The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[IceSpear]

Atlas Democrats:

"Trump is obviously a vile human being, why do still people vote Republican?"

Atlas Democrats, after a wealthy Republican says he will stop voting Republican because Trump is a vile human being:

"I don't want your support, neoliberal scum!"

The left's outright hatred of rich people is so odd to me. Especially since many of them came from well off families.

Atlas socialists often come from middle class white suburban backgrounds and in their teen/20’s angst must rebel against it and everything it’s about. So instead their admiration is glued towards rural white voters who they avoid in real life and make weird caricatures about them being socialists with a social conservative bent. It’s similar to how white weeaboos worship Japan while knowing nothing about actual Japan.

You just always get it so right. Preach!

No, no he didn’t. The stereotype of the Champaign socialist being the only socialists around is a false stereotype.

Literally the first word of my post refers specifically to atlas socialists. I highly doubt Gloria LaRiva and Eugene Debs’ ghost are browsing atlas.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

I did mention the atlas working class members that are socialists later in my post and why giving crap to the middle income folks here is bunk. Plus let’s be honest, the accusations of atlas members is your generalization of all socialists.

Well it’s either they’re sheltered from being middle class or they’re just deluded to assume that rural whites are interested in socialist policies. You can claim all you want about how people like me “segregate ourselves” from suffering but you guys are the ones on this forum who defend the same people that time and time again have voted for Republican candidates and elected Trump. They don’t see themselves as victims and people like your ilk come across as being hilariously condescending when you try to tell them that they’re actually suffering (arguably more condescending than Icespear’s entire posting history).

Also the best case scenario you’ll get is rural whites just not seeing themselves as victims. Worst case scenario you’ll find plenty of the ones who know they’re getting screwed and are fine with it so long as minorities aren’t getting the benefit. Read up on the southern strategy if you have the time mate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sooo, I'm just going to throw this out there, but the reason "the right to be believed" was a big part of the past few years is because in a lot of cases of sexual assault / rape, there is no other evidence. This stuff tends to happen away from people, away from cameras, away for all of that. And even in cases of rape where evidence may exist, not all women report it immediately for a whole host of legitimate reasons. I get that people want more to go on, but in many cases, there won't be. And I'd be careful saying "well then that's sad but it's not enough," because you're essentially writing off a massive number of cases of sexual abuse then. Even without hard evidence, other available information should take on a higher meaning - such as who they told and when.

So I'm sorry, but in these cases, her word is all you have. The fact that she told people about this in counseling way back in 2012 is critical here. Kavanaugh wasn't really on the public's radar then, so there is no reason for her to do that unless there is truth to this. But so far from conservatives, this doesn't seem to matter?

[Atlas Force]

Let me break down this trainwreck of a post one step at a time, even though it's not going to convince concern trolls like you about anything:

1. Polls can't tell you about Latino turnout at all. I hate when people explain poll results by saying "THERE'S LOW LATINO/(insert whatever subgroup) TURNOUT IN THIS AREA IN MIDTERMS" because polls can't predict turnout.

2. How much of that SD-19 swing was because turnout dropped hard for an obscure special election, thus meaning the electorate could've been much whiter than the actual demographics? It'll probably be a significantly more Hispanic electorate in 2018, let alone 2020 when this seat comes back up again.

3. CA-21 was never on the board at all because that area has laughable turnout AND a strong incumbent. The CA-39 poll had Trump approval at even in a Clinton +9 seat which isn't believable at all. That was also probably our toughest of the OC seats. CA-25 is still a tossup, given that Knight is only up 3 and he's under 50 in a 42-52 Trump approval seat.

FL-26 was always going to be tough because the GOP incumbent is really well liked (and even that isn't preventing his race from being within 3 points AND below 50 against an opponent with 32% name recognition LOL), and the two FL-27 polls are internals. One of those internals is from McLaughlin, which is a notoriously terrible firm that's missed races by 30+ points consistently. The other is from a random firm I've never heard of, and it could very well be just being pushed out to tell people "DONATE TO ME!!!!!"

4. The Nevada polls are in line with what we've seen in other Nevada polls, and Nevada polls have a LONG history of underestimating Democrats, as this post by IceSpear shows: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301205.msg6407307#msg6407307

5. What surge? We have two outlier polls with Cruz +9 and O'Rourke +2, which cancel out largely to be a Cruz +4-5 race. Cruz +4 or Cruz +5 would be very much in line with what the race has been stuck at for months.

