fauxlaw

The haiku is a Japanese format of poetry in which the first and third lines have 5 syllables, while the second has seven. Its compact structure is still able to tell a complete, simple story. There can be slight variation in structure, such as the following of mine:

The vineyard leaves,

Surely, the Summer is at hand,

Fruit is near at hand.

The last word of the first line is intended to be a verb, not a noun.

Is this a one-on-none conversation, or what? If it was not already a cereal, this might be defined as fruit loops. Or a meta-mucigelatenous nose.

It is always careless to pick a verse out of scripture, and out of context, as done above, and then make a claim as Stephen did that these were innocent lives lost. In context, in verse 5, we find the rebuttal to Stephen's claim of innocence: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." [Genesis 6: 5] In what interpretation of verse 5 declares that these people were innocent? The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is replete with caution that the continued conduct of wickedness results in destruction. Of course, one would need to read and carefully study, always, what is being written, and to not pick and choose as if this were a cafeteria menu, as Stephen is wont to do. Until he decides to do a proper job of research, his questions will be fruitless to answer.

Verse 2 says the sons of God married the daughters of men. Rape is not mentioned but by your interpretation. Dense.

Pure in heart: purity of intent. Purity of purpose. Purity of results. Purity in treatment of others, which I offered in my post #2. As I noted from the Papyrus of Ani, “I know myself, I know myself, I am One with God.” “May thou be at peace with me, may I see thy beauties, may I advance upon the earth, may I smite the ass, may I crush the evil one…” To know one’s self and to be one with God is being pure in heart. Ani, the Theban scribe for whom the Ru Pert em Heruwas written, and elsewise called “The Book of the Dead,” The Coming Forth by Day,” and “The Papyrus of Ani,” is an adequate reference to this particular beatitude as offered by Christ, but the idea of purity of heart obviously pre-dates Christ, and, so what.
 
As for the Essenes, your Qumran folk, I’ve never seen a reference that they were called “the pure in heart,” although it is plausible they would accept the description. They left Jerusalem in the early 2ndcentury BCE due to their conflict with the second temple rite of that period, which they considered corrupt and sought to leave to restore the order and piety of the first temple rite. Cite your source of their link to “pure in heart.”
 
You claim the Christ taught of the Qumran community with his various “code” messages. Cite that, as well. The fact is among the scrolls from the Dead Sea, the essential record of the Qumran community, not once is Jesus Christ mentioned; indicative that, though some claim it, Jesus, himself, was never among them. https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/41/2/3
Sorry, that is a members only site, a suggested membership. See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-new-testament/
How about citations of your sources of the claim of the Jesus codes to which you refer in your #14. I see a lot of pontification from you; little sourcing. Research is the name of the game, my friend. By study. Not just reading. Get it?
 
Yes, I happen to be a linguist of preference to ancient languages, my arse. New word for you? Care to research its etymology before blindly using it?

God in heaven, are you this dense????????????

I've defined pure in heart for you three times. I'm done. Look it up. Study. You think reading is enough, I pity your education. I pity your teachers. I provide words in an intelligible string; you toss them however you want your salad to be. 

You have no time for circular argument. I don't either, yet you seem to run them with abandon.

Papyrus of Ani, pg 115, first line of Budge's volume, Dover, 1967: "t'et an Ausar, a qa tuau - f - tu ur." You are the one who strayed into Budge; don't blame me for your diversion.

Poor in spirit. Imagine a glass partially filled with water. How much? More than empty; less than full. The desire is that it be full, and, if wishes were fishes, and all that, it would be. But it takes more than wishes to fill this glass, and, until it is full, one is lacking the fullness of water. It’s a story of degrees of fullness. Something like not yet achieving the Ru Pert em Heru; not yet known of one’s self; not yet One with God. Lacking does not mean the glass is only empty.
 
