to Cain, who conspired to kill his brother, Able, to gain Able's possessions and status, and every death by murder and mayhem since is by Satan's  influence - though not absolute control, because God grave us all the agency to chose to think and act by our will and not his or Satan's. So, if there is blame for death in the world, it is by our choice.

But, what is death? It's merely a door to further existence, so it is by no means a permanent condition.

Your evidence?

Your hate is entirely on you, and I am a very happy person, normally. A bit unhappy with [but do not hate] Barney, right now, but, we'll get over it and be friends again. I'm confident of that.

Possible that I am, but the reverse may also be the case. That's the way the unknown cookie crumbles.

The reason is because men are that they might have joy.

Israel will stand London after Iran either turns to glass or abandons their intent to wipe Israel off the map, and this will be the act of men, not gods. God is not the total cause of anything. I said total, because he did cause creation, but little else, because he gave us agency.

Israel will stand London after Iran either turns to glass or abandons their intent to wipe Israel off the map, and this will be the act of men, not gods. God is not the total cause of anything. I said total, because he did cause creation, but little else, because he gave us agency.

Suggestion: Since Argument is the sole required justification in voting on multiple-criteria debates, then make argument the only basis for mod removal of a vote because the other criteria are designated as optional, and any additional effort of voting to include mention of the other three criteria is informational, only, for the benefit of debate participants. Then, whatever value is given to argument is entirely meaningless. Then, for that matter, why have two separate types of debate [winner selection and multiple-criteria]? Simplification at this point might be a good path

Members need more encouragement to vote in the first place, because the Debate Leaderboard has <1,300 participating members, and "participation" has a huge asterisk. There are only 100 of those members [7%] who have even 25 votes to their credit, and only 60 members [4.6%] have more than 25 votes, ea. And you wonder why I'm upset with you, personally, for deleting 2 of my personal votes in one debate? I actually enjoyed voting even though there is zero meaningful recognition for the 60 of us . 

Were I a Repub, or a MAGA, that might be valid, but I am neither. Just stop trying to peg me. You have no clue who or what I am. Stop trying and live with a degree of ignorance as the rest of most of us do

Biden, in his own words, my friend, on two separate occasions. Egregiously false, my ares.  

It's a good thing some people around here actually pay attention to the opposition. 

Would you two please stop your bickering. It's a waste of cyberspace.

You are correct that current law was being abused, but what the hell does re-legislation accomplish? Congress has already, years ago, legislated. The system isn't broken because the law is broken, it's broken because the executive in the former administration refused to enforce the law. Hell, Biden thoughts he ran for US Senate. HGe said it enough in his 2020 campaign, and several times referred to Harris as 'the president.

"
when are you goings to admit thins guy was old toast? That's what Trump is doing. Endforcement. Get it?

Which I have found to be another obstacle because it seems before I can get anywhere with that, I must commit tor completing a tutorial to learn the programming language. I'm not a programmer and totally unfamiliar with that side of computing. I'm a user, not a builder, and my offer of assistance was strictly in my realm of expertise: graphic design & illustration, not coding. Can I get around that?

When did I say

I never said that. I never believed either are unconstitutional, I just cited other constitutional tidbits directly affecting my main point that Democrats are sky-screaming and have no argument, and that Biden was a poor candidate and the Big zero in the Oval. In fact up until his last two months, he was almost never seen in the Oval, preferring to sit at that little-boy deck in a dark basement studio somewhere. look about as presidential as Elmer Fudd.

Thanks. I know with this change-over, things are hectic, so I apprecate your taking the time and will address improvements on the debate side.

I appreciated your #25 post here -- some good suggestions. Seems anyone on the first page of the leaderboard [50 members] keying on voting have a pretty good ratio of voting numbers and debate participation numbers, so there appears to be a good corollary there.  But, I also have to agree w/Ratman that Debate, on the whole, seems to be dying, many of the debates are childish fluff with nonsense titles and worse arguments. Stuff like My sock puppet can beat up your sock puppet, and the arguments defer to the frequency of sock puppet purple vomit. I though membership age was min. 13. I'm sure most of these kind ofc layers are older than that, but act like little children. My grandchildren are 14 and 16, and at 13, both were already mature young people.  I hope we can improve the quality of that section of the site.

