• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fresh8686

  1. Why? It's competency (and lack of competency on their side) that is really bringing about change. Professionalism, character, accuracy, integrity. Mueller and his team seem to epitomize that, Yates did as well when Flynn got outed, and the investigative journalists out there showing these fools to be liars each and every day are characterizing that too. Why get caught up in the stupidity and pettiness? That's a high-end dead-end, whose loudness appears to be powerful but in reality and practice does very little. You can't build much of anything that will last with an energy like that, only react in simple, mostly destructive ways. Personally, I'm way less stressed by these people and trump then on Election Day. I'm more focused on how to build and mature past all this **** and what groups of people actually have the capacity to step up and do so. I'm not focused on trumps base, I'm focused on those with some intelligence who were either too comfortable, detached, or apathetic to participate in choosing who we are as a country. Those are the ones who need to be reached and talked to and galvanized in 2018.
  2. Agreed. There is a middle ground between tin-foil hatting up and immediately dismissing something out of hand because it is deemed too outrageous to happen here. I mean... our own intelligence agency believes Russia has assassinated 14 people over in the UK and in other places. I didn't post that article, feeling like foul play was a definitive conclusion. It's more like just another string of possibility amidst this spaghetti bowl of ****ing weirdness going on everywhere.
  3. Thought this was a bit interesting... maybe nothing, maybe not. Peter W. Smith committed suicide the same day a reporter investigating Donald Trump died by falling down stairs
  4. Fresh8686

    Have you ever smoked Weed before???

    Thinking of going to Denver in a couple months, soooo looking forward to trying some full spectrum live resin.
  5. Fresh8686

    Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired
  6. Im fine with that, it would disqualify a lot of people including some aetheists. We should have high standards of behavior that make sure only people who can legislate in a way that gives equal protection to all based on the content of their character make it to office. I only want the most healthy and mature people runnng for office, not extremists of any cut or creed. Again, again, and again it's not about the theology it's about the prejudice and superiority paradigms imbedded within your theology. People don't get a free pass to exercise that ****. You don't get religious freedom just so you can exercise it to marginalize others. Again, you can believe what you want but don't use those beliefs to marginalize others who see differently if your elected into office. People will test you and ask you questions to make sure they can trust you to do that.
  7. I never voiced my opinion about the specific dude in question. From the get-go my argument has been about the separation of church and state and safe-guarding the representatives of an elected official from prejudice that he/she may ascribe to for religious reasons. I'm not into superiority/inferiority paradigms, whether it be religious or racial supremacists, or anything else. I know most humans are not developed enough to have divested themselves completely from most of those paradigms, but I think it is reasonable for me to apply a level of standard to my elected officials that expects that they won't operate and legislate along those paradigms. That's what I said back in my first post to you " You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people." Notice I said "if", which intimates judgement reserved, not given, based on the meeting of additional criteria.
  8. Why didn't you answer the questions? According to Prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason". Condemning people or ascribing guilt to someone based purely on allegiance to Jesus Christ and not their actual actions and behaviors meets the criteria of that definition. We can have a prejudicial impulse, refrain from acting on it, get the necessary information we need to make a decision, and then act in a way that is without prejudice. To have that capability is a mark of maturity. It is possible, occurs often, and does indeed exist. What is the issue with making sure an appointed official has the mental and emotional maturity to carry out such a process?
  9. Well, answer me this then. How will that belief influence your ability to offer equal representation and protection to those who do not believe? Do you recognize and abide by the separation of church and state and equal treatment of all, despite them having beliefs that might run contrary to yours? If I am "condemned" in your eyes, as are others who may be gay, or believe in a different deity, or none at all, will you represent my and their interests without prejudice?
  10. Ah ok, cool. I wanted to make sure I was reading what you wrote properly, before I assumed either way.
  11. I can't control what you take my words to mean outside of what I explicitly say, but I am telling you that your implication is not what I am attempting to communicate to you. It appears to me that you seem to be missing the nuance and careful differentiation in my words. Let me see if I can be clearer for you. I am not categorizing all people who believe in divine judgement and hell as mentally and emotionally immature. That belief is not the standard I am using to measure mental and emotional maturity. I am saying a person is immature and unfit for office if they behave and relate and operate towards a group of people with a prejudice based primarily on religious affiliation, in lieu of a rigorous examination of the content of their character. An atheist would not be fit for office if his or her prejudice for people who believe in Jesus Christ kept him from being able to treat those people as equal human beings afforded the same standards of character and human decency. This is about how you see and treat people. Not what a person believes or doesn't believe. Are you saying what I wrote was wholly inappropriate?
  12. Whoa man, slow down. That's a lot of baggage you're trying to pin on me. I understand that is how you seem to feel about people who disagree with you on this point, but that's not me. I'd appreciate if you stop putting words in my mouth and refrain from casting aspersions on who I "claim" to be as a person. I never said the bolded. In fact, what I have done in each post is emphasize that the standard or test is on maturity and competency rather than belief or religious affiliation. It's about how you behave and operate towards people who believe differently and the development of mental and emotional competency that affords a person those capabilities. If you have those in place you tend to treat people better despite your religion and if you don't then you tend to treat people worse, again despite your religion.
  13. Nope. It wasn't the theological statement that was a problem. No one has a problem with an official saying "Jesus is my lord and savior". The problem was the prejudicial condemnation of a group of people within that theological statement.
  14. When I was born I was baptized catholic, in my teens I was baptized under baptist Christianity, and in my twenties I took my shahada and converted to Islam. I don't follow any of those religions anymore because I find them to be primitive and flawed and my spirit to have a stronger, personal connection with the universe outside of their bounds. But, the point of all that is I've practiced and been involved with people across all three religions throughout my life and guess what? Their all the same ****ing people man. They all have different ranges of mental and emotional maturity and those on the more developed ranges, across all religions act in a similar way and those on the less developed ranges all act in a similar way. Different flavors of the same human behavior. Yes, religion does or can have a major impact on character. But, character comes before religious affiliation. Religion is the "why" of character for some people, but character itself is much more than that.
  15. Not at all. Such a line would ignore the fact that people with a certain level of emotional and mental maturity can gauge the content of a person's character and basic human value, despite having different beliefs. If you don't have that level of maturity and emotional competence and operate from a zero-sum game then you are not fit to represent a diverse population with beliefs and needs different from your own. See above. I have no problem whatsoever with people of any religion who can put their beliefs to the side and govern and represent others based on the content of their character, rather than religious affiliation. Why? Because I'm not evaluating them on their belief in jesus christ, I'm evaluating them on their rapport with and behavior towards a class of people that he or she will be directly responsible for. It's a maturity thing. Not a religious affiliation thing.
  16. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people. That person is evincing a prejudice that is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience, nor character or merit, but religious affiliation. That was not a religious test, that was a test for prejudice.
  17. I could understand taking the CBO with a grain of salt but why zero credibility? What are you using in its place to contrast the projections of the OMB? Doesn't it at least give you pause that there is a $2 trillion error in their budget that mulvaney even admitted too (and then tried to brush off and downplay).
  18. So Mueller met with Rosenstien the day after Comey was fired. It validates a little the suspicion I had that Ros was scapegoated a bit by trump and sessions with that letter of theirs. He's been making moves in the background with his closed door meetings with the senate. I think paving the way for him to get out of the firing line and away from the immediate pressure of trump trying to push him into things regarding this case by appointing a special counsel.
  19. I wonder what the chances are that that Sept. 13th phone call had been wire tapped and there is a transcript floating around somewhere in the hands of our IC. It could end up like Flynn all over again.
  20. But then you have this ... Which opens the door for trouble, especially when paired with Sessions response to Sen Leahy's question. Superficiality is subjective, but this comment (if it bears out) makes it objectively true that he did discuss the campaign in some capacity, no matter how small and arguably committed perjury.
  21. We have way more than two Americas people.
  22. Personally, I'm angry as hell for the people who chose to put this guy in office, but I can keep myself from indulging in that anger beyond a given point. If we're going to be a part of the solution rather than the problem, we have to be the type of people that LEAD towards that solution. Our behavior has to be congruent with that path. Be angry, but don't indulge so much that it turns spiteful or hateful and poisons you, or closes the door on people, because we make the mistake of viewing a given group as a monolith. Muslims are not a monolith, Christians, republicans, democrats, trump supporters... each and every one of those groups has different degrees of differentiation that effect receptivity towards being people who can join us in leading towards that solution. No matter who you are or what you ascribe to I'll judge you on the same set of standards in regard to that solution and how much I can trust you to be devoted to protecting and not destroying it's potential. If you live in an isolated bubble of ignorance and are willing to exploit and treats others as disposable and further destroy what little trust this nation still has I will resist your efforts and hold you accountable in as calm and constructive a way as I possibly can. No matter what "side" you are on. Will some people have more things they need to redeem themselves upon? Definitely, none of this makes the harm from this okay, the responsibility doesn't go away, but it does give those few who want the chance, an opportunity to say "those lines we crossed, we will never do so again and from this day on we will be better". And then it's like everybody else, being only as trustworthy as the quality of how your life matches your standards. In a way I believe the very purpose of fighting is for protecting trust. Not just it's presence, but protecting the things inside us that allow or enable us to even trust in the first place, because it is a truly terrible thing when those things are damaged within a person.
  23. There are so many women who know that face and body language trump had there from abusive fathers and boyfriends. I saw a woman who voted for him, completely lose whatever trust she had given him because she knew on such a deep personal level the type of man who creates that pain and shut down in a woman. Empathy and that shared experience is what changed her view. Sometimes we get so angry towards the people who voted for this man, but it's not that anger and definitely not spite that will reach them. It's the humanity and shared experiences that connect us on a personal level that will carry that load of convincing people. Living right, rather than treating people wrongly in this zero sum competition to be seen as right, by twisting the optics or narrative. ... now with that said, that doesn't mean we don't hold each other accountable and resist if warranted. No, it means we do that AND do it gracefully, with empathy, and with standards of both decency and discourse. We can't lose sight of being and behaving as the people we want to be as we struggle against those who would see that taken from us. What good is a win, if you lose who you wanted to be in the process?