You’ve missed the point. The SoM is not a cafeteria. We don’t pick and choose according to what reward we want, and ignore the rest. It is meant to be fully consumed, like acquiring a full glass of water. Not just spirituality, but the whole bloody thing: being poor in spirit, but hungry for righteousness, meek, pure in heart, a peacemaker, etc. Then, does it matter who is a child of God [we all are anyway, but the context is not that simple in this case], and who is a pure in heart? Nope. The full glass is all these gifts.
 
Heaven means heaven? No, my friend. We cannot approach language as if each one has the same set of words in its lexicon. That is the classic mistake of attempting to translate accurately one language to another. It is translation by attempt to link dictionaries, which totally ignores culture. Dictionaries do not instruct in culture; just its words. Without understanding a language’s culture, which is the root of all languages, one will never fully understand that language. So, no, heaven is not a direct link of meaning to aaru,or valhalla, shamayim, or ouranos. In Hindi, there are all of 14 separate translations of “heaven.” In Greek, six words that all translate to English’s “love.” In French, there is no word for “transom.” 
 
This is why mere reading cannot replace studying. Sorry to patronize, but some slur the distinction. And this is why some make no sense of the SoM. Again, sorry to patronize.
 
You’ve “read” all of E.A. Wallis Budge, and you claim to not understand what “pure in heart” means? “I know myself, I know myself, I am One with God.” “May thou be at peace with me, may I see thy beauties, may I advance upon the earth, may I smite the ass, may I crush the evil one…” 
 
Budge wrote some 52 books, and you’ve “read” them all? 30 years ago? And you don’t know the meaning of “pure in heart?” I still read him. I have about half of his works in my library, including, The Ru Pert em Heru,The Book of Coming Forth by Day, The Book of the Dead. I’ve studied them. And you read them? Sure, like reading the Sunday comics. And you don’t know the meaning of “pure in heart.” Sorry to patronize.

Ah, the innocent ignorance of youth. When does your history begin? Well after the demise of the USSR? No anarchy before the UN? What you haven't experienced in memory ought to be researched before making such millennial claims, because they don't hold water, my young friend. League of Nations. Give it a look.

safari

Corrupt, or not, the UN is the organization legally recognized to offer sovereignty of a nation, and no one else. Practicality says that unless another group is internationally authorized to do so, the UN is your go-to. You may not like it, but, there it is. Would you prefer anarchy? Who says you always get what you want? You?

Denied because Palestinians claim land already ceded to Israel 73 years ago by the UN. 

Might want to study the UN Millennium Development Goals, Goal #16. Also, the UN's definition of "sovereignty." 

However, you're completely off point to this string. This is an Israel/Syria string. Syria is a sovereign nation. Palestine is a wannabe, therefore, irrelevant. I'm going back on point.

I can draw a map and put a circle around the U.S. West Coast, and another circle around the Northern East Coast, and call them, collectively, Bamboozleland. Is my map credible? Not any more than a bunch of a tribe of Arabs circling a region from the West Bank to Jordan, calling it Palestine. Is my Bamboozleland a sovereign State? Nope. Nor is Palestine.

A "non-member observer state" is NOT sovereign, as you have admitted. That is a useless distinction to you, but not to me. The distinction is that 30% of the UN does NOT recognize Palestine. It takes a few more than 70% to offer Palestine a recognized sovereign statehood. Sorry, that's the rules.

No you did not bring up Native Americans; I did, because it's an identical issue, an issue related to sovereignty. How much time have you spent in the Middle East, "observing" genetics and culture. Laugh all you like. I couldn't care less; it's your arse.

By the way, how accurate is Wiki. Google it. They have a low opinion of their own accuracy. Depend on their sources, not their own.

Show me the UN-recognized State of Palestine. Yes, resolutions to talk about it ad nauseam, but show me the State. Until you have a political sovereignty, you don't have a pot to piss in. Tell me, genetically, let alone culturally, what distinguishes Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians, Lebanese, et al, from "Palestinians." It's like comparing "Native American" tribes, only "Native American" is a term they've applied to themselves, like "Palestinian," and have done so only since the 1960s [about the same as "Palestinians" -yes, I'm off by a few years,], and without regard for the fact that "American" happens to be a European term, not indigenous, so whose culture is appropriating whose? Show me the document that declares "Native American" sovereignty. Or, for Palestinians. So, just who is being hilariously stupid?