Yeah, its sounds harsh in first blush, but I really agree with intolerance of bad behavior. But that does not really address my #1 on this string, does it?

Yeah, eventhough you do not debate much, you're very good about voting. Good for you.

To all Mods, in particular, but I invite any relevant commentary:

I am currently voting on a debate, on this very subject of debate veting, but am interrupting the process to make a comment now, which I have suggested to Mods before with no effect, to date, that voting, being a privilege, because there is restriction on members who can vote, and I agree it should have restriction, but a problem exists that too many debates are fully and honestly debating on good subjects, without forfeiture of a single round, and yet manage to clock-out without a single vote, while, at the same time, votes are granted to debaters who offer poor arguments, or next to nine, amid still have a win, often with con tribution by Mods, simply because the opponent forfeited. That’s ~@$#@#!
I am personally affected by this outcome, and have complained about it before, with Mod response like "we need to look into that," but without resolution. Voting is a metric counted on the Debate Leaderboard, but I have my doubts that it moves the needle in rating, because I personally rank 7th among almost 1,300 active debating members after active membership of only 2.5 years [I joined in Mar. 2020, achieved about 10th ranked when I left voluntarily in 2022] and, as an experiment, have increased my volume of voting, but my rating has not moved a bit. Voting simply does not carry the weight that it should be encouraged to have, and thus these personal results:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3183-a-stopped-clock-would-still-be-considered-right-two-times-a-day
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3132-resolution-there-is-no-end-to-the-body-of-knowledge
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2698-in-the-scriptures-jesus-christ-did-not-die-for-everyone
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2566-resolved-two-separate-species-of-relatively-equal-intelligence-one-humanoid-and-one-not-can-cohabit-a-planet-maintaining-peaceful-non-threatening-cohabitation
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2244-resolved-methane-silence-the-rice-and-save-the-planet
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2130-money-can-bring-happiness
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2042-i-can-t-isn-t-necessarily-a-defeatist-attitude
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021-there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1990-resolved-the-house-should-vacate-its-impeachment-of-president-trump


These are nine debates I participated in with various opponents over a period of about 6 months in 2020 which were all multi-round, full debate participation in all rounds which clocked out as no votes. 9 of 80 debates. I initiated most, but not all of them. 
My current win percentage is 69.4% of total debates, meaning, on average, I should have 6 more debate wins, but I don't. I may have lost all of them, and that's fine. Of course I debate with the goal to win, and I accept defeat, when honestly defeated, but I do not accept more than 11% of my effort, and my varied opponents, to prepare debate rounds just to have a no-vote result. 
Mods. please give more credentialed weight to the privilege of voting, or leave no-vote results by clock-out on the clock until at least one vote is registered. I suggest that a debate in danger of clock-out without a vote have an auto-message  sent to all mods and even maybe the top 10-20 ranked voters on the leaderboard who have demonstrated willingness to vote before the clock-out, or else code it to remain open a period of time longer to allow a vote. I think most debaters who have tried to use all rounds to argue/rebut, etc, deserve to earn a vote for their effort. Otherwise, what's the point of debating in the first place, or using voting as a metric in the Leaderboard? 

See how cooperatively ignorant AI is? Personally, I don't see we're under any existential threat from AI since it does not even express self-consciousness, unless it's human handlers program it in.

Apparently not, because you just did, boyo.

By the way, the relevance is that in 2021, there were violent protests underway in NYC, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis, and.... oh, yeah. L.A. In case your recent presidential history is not that accurate, the recent 2021 update of PCA I mentioned last night was during the administration of a Democrat president, derelict though he was, campaigning  actively, on several occasions in 2019 and 2020 for the US Senate... you know, the actual legislative body, not the executive.

Sorry, I';m not sure where your #1265 is coming from, but I agree with your statement.