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- HRC


Hmmmm

55% of Republicans back family separation policy

45% of Republicans want the government to shutter “biased or inaccurate” media

52% of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 election

43% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim

47% of Republicans believe Trump won the popular vote

46% of Republicans believe Pizzagate - leaked emails from the Clinton Campaign talked about pedophilia and child trafficking

68% of Republicans believe million of illegals voted in the 2020 election

74% of Republicans believe Obama wiretapped Trump Tower

61% of Republicans say FBI is framing Trump

44% of Republican voters agree with false claim about Trump inauguration attendance

Majority of Trump supporters 'don't believe Trump Jr attended Russian lawyer meeting'

Number of Republicans' confidence in Russia's Vladimir Putin has doubled

51% of Republicans see the media as the "enemy of the people"

51% of Republicans say fake ‘Bowling Green massacre’ justifies travel ban executive order

50% Republicans say Trump is a genius

42% Republicans think it is ok to bodyslam reporters

30% of GOP voters support bombing Agrabah, the fictional city from Aladdin

[Politician]

It’s absurd that Republicans can easily win re-election in dark blue states yet Democrats have to go to all-out war to win red states

It comes with the territory of being the more open minded party sadly.

Ah yeah, that’s why all those deep red state Democratic candidates for Senate are losing right now, right? And why there are way more red state Democrats than blue state Republicans in the Senate? I kinda doubt someone like Phil Bredesen (R) would even have a 2% chance of making it competitive in a D+14 state.

Also not sure how Edwards leading by 13 and 23 points is a sign that Democrats will "have to go to all-out war" to win this race? Kennedy is probably the most popular politician in the state, so him being narrowly ahead makes sense. If he doesn’t run, it’s at least Likely D.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Again, no, there was not. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. What part of this are you not getting?

Businesses cannot deny service on the basis of race because there is a law that makes it illegal to deny service on the basis of race (and sex, religion, age, disability, etc.). There is no such law that prohibits a business from cutting ties with peddlers of hate-filled propaganda. If you're arguing for the creation of such a law, then make that argument. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

[IceSpear]

Iowa

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sorry, but I can't feel sympathetic at all. There's something to the pragmatic critique, but I don't take it as a principled point that public figures who have real power have a right not to be bothered.

People who hold positions of power in rich countries have made things better for them and worse for all but the top 10-20% over the past few decades. Those who are closest to the top have also made themselves almost immune to accountability for wrongdoing, as we've seen in everything from financial crisis to the Iraq War.

Even if they cannot feel shame, and even if they face no other consequences for their abuses, these people deserve to be loathed. And they deserve to know that they are loathed.

The biggest problem with these protestors is that they would not do the same to other politicians: Barack Obama, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and so on.

Actually, it would be better to protest only figures like these. Unlike Ted Cruz, some of them actually would care, on account of where their votes come from if nothing else. For someone like Cruz it's just a passing discomfort and inconvenience.

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lastly, this sort of attitude indicates a failure to take Evangelical concerns around abortion and religious liberty issues seriously. Even if you think our positions our wrong, try to see things from our point of view. If the Candidate A, wants to fund baby killers, and make you betray your conscience to be in the wedding business, you'll be willing to accept a lot of crap from Candidate B, and criticism about "family values" from Candidate A's supporters will ring hollow.

I wish there was a way for Democrats to reach pro-life voters, but from a pro-choice perspective I really don't get how that is to be done without neglecting pro-choice voters. This particular issue really seems to be one or the other, unless you count simply not pushing abortion policy at all a choice, which I find hard because pro-life groups are constantly pushing the GOP to restrict abortion in extremely novel ways 365 days a year, which demands pushback from liberals.

I should state that I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that for someone who prides themselves in Christian values, their principles, and so on, to support Trump - let alone support him so deeply like many do, means you are sacrificing a part of your convictions. There is no way you can have both with Trump. Like I said, he is so objectively awul in almost every way that there is just no way to reconcile the two. I can get how people would choose him to get pro-life judges for instance, but it doesn't change anything else. They know who Trump is, what he's done and what he says on a daily basis, so it's just one of those choices people have to make and they have to live with that.

* edit: by "you" i don't literally mean you specifically

What part of my principles would I have sacrificed for supporting Hillary Clinton, who advocates policies that are, indeed, anti-Scriptural?  Voting for Hillary requires more of a sacrifice of those principles, quite frankly.  And it's not like Hillary Clinton is oszing decency on a personal level, either. 