Poor in spirit. You misread me. I said poor is spirit is not a complete lack of spirituality, but lacking more than one wants to have.

I know the meaning by understanding the syntax of ancient Greek.

In defining peacemaking, not just mercy, I told you to not parse the rewards, because acquiring all the attitudes discussed will reap all the rewards, so why parse them according to which attitude earns what reward? Isn't that like desiring a well-rounded education, but selectively limiting your potential electives? I did not stop learning when I had already acquired two PhDs. Such as learning ancient Greek. I also am fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, though that was part of formal education.

Reading a passage and really studying it for what it says is two different activities altogether. I have studied the SoM, in three languages, as it happens, and have realized that the attitudes described are listed in order of increasing difficulty to fulfill; they are not a random list.  I've written a book on the subject, but this forum is not an appropriate venue for selling product. 

Yet you ask why, again, the rewards are specific to each attitude. Why parse? Savor the gusto of the whole recipe. If your wanting to make spaghetti, and you have meat and tomato soup, will that be a satisfactory recipe? If you spend a casual read, nope. Not enough. No, not to me. As it happens, I am making spaghetti tonight. Toss the tomato soup, it's useless. It's your insistence on parsing "meek." Stew fresh tomatoes [they're stewing as we speak]. Add meat. Tonight, I'm using a beef/pork sausage blend. Then, put the pasta on a boil. Then I add chopped onion and Chianti to the sauce, along with parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme. Oregano, four large cloves of garlic, minced, plus 2 more sliced. Worcestershire sauce, and a little sugar. Olive oil. S & P, and a dash of chipotle pepper. Sliced mushrooms. Sometimes meatballs, but not tonight. Simmer to reduce. Serve. That's the complexity of following the recipe of the SoM. Do not skimp. Do not parse. Just do it.

Why do I feel like this forum is directed against me? 

Even if not, some understanding of terms is important here. "Poor in spirit" is not a reference to someone who lacks spirituality. Though some accuse you of that, I've noticed, I'm not one of them. Only those who can see into your heart can make that call, and I'd wager 100% of those who accuse have no vision of your heart. You know what I mean. But, "poor in spirit" refers to those who desire more spirituality and at present lack it. It's not an accusation; it's an admission of insufficiency, just as one who is poor in monetary value would admit the same, bt desired to improve the situation.

Meek is not the equivalent of weak. In fact, it's just the opposite. Meekness is an attitude of strength, but restraint of it. Something like, "I could beat up your dad, but I'm not inclined to prove it."

Mercy. An interesting take on the idea that if God were truly omnipotent, He would end all suffering. Now you've brought God into a discussion in which you claim it takes a belief in God to have merit. In fact, it does not, ands I'll demonstrate that in a minute. On this point, God is allowing suffering because He allows our free agency, even if it is used to deny Him, let alone cause others great suffering. Just because God is omnipotent, I claim, this does not necessarily mean He is obliged to use it. See the meaning of meek, above. Restraint. Restraint to allow our free agency, even to use against one another if that is our schtick. Suffering, even unto death, is just a brief moment compared to eternity. Death is just a door we pass through, and the rest of eternity is before us. So we die. No one here gets out alive. - Jim Morrison.

Pure in heart: purity of intent. Purity of purpose. Purity of results. Purity in treatment of others. No, we are not all born sinners. That would deny the Christ his atonement for us. Why should we be blamed for Adam's transgression? That was his, not ours. Are you at fault for errors your father made? No, he is. Christ paid for Adam's transgression, contingent upon his repentance, not ours. We becme sinful, we were not born with it. Children are innocent, else why would Christ tell us to become like them? We are thew sinners, not children. And we are sinful by our own thoughts and actions, not Adam's.

