 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
Dave Dorsey |
| Just a thought about what we could be reading this morning if it weren't for Steve Bannon and the alt-right. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 6:45 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Roy Moore is just another Hillary Clinton.
The only way their party loses is if Roy/Hillary runs.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
12/13/17 8:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Yup, you're exactly right. Candidates matter. It's hard to think of a Democrat, other than Hillary, who couldn't have beaten Trump in 2016 -- and it's hard to think of a Republican, other than Moore, who couldn't have beaten Doug Jones yesterday. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 8:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
UncleJD |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Just a thought about what we could be reading this morning if it weren't for Steve Bannon and the alt-right. |
Not to defend Bannon because he's creepy, but can you explain how the Alabama primary voters who saw Moore as a hero for standing up to liberal government overreach were supposed to know that a 40 year old, never before heard allegation, would suddenly bring Moore down? Further, who's your inside informant that told you that there would have been no such allegation against Strange? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3138
12/13/17 9:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Just a thought about what we could be reading this morning if it weren't for Steve Bannon and the alt-right. |
This just goes to show how naïve you are. It would not have mattered if Strange had been the nominee and it won't matter who the nominee is in 2 years. Women will be coming out of the woodwork. Moore lost because Shelby and McConnell want Trump impeached and his agenda defeated. Shelby was behind the write-in candidate.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
12/13/17 9:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
chestnut ridge |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Just a thought about what we could be reading this morning if it weren't for Steve Bannon and the alt-right. |
This just goes to show how naïve you are. It would not have mattered if Strange had been the nominee and it won't matter who the nominee is in 2 years. Women will be coming out of the woodwork. Moore lost because Shelby and McConnell want Trump impeached and his agenda defeated. Shelby was behind the write-in candidate. |
Moore lost because his campaign was awful. Moore lost because he under performed. He lost because he is not the legend he thinks he is........ in his last statewide election he under performed. Shelby was not behind a write in candidate.
Proof on the Shelby and McConnell Trump impeachment please |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1722
12/13/17 9:42 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
chestnut ridge |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Just a thought about what we could be reading this morning if it weren't for Steve Bannon and the alt-right. |
Yes sir |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1722
12/13/17 9:42 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
Dave Dorsey |
| UncleJD wrote: | | Not to defend Bannon because he's creepy, but can you explain how the Alabama primary voters who saw Moore as a hero for standing up to liberal government overreach were supposed to know that a 40 year old, never before heard allegation, would suddenly bring Moore down? |
Roy Moore didn't stand up to liberal government overreach, he stood up to the Constitution. But that doesn't even really matter. In the Senate, Roy Moore and Luther Strange would have voted the same way 999 out of 1,000 times. Alabamans got hoodwinked by Bannon and the alt-right, who continually use whatever influence they have to highlight and promote "anti-establishment" candidates. They worked very hard to paint Strange as a McConnell ally and clone, it worked, and last night was the fruit of that.
| Quote: | | Further, who's your inside informant that told you that there would have been no such allegation against Strange? |
This is potentially a point of epistemic difference for us -- but the nine allegations against Moore are, in my opinion, well-sourced and credible. I have no inside information that Luther Strange did not also sexually assault nine women, and if he has, I don't have any way of knowing those allegations would not also have surfaced. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 9:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | This just goes to show how naïve you are. |
You're kind of being a jerk, FYI. I realize you're upset about the result, but your responses since the election last night have been unnecessarily personal.
Please remember that this is a Christian forum and that it is expected that posters will treat each other with kindness and respect, even when there are intense disagreements.
As an example, you could have phrased your comment above as "I think it's naive to suggest..." and you could have communicated the same thing without being personal and unkind. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 10:18 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
Dave,
Can you please show us in the Constitution where putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse is against the law?
It doesn't matter anymore I guess. I would agree that Strange would have been the better candidate, Trump certainly thought so as well (though he'll get no credit for that I'm sure).
I could be wrong, but I believe we'll see nothing further from the 9 accusers unless its a complete exposure of their stories as fraud. They will suddenly loose interest in pursuing it any further. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3138
12/13/17 10:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| UncleJD wrote: | Dave,
Can you please show us in the Constitution where putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse is against the law? |
Sure. Glassroth v. Moore was based on a violation of the Establishment Clause, though I suspect you might write that off in that case (not without reason) given that the prohibition of the Establishment Clause is on Congress, rather than the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. I would suggest the Sixth Amendment is a more proximate response for originalists, specifically its guarantee of an impartial jury of the State or district where a crime was committed.