Hillary Clinton advocates PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION.  She's OK with it, in terms of public policy.  Honestly, tell me why voting for someone who is OK with that as a matter of public policy i less of a sellout of "Christian Values", or less of a compromise with Scripture than voting for someone whose moral failings and his persona are countered by advocacy of policies that, from a Christian perspective, are more reflective of Scripture?

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

You, and your crowd (ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, Doctor Imperialism, MasterJedi, and a few others) have felt free to misrepresent me, make personal attacks, and not give any sort of retraction when your facts are wrong.  Over and over.  More than once.  In violation of the ToS. 

When you begin to act decently toward me, I'll acknowledge it.

[Dr. Arch]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

You, and your crowd (ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, Doctor Imperialism, MasterJedi, and a few others) have felt free to misrepresent me, make personal attacks, and not give any sort of retraction when your facts are wrong.  Over and over.  More than once.  In violation of the ToS. 

When you begin to act decently toward me, I'll acknowledge it.

Not once have you disproved something I presented as fact. Just because you feel attacked by some members, doesn't mean you can clump them all together and characterize them as the same people. Moreover, if YOU think that I have violated the TOS, please go ahead and show it to the mods or zip it.

I once tried treating you as best I could even as you looked down on me every chance you had, and all you did was continue to disrespect me by condescending towards me to the point that you even implied that I don't have a job as a leaving quip in our first major argument on this forum. (And before you say I'm lying, here's the quote).

I guess the extra coffee has worn off.  Gotta go to work tomorrow.  Wonder who else has to do the same.

Go have your pity party somewhere else. The fact that I proved you wrong with time stamps and all, and yet you refuse to recant your initial slander of my decency based on previous perceptions is proof enough that you've gone beyond the land of reasonability. The only way I could be decent to you is to either agree with what you say or praise you for what you do, and neither of those are happening.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a point of theology that goes to who Jesus is, and what it takes for sinful man to stand before a Holy and Perfect God.

Mormons and Evangelicals have very different ideas as to who Jesus was and is, and these differences have Eternal consequences.  Mormons believe that Evangelicals who believe what they do about Jesus will be separated from him.  This doesn't make them "hateful", but it does represent a theological difference of Eternal Significance.

This idea that if you're a "good person" you will "Go to Heaven" or whatever other Happy Place you believe you will go to in the life after death may, or may not, be true, but it is not supported by Scripture.  The Bible I read says that my own personal Righteousness "is as fitthy rags" (which translates to something akin to soild cloth diapers).  The Bible I read says "there is none righteous; no, not one."  Whatever else Scripture may say about one's own righteousness, Scripture does not support the idea that "just being good", "doing your best", etc. is going to get you to a happy afterlife.

This is Theology For Keeps 101.  Serious Evangelicals discuss this.  Serious Mormons discuss this.  Serious Catholics discuss this.  You know this.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, you still stepped into a thread about Mormons that had nothing to do with who goes to Heaven or not to announce to everyone that you think Mormons are going to Hell. That was an inappropriate and classless post, and hurts your credibility to complain about people making inappropriate posts toward you.

The next time you're upset about something Proud Moderate or whoever said to you, remember how you've made all of the Mormons feel in that thread, people who never said anything nasty to you for you to "respond in kind" to.

(Also, both Mormons and Catholics explicitly believe that all good people, whether Christian or not, can go to Heaven, so you whiffed on 2/3 of your examples.)

Well said.

That Mormons or Catholics may believe something does not make it true.

"Justification By Faith, Alone" is the watershed Doctrine of the Evangelical Church.  I use the term "Evangelical" here in the sense that Martin Luther used it.  (Luther did not want his church to be called the "Lutheran" church; he wished for it to be called the "Evangelical" church, "Evangelical" meaning "true to the Gospel".)

What Mormons and Catholics advocate is extra-Biblical.  They elevate to Scripture writings and documents that are things other than Scripture.  It begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Infallible Word of God or whether it is not.  I certainly believe it is.  Others don't, and this is a crux of discussion.