Peacemakers. Note that the beatitudes are listed in a progression of simple to more difficult attitudes to attain, embrace, and practice. It is more difficult to be a peacemaker than it is to be poor in spirit. The ultimate attitude is to love our enemies. It is last because it is the most difficult. Do not parse the rewards, because they all are urs if we achieve all attitudes suggested. So if ours is all the rewards, from being counted in the kingdom of heave to being children of God, who cares how they are given out. All are given. That's the point.

Now, as for application, even if one took God out of teh picture, aren;t these attitudes to acvquire that would make a terrific political platform? What if someone came along, espousing these attitudes as possible social ideals, and that by acquring them, ever social ill we suffer today would be resolved and forgotten. Isn't that a society worth promotng?

So am I. My reply to zedvictor4 was merely analogous to the Israel/Iran conflict. I'm saying it's Iran, not Israel, playing the cultural appropriation game here.

I disagree. Israel's right to exist is ratified by the U.N. Period. Since Iran and its puppets advocate the eradication of Israel literally off the map, I'd say theirs is the suck, while Israel rightfully blows. Well, it's a metaphor. No grammar or syntax points here.

Oops. Misspelled the debate as 2+21=4. Now, there's abstract algebra!. Please read: 2+2=4

I don't live in Canada. However, as for the term, "Native American," which could extend into Canada, being part of North America, was not used by that group until the 60s. Nineteen 60's, that is. It was used first by second generation Irish US immigrants in the 17th century. Not to mention that "American" is not an indigenous term, It's European, so whose culture is being ripped from whom?

Which of the many American tribes established sovereignty of this continent before Europeans came? You plant a flag and declare "I claim this land for me." Only, you can't do that on land that has already been declared sovereign from antiquity that was never purchased, just occupied with an attempt to declare unearned sovereignty.

Sure. Tell it to Our_Boat_Is_Right, and a couple of moderators, who let feelings overwhelm facts in the debate of a year ago, 2+21=4, won, because 10 of 11 voters, plus a moderator who removed his vote, so we don't know now how he voted, but apparently voted against Boat, because they also let feelings overwhelm facts, such as that Pro was awarded Source points by 10 of 11 voters when no source was cited by Boat, and the argument that the proposition was a "truism," as if that is a forbidden subject when the term "truism" is not in the policies of debate, voting, or code of conduct. 

On what? Purchased land? Purchased by someone else, and never sold in three thousand years? Just occupied? Tell you what, I'm coming over to occupy your residence tomorrow. Free me.

Good God! What a travesty. Just in argument, I'd have voted for yours. The Pro argument that you did not use "American Math," [is our math different than other countries?] is completely fallacious: the count of whatever is use of math, therefore, the result of any mathematic function, including, as you asserted, algebra, is use of math. 

In sourcing, you offered the only source in the debate, and it holds. and yet, only 1 of 11 voters gave you the source points. Absurd.

I'll dismiss S&G, it's virtually meaningless to me. Should be part of the Conduct, as in conducting proper s & g. It's just 1 point, anyway. In fact, I'd replace it with "kudos" as Ragnar suggested, as being far more meaningful in awarding creativity in debate. In that vein, while Pro's argument indeed took advantage of "truism," your argument was superlative creativity.

Conduct: By your creative argument, yet holding to the principles of proper debate, I'd have given you that point. I found Pro's style argumentative without purpose, using a privilege of semantics to argue his point. Nonsense.

I would use the above to a debate moderator to expose the gross errors in voting in this debate, only because they are so obvious, somebody ought to do something about it. 

Haven't seen it. Must be finished and aging? I'll take a look at the arguments. Had it been in challenge phase, I'd have accepted the debate on Con side, just to see if I could pull it off!

I disagree almost entirely with your post #5 because it argues that because of the antiquity of the OT, it is no longer relevant to our modern culture and religious practices. By that same argument, I might argue that equally, the Sermon on the Mount is also antiquated. It was, after all, offered two thousand years ago.

