If you think that murder is justified on the basis that maybe someday later that person might become a threat to you, you are batshit crazy.
There is plenty you can do to defend yourself against these potential future attacks. You don't need to jump straight to murder.
And keep in mind that I'm one of the guys who has been posting and upvoting the metallicman link that people have been seeing around here - the one with dozens of pictures of mass graves. I take this very seriously. But comments like yours make the potential future genocide more likely, not less. The left will take posts like yours as evidence that we are violent and need to be dealt with, and normies will take it as evidence that they are right.
We need to prepare for the worst, but also try to prevent the civil war.
When a Democrat gets elected, there are Democrats ready and waiting to be appointed to important offices, and there is Democrat legislation ready and waiting for Congress to act on.
When a Republican gets elected, there are Republicans ready and waiting to be appointed to important offices, and there is Republican legislation ready and waiting for Congress to act on.
When President Trump was elected, there were no MAGA people ready and waiting to be appointed to important offices, and there was no MAGA legislation ready and waiting for Congress to act on.
When the next MAGA President is elected, assuming there is ever another election, we have to be ready.
No, murder is pretty damn unreasonable, right up until the moment when the threat is so imminent that it flips over to self defense. "reasonable" isn't defined solely by obtaining your objectives at a cost you can accept - that would be "rational".
Not a law. They advertised that money donated to the wall fund wasn't going to compensate the guy. And the way that I read the indictment, the government wasn't even going to try to prove that donated funds got back to him - they were going to try to convince the jury to assume that since the same people were involved, there must have been comingling of funds.
Bannon's involvement in the whole scheme looked incredibly tenuous to me, even if we accept the central premise of the main legal action. Looked like he was included in the case mostly to draw headlines and punish him for supporting Trump.
But after having read Licensed to Lie and a bunch of other books lately, I'd be in favor of a pardon for Bannon based solely on the FBI/DOJ accusation. Without knowing anything else about a person or a case, for any name that I've ever heard before (in any context), if the feds are against them, I'd be willing to bet real money that a pardon is justified.
If a journalist recieves, unsolicited, materials that were obtained illegally by a third party, the 1st Amendment and case law makes it perfectly clear that it is legal to publish them. The ground is a little bit less solid if said journalist cultivates a reputation for publishing leaked materials and actively encourages the public to leak to him, but despite the lack of case law, most scholars agree that said journalist would still be in good shape, legally speaking.
The problem comes up when that journalist works with a specific person and the two of them conspire together to break other laws. This is what the initial indictment of Assange in the US was about. Practicing journalism gets you some leeway, but it isn't blanket permission to disregard other laws that might inconvenience you.
Think what you will about him and his practices, and the motivations of the people going after him, but there isn't much question that the law he allegedly broke is not bullshit - it is a law that we really do want to keep and enforce. And the evidence presented in the indictment, if genuine, makes a pretty clear case.
In the bigger picture, we (as a country) have rivals, and those rivals are staffed up with ruthless stonefaced killers. We are projecting a lot of geopolitical weakness these days, and a strong case could easily be made that allowing a foreigner to play spymaster by turning one of our trusted intelligence officers into a spy against us, without so much as a slap on the wrist, would be yet another weakness that we don't need to project out into the world right now.
Sadly, his physical location in the UK plays against him here. A pardon would look much less weak if he were in US custody on US soil awaiting US justice than it would to pardon him now, while he is still technically a fugitive from justice. The former looks like mercy; the latter looks like defeat.
With all of that said, if I had been elected President in 2016, I'd have signed his pardon before 1:00 PM January 20th, 2017 and invited him in for a meeting in the oval office where we could have a chat about reforming his wayward ways, and also about rooting out and exposing corruption. (Can you imagine if President Trump had installed MAGA management in all agencies and instructed them (on the sly) to sift through the classified files looking to leak damning information about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama hires to Wikileaks?)
Sorry if you thought I was talking down to you. It wasn't intentional - I'm trying to understand what you think so that we can communicate.
Did I misunderstand what you meant then, in the quoted parts? The only way I can reconcile them without contradiction is if you exclude "what you believe in" from the category of ideas that you are able to evaluate and judge for yourself, but I can't see any logical basis for that exclusion.
What you believe in is not a choice either.
I believe I can be presented with an idea and judge for myself if it's good or not.
Wait, which is it? Are we deciding on our own, or are we programmed?
I'm just a stranger on the internet. You don't need to listen to me if you don't want to.