The matter of where one spends Eternity isn't a choice between the nicest-sounding plan.  If I could pick a Heaven where we'd all go, where even Mao and Hitler and Stalin and Al Capone could be sanctified and live with the rest of up in perfect harmony for Eternity, never having to suffer again, I'd pick that plan.  Many people believe that Heaven is for the "good people", and that (I believe) is true, in that Sin cannot enter into Heaven, but it begs the question as to how one becomes "good"; indeed, it begs the question of what "good" actually means.

I'm mentioning this for the benefit of the reader who comes by and sees this religious discussion in the midst of the issue of the discussion of a poster (ProudModerate2) who, IMO, violates the ToS and forum rules to the point where some discipline ought to be invoked.  The folks pushing THAT discussion are, in their way, trolling.  That's OK; people trolled Jesus in His time on Earth as a man.  I'm suggesting that Heaven isn't something you pick, like a car.  All of us can't be right on this, and just because the plan for Eternal Life you've picked sounds as if it's the "most inclusive" or the "least judgmental" doesn't mean it represents the Eternal Reality.

Now, back to ProudModerate2:  Does he deserve discipline?  A ban?  Sign the petition if you agree.

In reply #325, Arch wasn't decent enough to quote the whole story. 

The thread is about high quality posts, not conversations. I quoted that post almost immediately after he posted it, which means you hadn't responded yet (notice that my post in this thread was made before midnight on Sept. 10 here and your reply to his post was on Sept. 11).

So, before you proceed to slander me (or anyone else) by saying I wasn't "decent enough," consider the friggin context. Shame on you.

That may be, but you had the option to make a correction to include the full record, and you didn't.

lol, who has the time to keep track of every post I make to keep "full records." You gotta be kidding me. And even though I show you a clear record that you're misrepresenting the case when questioning my decency, you still don't even bother to at least take it back.

You, and your crowd (ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, Doctor Imperialism, MasterJedi, and a few others) have felt free to misrepresent me, make personal attacks, and not give any sort of retraction when your facts are wrong.  Over and over.  More than once.  In violation of the ToS. 

When you begin to act decently toward me, I'll acknowledge it.

Not once have you disproved something I presented as fact. Just because you feel attacked by some members, doesn't mean you can clump them all together and characterize them as the same people. Moreover, if YOU think that I have violated the TOS, please go ahead and show it to the mods or zip it.

I once tried treating you as best I could even as you looked down on me every chance you had, and all you did was continue to disrespect me by condescending towards me to the point that you even implied that I don't have a job as a leaving quip in our first major argument on this forum. (And before you say I'm lying, here's the quote).

I guess the extra coffee has worn off.  Gotta go to work tomorrow.  Wonder who else has to do the same.

Go have your pity party somewhere else. The fact that I proved you wrong with time stamps and all, and yet you refuse to recant your initial slander of my decency based on previous perceptions is proof enough that you've gone beyond the land of reasonability. The only way I could be decent to you is to either agree with what you say or praise you for what you do, and neither of those are happening.

There are a number of folks whom are decent who neither agree with me nor praise me.  Those people don't misrepresent my statements.

[Badger]

Guys, although I at times hijacked threads as well, kindly take it somewhere else. Okay?

[GeorgiaModerate]

So, I've been an internet denizen since 1999, which doesn't make me an oldbie, but this forum tends to skew young. Forums are where most of my time has been spent. I was a lurker here for a long time before I started posting off and on with the lead-up to the 2016 election. I've started interacting more as I felt more confident, and now I feel confident enough to say this:

Y'all are really, really ridiculous about the ignore feature.

There are quite a few folks here who are considered to be trolls. Almost all the active userbase acknowledges this. Instead of acting appropriately and ignoring said user(s), they respond to said user(s) and give them the interaction they crave while also mucking up unrelated threads. Then we add in this whole "ban soandso" thread phenomenon, which is an interesting thing but quite pointless considering built in features of nearly every forum software in existence.

There are also many people who don't reach the level of trolls but quite often do not interact in good faith with other users or users or a particular political party.

Put. Them. On. Ignore.

Don't complain about how they always do x or y. Use the ignore feature. It's not censoring them (they can still post to their heart's content), and it's not "being a snowflake;" it's refusing to fall into their petty arguments and traps. There are a fair number of users who would stop derailing topics if people stopped responding to them. I happily have said users on my ignore list, and would be so much happier if others would do the same, as fewer threads would get derailed. It also allows you to see the posts of folks who do disagree with you but aren't rude about it in a much better light, and allows for a bit more thoughtful discourse!