However, in my experience, the SoM is so relevant now, by adherence to its precepts, every social, cultural ill we suffer today would be solved outright, with no other interfering choices marring the near perfection our culture would experience. For example, as a political platform, the SoM is hard to beat. You will note that there is a building, point upon point. Who has given us a better standard? Plato? Ceasar? Alexander? Washington? Marx? 

I've observed at least three debates stalled in challenging phase [two of them of my instigation], and one completed debate accused post-argument phase of being proposals of "truism," as if truisms cannot be debated because they amount to a proposal that happens to be perceived as true. I have two arguments refuting the accusation:

1. What debate standard defined by DART says truisms are not valid subjects of debate? The accusation is hurled that a Pro position in a truism debate is an automatic win for Pro. For example: I might propose a debate that the Sun rises in the east. Cowards who do not have sufficient perception to argue the point, even though generally perceived as true. Some will, and have, argued that the proposal is so obviously true, it is not worthy of debate because it is an automatic win for Pro. Nonsense! Perception is the whole point of the debate. I can think of at least three Con arguments, right now, to argue against the proposition. Will I tell you? No. Think for yourselves. 

2. How many debates would be wiped off the DART if all the debates in one of several types of current status [challenge, argument, voting or finished] had proposals fitting the "truism" claim? Half? More? Hint: the charge of truism does not prevent debate on the subject for anyone who can conceive of arguments against it. The fact is, any truth can be argued. We are not compelled to believe our own arguments; we just need to make convincing arguments. The success of same depends on the validity and strength of the argument and the citation of supporting sources that contradict the proposal. However, debate does not consist of 100 percent sourcing. We are expected to think for ourselves. Why can't we be an original source provider? It behooves providing our own logic for our original thoughts, but what's wrong with that? It just needs to be convincing, yeah?

I am not restricting this forum topic to net zero, by the way. It is merely an example of my argument against "truisms" as unassailable arguments. 

I utterly held my nose voting forMcCain. Oba'a was never an option, but I figured there was no way he could lose, even with McCain's campaign. To me, McCain was an R Prog, as I consider Romney and Flake, and the Bush's 41, 43, and wannabe.

You would both be surprised by the scope of what you consider "Mormon values" as represented by Romney and Flake. Consider that Harry Reid was, once, an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is what Mormons are, and more appropriately called. Being one, and actively so, I observe the scope is wide, even in UT - specifically SLC and Provo regions. Outside of those regions, Romney is looked upon with considerable disgust by people who voted for, but have been gravely disappointed by Romney. I did not grow up there; I am a product of Southern California, Brentwood, which is now a progressive class, something which I could no longer endure with any patience. I see no point of logic, compared to another, in which progressivism does not run into conflict with itself. To wit: compassion for the birth of anmals and disregard to human birth. Makes absolutely no sense in comparison. Why not?

Although my college education was disrupted some by Viet Nam, it ever cancelled classes and my world was never turned upside-down for but one evening when, as a Bobby Kennedy volunteer, I was at his CA primary celebration in Los Angeles [I lived there] when he was shot. I cannot imagine what you are going through. Nevertheless, this, too, shall pass, and you may be changed for years because of it, but the journey is still well worth it. Do not despair, the sun still shines

Your cited studies are very revealing...

in their inadequacy to represent the likely voters in our society. Digging into the weeds of your cited studies, which you should have done yourself, but statistical studies can be so boring; why bother doing it? Well, I asked because I do. I am a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up. In this regard, I am a professional of significant capability. Where many will accept a survey's results as credible, I am a huge skeptic with reason. Most polls, in particular, virtually all political polls, come fully biased. First is the nature of those polled as a sub-group "representing American voters" in general. The reason why the election results were so different from what political polls were telling us in 2016, was that polls, as do those in your cited studies, asked the wrong kind of people: registered voters. You more accurate sub-group will always be likely voters, a significantly different population. You polls end up citing "most Americans" and you accept as fact that it represents America. Nope. Not even close.