Moore installed the monument in the middle of the night without having consulted or received the consent of his fellow justices. That's not okay. He's not a martyr for his Pyhrric, self-serving refusal to remove it. Rulings against the monument were unanimous at every level, yet Moore placed himself above the law.
Imagine you were going before a judge in Dearborn, MI who did the same thing in regard to an article from the Muslim faith. Imagine going into a courthouse that had a 2.5-ton monument with writings from the Koran prominently placed right outside the door. Honestly, how would you feel about that? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 10:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | Dave,
Can you please show us in the Constitution where putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse is against the law? |
Sure. Glassroth v. Moore was based on a violation of the Establishment Clause, though I suspect you might write that off in that case (not without reason) given that the prohibition of the Establishment Clause is on Congress, rather than the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. I would suggest the Sixth Amendment is a more proximate response for originalists, specifically its guarantee of an impartial jury of the State or district where a crime was committed.
Moore installed the monument in the middle of the night without having consulted or received the consent of his fellow justices. That's not okay. He's not a martyr for his Pyhrric, self-serving refusal to remove it. Rulings against the monument were unanimous at every level, yet Moore placed himself above the law.
Imagine you were going before a judge in Dearborn, MI who did the same thing in regard to an article from the Muslim faith. Imagine going into a courthouse that had a 2.5-ton monument with writings from the Koran prominently placed right outside the door. Honestly, how would you feel about that? |
exactly, there is nothing in the Constitution against the ten-commandments, its the cornerstone of western law, have you ever been to the Senate chambers and seen Moses there?. As a matter of fact, since we're imagining scenarios, just try to honestly imagine a conversation with the framers in which you asked them if the Constitution would forbid displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3138
12/13/17 11:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| So you'd be cool with a judge in Dearborn pausing a proceeding so that the judge, clerks, stenographer, and provided defense attorney could pray toward Mecca, right? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 11:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | So you'd be cool with a judge in Dearborn pausing a proceeding so that the judge, clerks, stenographer, and provided defense attorney could pray toward Mecca, right? |
If that's what it takes to allow the majority Christian population to do the same, then sure, I think that would improve things in our country don't you? That threat has been the prevailing argument for every time we ran God out of schools, courts, government buildings, public places, streets, you name it.
And since we're playing hypothetical, so you'd be against anyone praying to Jesus Christ in public areas then? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3138
12/13/17 12:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| UncleJD wrote: | | If that's what it takes to allow the majority Christian population to do the same, then sure, I think that would improve things in our country don't you? |
No, I don't agree that anyone with the power of the state should be able to run roughshod over others with their beliefs. I would not want someone who viewed their state power as a means of imposing their personal faith onto others judging me in a civil or criminal case. But I do appreciate the intellectual honesty and consistency of your reply.
| Quote: | | And since we're playing hypothetical, so you'd be against anyone praying to Jesus Christ in public areas then? |
Come on dude, I know you're smarter than to think that's in any way analogous. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 12:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: |
No, I don't agree that anyone with the power of the state should be able to run roughshod over others with their beliefs. I would not want someone who viewed their state power as a means of imposing their personal faith onto others judging me in a civil or criminal case. But I do appreciate the intellectual honesty and consistency of your reply. |
Its another argument that ended free practice of religion in the public arena, in particular the courts (in which I see a violation of the first amendment btw). I don't see how praying or posting one of the oldest examples of written law in existence poses a threat to anyone at all. Maybe a case could be made for the former (though I'd disagree), but not against the later.
| Quote: |
Come on dude, I know you're smarter than to think that's in any way analogous. |
I guess I'm not that smart because I don't see how you can say it is a threat in court but not in public, at least that's the way the secular/atheistic world sees it. I don't see it as a threat in either arena. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3138
12/13/17 12:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | This just goes to show how naïve you are. |
You're kind of being a jerk, FYI. I realize you're upset about the result, but your responses since the election last night have been unnecessarily personal.
Please remember that this is a Christian forum and that it is expected that posters will treat each other with kindness and respect, even when there are intense disagreements.
As an example, you could have phrased your comment above as "I think it's naive to suggest..." and you could have communicated the same thing without being personal and unkind. |
How am I supposed to take you seriously? You are the one who keeps insinuating how unchristian it is for some of us to support Trump. I do not care how Christian and kind you might say it, it is still a personal attack against us. So please spare me the sermon, brother.
But for the record, I've moved on. Too many battles in the present and future to cry over one loss. The war rages on.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
12/13/17 2:40 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Luther Strange defeats Doug Jones in AL special election, 62-37 |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | How am I supposed to take you seriously? You are the one who keeps insinuating how unchristian it is for some of us to support Trump. I do not care how Christian and kind you might say it, it is still a personal attack against us. So please spare me the sermon, brother.