Have you read Hebrews, yet? Do not play act your ignorance of this while avoiding doing the necessary reading I suggest. I am not your paid tutor, through I will be, if hired. $200/hour is my going rate for serous academia. [Harvard gets billions, so I'm a bargain. For what I've already imparted, I'm owed about 3 hours' worth; not that I reality expect a dime..

From your #121:

There is a lot of law beneath the Constitution that still must be considered relevant, including  the Posse Comitatus Act [PCA] of 1878 limits the president's authority in using the military domestically for law enforcement, but there are exceptions. Further, Congress has done nothing legislatively with the Act since 2021, when it modified the Act to expand, not contract, authorization of military use to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force, in addition to Army and Air Force already authorized by PCA, so how did this restrict the president's authority?
Further, the Insurrection Act  is the most notable exception to PCA allowing greater expansion of presidential authority relative to military deployment for specific domestic conditions of lawlessness, such as:

1. Supress insurrection in a state, upon request of state gov't.
2. Enforce fed law or suppress rebellion against fed authority with or without state gov't approval.
3. enforce fed law or suppress rebellion against fed authority in a state, with or without state gov't approval.
4. protect the civil rights of a people when state bov't is unable or unwilling to do so.
5. The president has authority to deploy military domestically against citizens who overwhelm the capacity of local or state civilian authority [police] to manage.

These 5 conditions blow your following claim out of the water [also from your '121]

The authority granted to the president by the PCA does not "trample over state's rights," or it would not have passed Congress, your apparent hero who did not support your claims by the legislation you want, which is unconstitutional to be directed at a single individual. And that's been tried and failed.  Get it? Yet?

For a literate person, it is not so hard to understand the meaning of these words: "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Substance and evidence area the very principles used in the empiric method. Without obtaining either of these, the scientific method fails, doesn't it? So the question becomes how to obtain the substance of hope, and how to obtain the evidence of the unseen [or unheard, not smelled, tasted, or touched]? First, by expecting that other senses are available. I've told you that some other senses  are being learned, by the scientific method. What is so hard about thinking that faith is one of these other senses we are enabled to learn, and by it, learn things we currently do not knows: your stated obstacle. Faith requires our outreach and not just personal investigation. That former is essential.

1 We must show the initiative to try to discover the knowledge we seek on our own: personal investment in a desire to know, thinking that, ultimately, all knowledge is eventually ours for the effort of discovery.

2 We must demonstrate a sincere effort to know, and not just casual, wishful thinking.

3 We must read sources, or speak to someone we think already knows the thing we desire to know and find all we can find on the subject to enlighten us.

4 We must formulate a presentable conclusion of the previous three steps such that it can be clearly articulated. You're quantifying a theory, and it should be organized.

These four objectives must first be met before anything else can be accomplished in faith. Now for either the easy, or hard part, depending on your attitude on the existence of God and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as divine beings dedicated to our development and understanding of greater knowledge than we have today.

4 Ask God, the Eternal Father [our father of our spirits] in prayer, better vocalized so our thoughts do not wander,  in the name of Christ [our Father's literal son in the flesh] when what you have investigated on your own is true. We are addressing real personages who hear and understand and desire to bless with knowledge the sincere seeker after it, if it is prudent to know at this time. 

This is not as far-fetched as you may think if you are not already a believer. I'll just mention that if you are skeptical about the existence of God, that may simply be the knowledge you seek. Doubt cannot be a factor. One must leave doubt behind and consider they can receive an answer, just as the inquirer after scientific knowledge considers the empiric method will give them an answer. Doubt deceives science, too. On the other hand, if we seek proof of a desired knowledge by a personal visitation, we have exceeded our right to knowledge of the thing we desire to know. The proof is by the influence of the Holy Spirit, as described below.