Have a care to know what is meant by "most Americans." Who is polled to arrive at such conclusions? Hint: it's usually registered voters. That, alone, is a faulty beginning because the target ought to be likely voters. The two terms are not synonymous. In 2016, there were 250M registered voters. Only 127M of them actually voted, 51.1%, divided between Trump and Hillary. 123M, 49,9%, did not vote, and had no opinion, yet, they are included in a poll such as you reference. If they didn't care to vote, how valid is their opinion? And there, my friend, is your true majority; people with no opinion, because they refuse to back it by voting for either candidate. Now, shall we discuss what "margin of error" means? It's another reason why 2016, and virtually all political polls, are flawed, and inaccurate.

Margin of error is the calculation of how many percentage points your results will differ from the real population value, expressed as a plus/minus percentage. For example: coupled with a standard 95% confidence interval with a ±3 percent margin of error means that your statistic will be within 6 percentage points of the real population value 95% of the time. Great, except that your "studies," extensive though they were, omitted reveal a margin of error. A margin of error of greater than ±3 percent is to great for general accuracy. 

Number of questions: A valid poll will keep the questionnaire to a minimum number of questions to avoid the huge risk of a polling subject's loss of interest, which messes with your margin of error. Your studies had 98 pages of of multiple questions per page. The acceptable poll is limited to about 10 questions, total. Oops.

An equivalent number of poll subjects considering a particular demographic gives the most accurate results. For example, one should have a relatively even number of men and women, Democrats and Republicans, ages groups, racial demographics, education demos, [we'll key on that one aa an example], and likelihood to vote.

Your "studies" had 4x women to men, for example, and the real cogent key: education: less than 10% of the total sub-group population bothered to register that they had completed high school or college. TEN PERCENT! Your "studies" results in this demographic, the absolute purpose of the "studies," turns on this very point. 10% of your "most Americans," half of whom DID NOT VOTE, were the basis of the claim that Trump supporters are less educated than Hillaryous Balloon Girl supporters. Sorry, I do not accept your cited "studies." I'll wager you knew none of the foregoing, or you would have been ashamed to cite it. Know your sources. Having a fair idea about who you're talking to helps, too.

Trump, or n8?

Banned by request until 2102 according to his profile

Where, exactly, does the Bible make the claim that Noah was 2000 BCE?

Noah is the son of Methuselah, and was born, apparently, while Adam still lived, but was a child when Adam attained his final 980+ years, or not. Many claim Adam lived 4000 years ago, but there are genealogical biblical gaps, and how long did Adam live in Eden? We don't know. Adam could have been 10,000 years ago, or more. Who can say? Not by Bible genealogy, that's for sure. So, be certain your sources are accurate. Many in regard to Adam and the age of earth are up in the night.

How much room do you think is required if the ark is only 1/3 the size of Titanic if you have the DNA samples of 13M different animals? Are you going to tell me that ancient aliens were not around to help Noah? Aliens like Jehovah? And where does the count of 13M animals come from? Not the Bible. Not that it is descriptively accurate itself. God did not write it. Maybe much fewer than that are required to multiply and replenish the earth with evolutionary differentiation on a grand scale, and still have whole animals. Oh, creation can't include evolution? Who says? Not Darwin. Not God, either.

The last seven presidents:

Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Oba'a could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Dem presidents could have done these things, but none did. 
Trump did all these things. Inside 3 years. Does he deserve 5 more, or what?

Would you like to cite those "studies," or are we supposed to take your word for it? How about that on lystupid people make non-cited claims?

What republic do you live in? It's certainly not mine. In my republic, your claims are all wet. Maybe if you added something to your profile other than "unknown," these discussions would not make assumptions. What Queen? Are you UK?

Nope, Yes, there are some who will never have the ambition of education beyond the necessity of K-12, and those some will be lucky, and some do, to achieve wealth and influence, and, more important, a contribution to society. But, there are plenty of people with ambition to innovate, and they prove it all the time. Your argument sets a imitation on those people that is just not there. It's a myth, self-propagated by your ilk.

See above. Yours is just another myth.