But for the record, I've moved on. Too many battles in the present and future to cry over one loss. The war rages on. |
Please consider my previous post a formal warning concerning your style of posting over the last several days. How you choose to take that is up to you.
If you believe I am acting with a double standard and would like to offer me a rebuke concerning a specific thing that I said, I would be glad to receive and consider it. In the case of your example, which I'm not sure I even said to begin with, suggesting that supporting Trump is not in line with Christian values would be the same as suggesting a particular viewpoint is naive. It is fundamentally different than saying you, Resident Skeptic, are not a Christian because you support Trump. It is a statement about a particular position that does not attack the character of the person who holds that position. You have repeatedly attacked the character of posters in your posts over the last several days. Please do not continue to do that. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/13/17 3:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bro Bob |
| Quote: | | "You have repeatedly attacked the character of posters in your posts over the last several days." |
Some info about the monument Moore placed: On top it had the 10 commandments. On all sides it had many quotes from founding fathers which went far beyond anything Moore ever said or did concerning their beliefs about the debt this nation owes its true creator.
We were not founded upon atheism. We were not founded upon Islamic law. ALL our principles, including the one you use in the above quote are founded in Judeo-Christian law. (Deut 19:15 et al, 2 Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 5:19, Matt 18:16 <<words of Christ himself) Why do you accept the charge of one person against our brother, ignoring the specifics of her charge being demonstrably false, and the comparison of her character to that of Judge Moore over the next 38 years which weigh incredibly heavy in his favor? Why? Why do YOU not follow the fundamental that you require of others in that quote at the top of this post?
The first amendment means what it says, no specific religion is to be a test of citizenship or is to be a state religion. But that doesn't mean that elected citizens have to abandon their faith, or in this case, deny that our laws came from whence they came.
Ignoring the fact mentioned earlier, that the Chief Justice of the Ala Supreme court is not equal to and does not have the powers of the congress (Congress shall make no law), Judge Myron Thompson, appointed by Jimmy Carter, who alone issued the order to remove the monument, refused to answer 2 major questions: If it had violated the establishment clause, then what LAW had Judge Moore made? Which religion does it establish?
It didn't. Christians keep only 9 of the 10, substituting the Lord's day for the Sabbath and mostly not applying the Sabbath rules even to it. If Roy Moore was saying the 10 cammandments WERE LAW, then it was a LAW he himself did not completely follow. Roy Moore was not in violation of the 1st amendment, he was dead in line with the right afforded by it, "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Judge Thompson is the one who violated the 1st amendment!
This all came from an unhappy liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) legal team, who lost in a trial before circuit Judge Moore in the Etowah County courthouse, who filed this same suit against him at that time, because he had a wooden plaque of the 10 commandments on the wall of the courtroom. They lost again. This propelled Moore into the Chief Justice office, because the people of Alabama liked it when a man would take a stand.
But the left didn't like it. And the republican backroom blue bloods didn't like it that he had replaced their boy that they controlled.
Sound familiar? (Luther Strange)
One unelected Federal judge issued a ruling inconsistent with the constitution. Some unelected crooked politicians removed Roy Moore without ever charging him with anything at all.
But a lot of lies were told then, that continue to be told and repeated long after being exposed. Lies being repeated here. And in politics, that does make a good man a bad candidate.
When he was again chosen by the people to be the Chief Justice, I challenged him to make a plaque this time and hang it over the entrance to the State Courthouse, with these words:
| Quote: | GOD HAS GIVEN COMMANDMENTS UNTO MEN – FROM THESE
COMMANDMENTS MEN HAVE FRAMED LAWS BY WHICH TO BE
GOVERNED – IT IS HONORABLE AND PRAISEWORTHY TO SERVE THE
PEOPLE BY ADMINISTERING THESE LAWS FAITHFULLY – IF THE LAWS
ARE NOT ENFORCED, THE PEOPLE ARE NOT WELL GOVERNED. |
This actually states Judge Moore's position more eloquently than the Judge himself (or you or I) can say it.
Had he made such a plaque and hung it over the entrance to the Alabama Supreme Court building, what would you predict would have been the result? Would such a plaque be allowed to hang in any public square, on ANY public building?
Last edited by Bro Bob on 12/21/17 11:57 am; edited 2 times in total |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
12/21/17 11:34 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
If rights are not given by a Supreme being - then we really have nothing to appeal to.
I am no Roy Moore fan - but acknowledging a creator is the basis for moral laws. It should be the basis for all judicial rulings.
Our Founders knew this.
MLK knew this.
But - today, America doesn't know this.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
12/21/17 11:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