Seriously. It's not worth your blood pressure going up. If you think they should be gone or you don't expect them to interact in good faith or they just treat you like something that came out of a cow's derrière, use the ignore feature. Save yourself some time and breathe a sigh of relief.

Anyway, I've never seen a forum so full of people who are proud of themselves for not using a normal and acceptable feature of a forum. It's silly and makes an already fraught discussion topic even more difficult to navigate. Some folks claim that by using ignore they're taking away the voice of dissenters. That's ridiculous. There are plenty of folks here who disagree with you who are willing to discuss those disagreements in good faith. SO. Make use of this very normal and acceptable feature and make your own forum reading much more enjoyable! Plus, hey, less off-topic wanderings for the rest of us to wade through.

Thanks for your time.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I hope he's confirmed. What's been happening against him, without a shred of real, tangible evidence has been a disgrace.

Your's a serious guy, and pretty thoughtful.

What would be the MORAL effect of, say, Roe v. Wade being cut back by the vote of a Judge whom people believe did what he did?  The Senate allowing Dr. Ford to testify at least frames and constrains the allegation (which, I must add, I find credible). 

If this had not gone to a Senate vote, the allegation would still be out there.  There would be the official version (but not under oath) and there would have been the embellishments.  If Roe v. Wade were to be cut back by the decisive vote of a Justice whose own behavior made back-alley coat hanger abortions necessary, what would the effect of THAT be on the Supreme Court?  Indeed, what would the effect of THAT be on our governmental institutions, all of them?

I am an ardent pro-lifer, and seeing abortion ended in America would give me great cause to celebrate.  I would view it as America righting a massive wrong, as much as it could.  But are these particular means good means?  What is the likekihood that if this were brought about by KAVANAUGH would produce a groundswell of public opinion that would result in a pro-choice Constitutional Amendment that would entrench not only abortion on demand, but Federal Funding of abortion as well? 

I see Kavanaugh's elevation to the SCOTUS as an unmitigated disaster for the pro-life movement, in that an improved position on the Court would be achieved at the expense of the moral authority we now have.  It is the moral argument for Life that enables the pro-life movement to be a force in our politics, despite being a minority constituency.  How disheartening would it be for millions of people who are at least marginally pro-life to think that the guy who cast the deciding vote to cut back Roe v. Wade was the kind of guy that once was responsible for women seeking out unsafe illegal abortions?

Trump could have, and should have, pulled Kavanaugh and substituted a new nominee.  For the good of the country, the Court, and the pro-life movement.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No, never really crossed my mind. However, I think that enough people in my personal circle including my wife and my colleagues at work would confirm that I'm not the kind of guy who does these things and my credability would be higher than someone who makes false accusations. I do believe, though, that only a tiny percentage of women make bluntly false accusations.

I mean, humor me for a second and entertain the idea that Kavanagh’s accuser is in that tiny percentage.  Don’t you think he thinks the same things about himself?

Obviously he didn't want to FBI to investigate. If you have nothing to hide, why not welcoming an investigation? Of course, it would be wrong and stupid to missbehave because you think your credability is higher. Usually it is difficult to make stuff completely up and get away with it. Most false accusers can't get or keep their story straight, especially when witnesses are involved and then it all comes out. For Ms. Ford, I don't see why she should be lying, considering the negative impacts her coming out has led to.

But of course, a tiny risk always remains. You could also be accused of other crimes you didn't commit. I guess it's the risk of life.

One of the things about this behavior we are talking about with Kavanaugh is that it is often done in secret, or in venues where people can "hide in plain sight".  The character witnesses were shielded from Kavanaugh's behavior because he didn't do that when he was around them.  Then, too, there are lots of folks who'll be character witnesses for folks they don't know all that well, or know in only one area of their life (only work, only church, etc.) and knew little about the rest of one's life.  There are lots of co-workers I think highly of, but I couldn't say from experience what kind of parent they really are, or how they treat women in their personal lives.

In something like this, I'm not really interested in character witnesses.  Kavanaugh shows them what he wants them to see.  That's not a knock; that's the way it is with all of us. 

[GeorgiaModerate]

Another good post from a newcomer:

I don't like O'Rourke.  For one thing, he reminds me of Ted Kennedy (one of the four Democrats from my home state whose name I practically use as a profanity), and his having a drunk driving accident which he tried to flee doesn't help with that.  For another thing, there are plenty of issues where I agree with liberal Democrats and on which a Senate candidate should have a position; so when I contacted his campaign for positions on those issues trying to persuade myself to vote for him and it turned out he had no position on them, I felt that he is either evasive or unprofessional.  