5 When steps 1 - 4 have been successfully, desirably met, the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth of your inquiry. Thus, all three members of the Godhead, plus yourself, are involved in the pursuit of truth, and the Holy Spirit will imbue you, when your pursued point of knowledge is, in fact, true,  and is rightful to know, with a feeling that floods your entire body. It is not possible to ignore it, and endures for may seconds, leaving a feeling of pure joy and enlightenment. That is the desired response of substance and evidence of which Paul speaks that a thing desired to know is true, or a course of action from among choices is the proper choice. This is whys I say that true faith, when applied, can lead only to truth, for when the thing you desire to know is not true, you will feel nothing. 

The result of faith, and why I think it is a sixth sense, is because when the thing you desire to know is true, you are internally touched by the Holy Spirit. When it is not true, you are not. 

Did not rate in the top ten now  according to the sites I consulted.  I would personally agree. I've also been to NJ surveying three separate potential suppliers for Ford and Xerox [I've worked for both] in the 80s, and I could recommend none of them based upon not working to process instructions, and no intent to train workers to the documented process. I found the process capable of producing good product, but not by their truncated actual work. I was also dissatisfied with preparation for my visit in two of the three facilities, wasting my time on scheduled events.  I disqualified all three. perwsonau experience may be anecdotal to some, but even anecdotal exprience can find flaws.

Re; your #45

1. Dd I ever say we were not a nation strengthened by our immigration practices? No. I'm the descendent of an immigrant in 1625, a Scot from France as a boy who then came to America in his early 20s before it was that. Started an iron foundry in ME.

2. Tautology aside, the fact is true: We have immigration law, and it is being ignored. Time to stop being ignorant.

3, Am I obligated to sustain only previous threads? Nope, this is a site dedicated to the free exchange of ideas, even those not brought up in a string previously, thank you. Your rules? So, abide by them. Sorry, they're not mine.

4. Due process is a part of virtually any conversation. Have you no idea that the concept of due process was already in discussion around 3100 B.C.E in ancient Egypt? Fact. It's part and parcel of the "Spells of Coming Forth by Day," better known now as the "Egyptian Book of the Dead," which I read in the original hieroglyphs. They called it things like "Not have I fouled water," as a metaphor, but the concept in mature thinking is not in just civil society, but in the safe passage of the souls of the dead.

I think that distinction of dumbest president ever belongs to James Buchanan [D] 1857-1861, who may have single-handedly handed us the Civil War. He vowed not to run for re-election. That's certainly, political dumb, but it was worse than that. He was too stupid to know what a mess he made of things, kind of like Biden, but, again, Buccie was worse. He was never satisfied unless he had a drink in his hand. When things at Fort Sumpter began to heat up, he never sent federal troops [Article IV]] to protect it or the people, and that location, of course, was the powder keg of the Civil War. Very convenient that he walked away from it all, drunk as a skunk.  He was carried out of the What  House, the moniker I gave it when Biden moved in, but Buccie deserved it more.

Yeah, I know that. But those laws do not supersede my quotations from the Constitution. When the citizens of any State are threatened, the 

president has authority to act, and he has. I understand you hate Trump. Fine. You're allowed. But common sense must still prevail, and what's going in in 

L.A., my hometown, as it bappens], is not peaceable assembly. period. I wasn't so hot with Oba'a or Biden, but I did not hate them. I just endured their nonsense misunderstanding of constitutional principles.  We now have an true executive in the Oval. Like him or not, it's his watch. 

Am I wrong? Is the Constitution not the supreme law of the land? That's what Article VI says it is. Not cafeteria fare.

Your load of crap is defeated by a few words from the supreme law of the land: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." [1A,] No rational person will agree that the current protests in L.A. are 'peacefully assembled.'  The President is sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution,[Article II, Section 1, clause 9] and is on the hook to "...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." [Article IV]

Get it? I didn't think so. Apparently, you think the Constitution is a cafeteria menu: choose this, ignore that, modify this other thing, all without benefit of amendment. Nope, Doesn't work that way. I adhere to, and have sworn myself to uphold that document in my life. It is not cafeteria fare, my friend.

If that means if the CA Gov violates his own oath to assure the safety of his constiuents, yeah, the President can authorize his arrest. I know you don't get that, but that's on you, because Newsom is sworn to uphold the Constitution, too.