I don't know if you just went to a lousy church (most are), or if you just didn't pay attention because you didn't want to be there, but one way or another, you didn't learn Christianity while you were there. Your criticism is what every 12-year old thinks during their rebellion phase, basically Family Guy-style hostility. Maybe you have a better argument that you just didn't bother to type out, but if you were serious about what you said, then you need to understand that you are attacking a strawman.
P.S. I'm not the first person you were replying to.
Heh. Since so many churches have abandoned Christianity, no one can fault you for not understanding it. Here is Christ 101:
The central premise is that we are all bad persons, even the ones who are actively trying to be good. The "man in the sky" is trying to save us from the natural consequences of the bad choices we make. He gives us rules, and if we follow them, the choices we make are a little bit less bad, and when we don't follow them, he gives us an emergency appeal. The appeal process is extremely generous because the guy in charge of it voluntarily joined us, and while he didn't make any bad choices, he took the consequences of our bad choices on himself anyway.
Now morality can't be summed up in a single paragraph, and neither can be the debate regarding non-Christian sources of it. But I will note that an observer who grew up in a country built on Christian morals, in a world shaped by 2000 years of Christian morality, and who is not Christian himself. is usually not in a good position from which to evaluate the importance or effectiveness of Christian morality. Probably about 90% of your moral beliefs are our beliefs, imprinted on you through cultural osmosis, but since you don't believe, you don't understand their origin. You think that they came from wise men, or worse, you think that they are your own ideas.
If you find this topic interesting, I recommend Hallpike's Do We Need God to be Good?
Termites don't eat rock. Whatever happens to any church, even the one that calls itself Catholic, the true church is built on Jesus. And we already know that 12 true Christians are enough to spread his word across the entire world.
The word "boogaloo" has been in common (well, sorta common) usage as a humorous shorthand for "when the current cold civil war goes hot" for a while now. But that isn't the same as groups using it in their name, and that in turn isn't the same as there existing a "boogaloo movement".
And that doesn't mean that there aren't groups that have been around for a long time with philosophies that some might now categorize under that term.
Unless a person or group attaches a label to themselves, and explains what it means to them and why they use that label, it is a fault of logic to accept any label uncritically.
When my brother was in Bosnia, all of the ammo was counted out and back in every day. No one wanted the hassle of coming up short, so everyone taped up their magazines as soon as they got them. Had they ever been attacked, they would have needed to drop their magazines, remove two strips of electrical tape from the feed end, and re-insert.
I don't think they are still endangered. In the US, they are protected as a national symbol, but that isn't the same thing.
See if you can find a river valley with woods near you. A river old enough to form a deep valley with bluffs is best - the bluffs mess with the air currents, and eagles love that. The upper Mississippi valley (Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc) is thick with eagles.
To translate that into english - the concentration of medicine in the stuff varies from place to place. The bigger the glob of stuff you use, the closer that glob will be (on average) to the average for the whole container. Since horses weigh slightly more than humans, a dose sized for them will probably be "close enough", but a dose for us might not be.
If you insist on using the paste, stir the fuck out of it before each use. But seriously - don't use it.
It is easy to fool yourself into thinking that you know more about something than you really do. I'll help you out - here is the instruction manual for the RT-PCR test.
Pay close attention to the cycle limits and the cross-reactivity tables.
It doesn't matter that this virus shares proteins with other viruses, because we really aren't dumb enough to be testing for common protein genes. The tests we use are built around the section of the virus genome that is unique to this virus family, and then we tested - both on computer and in the lab - to make sure that our tests don't react to other known viruses.
Now there really are problems with testing, but it is very hard to get any attention to those real problems when people are spreading nonsense about fake problems.
The citations I've seen say the opposite, but they weren't recent. I don't know if more recent cases have reversed that decision or not - so far no one has cited anything where I've seen it, and I haven't done the digging myself.
I don't really believe that he is judging our country as a country. That is Old Testament thinking, from the time when his people were small and needed to be kept pure and apart from the rest of humanity to fulfill the promise that Jesus would be born through a specific bloodline.
Now that Jesus has come, the earthly fate of any person or group or persons is unimportant. I suspect that whatever happens now on earth (politically) is entirely our own doing.
Theologically speaking, God seems to be (at best) indifferent about the forms of earthly governments we live under. From time to time he'll use rulers or liberators to teach his people, but for the most part whatever we end up with is fine by him. There are just as many opportunities to teach us under oppression as there are under liberty - and from history, it appears that people pay much better attention to their lessons under oppression.