Then finally, he advocated banning AR-15s, and that was the straw that I thought decided me for Dikeman.   Now, I am quite moderate on gun control: I support background checks and high-capacity magazine bans and don't believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms, and think Wayne LaPierre is a horrible excuse for a human being.  But whenever a Democrat proposes banning one of the most popular firearms, and one which is not an outsized contributor to gun deaths, because it was used in one high-profile shooting and no one technically "needs" one, it tells me that they have not made even the slightest effort to understand gun culture.  And this makes me wonder if O'Rourke is going to be any better about trying to understand people who disagree with him than Cruz is: I feel like the answer to that question is probably "no."

The Kavanaugh hearings, however, have persuaded me that I need to vote for O'Rourke; I've finally come around to George Will's argument that Trump and his cadre of enablers need to be defeated no matter what.  Now, I don't know how many people like me there are: I am atypical of a Texas voter, and probably even atypical of a college-educated white Texas voter who moved here from a blue state: I suspect that most people who hated Cruz and normally vote were planning on voting for O'Rourke anyways.  But I am sure that there are a lot of people who are as jaded as I was and dealt with it by staying home.  I sincerely hope that the Kavanaugh hearings might have jolted enough of them out of complacency to make a difference.

I also remember with both Massachusetts in 2010 and Alabama in 2017, being sure that the state was going to elect an absolutely appalling canddiate because they had the right letter next to their name.  In both 2010 and 2017, I was pleasantly surprised.  I wouldn't say that Cruz himself is as personally reprehensible as Coakley or Moore, but in seeking to promote Kavanaugh he is attempting to install a nakedly partisan conspiracy theorist, shameless perjurer, and probable sexual predator to a lifetime position far more powerful than a mere Senate seat.  Texas isn't as red as Alabama, nor as red as Massachusetts is blue, and the polls have had Cruz only very slightly ahead.  I am therefore cautiously optimistic that the Kavanaugh hearings will lend Texas voters enough moral clarity to evict Cruz from his seat.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

BK.

What are you believing Ford on? Not any evidence, because there isn't any. What a joke.

There is Dr. Ford's statement.  Under oath.  This is evidence.

There is her polygraph, which she passed.  This is evidence.

There is the record of what she mentioned in therapy.  This is evidence.

There is the documentation of Dr. Ford's history of trauma-related symptoms that are consistent with the kind of trauma she describes.  That is evidence.

There is the fact that Dr. Ford's testimony is, in a real sense, a statement against her own self-interest, given that it was her desire to not publicly testify.  That is evidence.

There are new allegations against Kavanaugh.  This is evidence.

All of this, taken together, is insufficient for a new criminal charge to be filed.  However, all of this, taken together would be sufficient for a clinical social worker to be reviewed by the state agency that licenses them and the NASW to determine their fitness to practice.  It would trigger an Internal Affairs investigation if such an allegation were made against a Law Enforcement officer, or a Correctional Officer.  It would be cause for a teacher's license to be reviewed. 

The level of evidence brought against Kavanaugh does not rise to the level of Probable Cause, but it does, IMO, rise to the level of Reasonable Suspicion.  To say there's "NO" evidence, just is not true.  There is enough evidence for someone to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh ought not be elevated beyond hos present station, at a minimum.

[Atlas Force]

David Brooks has always been a 'both sides are equally bad' mentally lazy moron. As I've written before, his continued employment despite his dimwitted hackery and his outright making stuff up to write stories (he has done what he accused Michael Wolf of doing on at  least two occasions) is clear evidence, to me anyway, of white male privilege. 

Mark Shields is about the most milquetoast commentator around (although he does get in some subtle jabs) I have no idea how anybody can claim that he is more partisan than Brooks.  Shields occasionally quotes the 'when they bring a knife to a fight...' but, in reality, his one remaining wish is that when Republicans bring either a knife or gun to a fight, that Democrats bring a Bible (or the lyrics to Kunbaya) and that, finally, everybody can get along.

Brooks is a  Dunning Kruger type who has been allowed to believe that he is some great intellectual, and Shields is a fossil.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

[wesmoorenerd]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

Yes. I truly find my own posts amazing sometimes.