While I have maintained that Wiki is not a reliable source - and they say so -  to use independent of better sources, I have just used Wiki in a debate wherein the subject of argument was a map, whose clarity of what I wanted to express had better detail than other sources. Oh, well. Word eating is a matter up for discussion. So much so, I even have a published children's illustrated story entitled "Word Eaters," about frog-looking gremlins whose only diet is words.

Well documented argument. I agree 100%.

Two Supreme Court decisions: Engel v. Vitale [1962], and Abington School District v. Schempp [1963]

I

You keep insisting on a total USA population as a factor, but its State populations by which the presidency is determined, so the total population of the country is immaterial.

In that vein, there is 1 vote for every single district in each state, and two additional votes for each state. But, regardless of the population of each state, it's still a matter of winning State elections, not a federal election. Why is that so hard to understand?

Yes, I appreciate that Corinthians quote. My oldest brother was a perfect example of the principle. As a teenager, I observed the levels his anger could reach. Fortunately, I was not a source of his anger but on a couple of occasions. But as he matured, and learned - and on that score he was the only polymath I ever knew, and taught me the joy and power of knowledge, his temperament  softened. As a man, he was kind and considerate and patient.

And writing poetry more difficult than prose

No, the 2A doesn't offer the right to just own a gun. It doesn't mention guns, does it? What it mentions is the right to bear ARMS, and, lest you point it out, that does not mean we must avoid long-sleeve shirts.

Arms are a non-specific description of weapons, not just guns. As such, the inclusion of guns is a given, but includes knives, bows and arrows, and, I suppose, rocks. It does not include nuclear weapons because they are classified, meaning unavailable to ordinary citizens. Further, the 2A stipulates we have the right to bear [own and use] arms, and not be infringed by Congress from doing so. Nor does it imply that only if we are in a militia is that right given. It is given so that, if required, we may be part of a militia. That looks like evidence to me.

Read of it, but did not see the video. Yeah, and this will demonstrate, once again, why a bus filled with lawyers going over a cliff is a good start.

Consider that we have 27 amendments. Fully 8 of them, almost 1/3, have tried to address just voting, and it still is not clear. 

Allah, Buddha, Elohim, and Jesus were a foursome the other day on the back nine. Buddha mentioned, "The American legislature is up in arms, again, over us."




"I tried an eye for an eye. Didn't do so well," Elohim interjected.

Democrats have some major issues to resolve before the Green New Deal has a shot of getting out of the chute, let alone as a rational Democrat political platform plank:

SCOTUS, in any generation of its 230-year history, has always managed to manipulate interpretation of the Constitution; mostly to their detriment [Both the Constitution and SCOTUS]. Take the first amendment. Its very first commentary deals with freedom of religion. it must have been important to founders, namely James Madison, to mention it first. We often refer to Jefferson, who was not the author, by the way, as offering us the language of "separation," as in of church and state.  However, at the time, Jefferson was separated from both church and state while our ambassador to France when Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. But, the full descriptive of freedom of religion enjoins Congress to be forbidden to create a religion in the first place [the "establishment" clause] AND to not forbid practice of its free exercise.
The religion gig is followed directly by freedom of speech, and we manage to understand that one very well, unless we're talking about religion. After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo. The two interpretations combat one another, don't they? You think that's what Madison had in mind, who was the primary author of the Constitution?

Consume less and save more. If US households or the government reduce consumption (businesses save more than they spend), imports will drop and less borrowing from abroad will be needed to pay for consumption. That’s an Oba’a trade mantra, except that he did not even propose the latter; saving more. His economy did not recover enough to get above a baseline of working for money.  Further, his economic policy failed at the start because the American consumer is used to buying whatever from wherever, so import of goods favors export because we have more goods available to buy. The better answer is to increase exports, not imports. We have been increasing imports for the last 40 years, and why Oba'a declared that 2% GDP was the new norm. Nonsense! When our exports are a net plus, we have greater consumability of American products for less money, and GDP will soar as it is supposed to do.