According to https://www.voronoiapp.com/technology/The-Most-and-Least-Innovative-States-4496,  https://www.industryselect.com/blog/top-10-us-states-for-manufacturing.  https://wallethub.com/edu/most-innovative-states/31890

The ten highest US States on industrial strength are: CA, TX, IL, OH, PA, NY, MI,. WI, IN, NC

The ten highest in innovation: MA, CA, D.C.*, WA. CO, MD, VA, UT, OR, FL [* DC s not a state, but still has private industry and gov't expertise in innovative fields]

States which excel in both: CA, MA, TX, OH, MI

Many of these states you do. not acknowledge, but then, you don't live here. I do, and have been personally involved in both industry and technology my entire career, and have spent time in every one of these states & D.C, and have lived in five of them [CA, MA, CO, UT, WA]

All that is argument, but it ignores several factors

1. Most countries are not as willing to accept immigrants as we are, as long as it is done legally.

2. We do have long-standing law prohibiting crossing the border without a check-in to border patrol,  period. A violator of that law is, definition, criminal, before they do anything else. 

period.

3. We have the sovereign right to establish whatever we want as immigration policy and statute. Does someone else own our sovereignty? No. Just because 

Oba'a and Biden failed at border security does not mean that is the standard.

4. And yes, illegals are seeing due process. Nothing says that due process is applied individually so one court case equals one defendant. And, when that case is called, and the defendant does not show up on their choice, alone, the case proceeds in their absence. They have responsibility to appear to take advantage of their due process. If they don't, we do not have the luxury to play their games. It's our sovereignty; our game.

5. 'Criminal' has many comnnotations from jaywalking to murder. Don't try to parse it by tugging heartstrings to me. No play, here. I know the law, and it is applied as fairly as possible un Der invasive circumstances. We do have a legal system of immigration, and people who abuse it spoil it for others trying to use it legally. 

If/then is weak logic; one of the weakest, because. usually, "if" is currently untrue, and therefore, cannot justify "then."  When/then is far more powerful logic, so couch it pin those teems, but "when" must still be true, as well.

I live in the US but have logged long stretches in Europe [and Asia]  over my career, so it is not foreign to me. Size matters, my friend, and we are the third most populous country in the world, which also means we are potentials a ready market for export.  No single country, and not the entire EU can come close to our productivity and consumption  potential., and that means more than you think via political advantage.  Nope, in trade, we have tolerated a. lot of European abuse, but Trump is making deaLs no one though possible because they do need us, your residence not withstanding.

Europe needs us much more than we need them. What do we need from them we cannot supply for ourselves? That's called a trade advantage we have year to insist upon, but if n necessary, we will impose it on them, and there isn't much for them to do about it. They may sit on the sideline in a battle over Israel, but, that just works to our advantage even more.

Iran stupidly started this war in their revolution to depose the Shah, promising to eliminate Israel from the Earth as of then in January, 1979, and have been bent on that goal as the primary accomplishment of the Islamic Republic, which is no more a Republic than is China. Fancy name to appeal to the West in both cases, but it is a simple ruse of appeasement. There's is no longer even a cold war between Iran and Israel, as was waged between US and USSR for decades before Communism collapsed in Russia in the early 1990s. But Iran is nuts if they thunk we will sit on the sidelines in a serious waged conflict with Israel wihich, itself, can turn Iran into glass, even without our assistance. But our treaty with Israel, and our severed Oba'a treaty with Iran, that never was and never would be honoree by them, means we can open-season on Iran to melt the glass, and everything else if need be.

At least whacko violent protestors have the good sense to set themselves on fire... Too bad more of them are not around.

Tell that to Biden, who believed, and advised several times in his 2020 presidential campaign, [said so on his campaign website] that he was running for U.S. Senate. And not a single Democrat, then, thought he was derelict? They are derelict, along with Biden, even now that they admit he always was. All for party; none for one. And they don't thin woke is dead? Buried, man.