Future Speculation

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I don't condemn him. I'm waiting to see what the Russian connection is all about. There's enough there to warrant investigation and little to suggest exoneration is in order at this point. You aren't saying that he shouldn't be investigated, are you?
I'm saying plenty of investigating has been done, nothing that suggests Trump colluded with the Russians has been found, the Press has moved on, why aren't some on the Left accepting that? You have to admit that much of it was just made up. CNN and others have had to retract stories. It looked to me as a convenient scapegoat rather than facing the real reasons why Hillary lost. I can say it until I'm blue in the face, Trump is no prize. But should he be impeached on nothing more than mass hysteria? Is this what our democracy is devolving to? If there is something there that truly proves that Trump and Putin conspired to rig the election and somehow managed to pull it off then by all means impeach him. Haven't seen it yet.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I'm saying plenty of investigating has been done, nothing that suggests Trump colluded with the Russians has been found, the Press has moved on, why aren't some on the Left accepting that? You have to admit that much of it was just made up. CNN and others have had to retract stories. It looked to me as a convenient scapegoat rather than facing the real reasons why Hillary lost. I can say it until I'm blue in the face, Trump is no prize. But should he be impeached on nothing more than mass hysteria? Is this what our democracy is devolving to? If there is something there that truly proves that Trump and Putin conspired to rig the election and somehow managed to pull it off then by all means impeach him. Haven't seen it yet.
Again. Not about impeachment. It's about the House, Senate, and independent counsel finishing their investigations. One of them just started. Investigations take as long as they take.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Again. Not about impeachment. It's about the House, Senate, and independent counsel finishing their investigations. One of them just started. Investigations take as long as they take.
Then let it run it's course. Somewhere along the way someone's head will roll, the independent counsel will have it's trophy to justify it's existence, but nothing will prove what the independent counsel was established to investigate to begin with. We'll see.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I'm not advocating for any of that. But if you believe no one is going after Christianity you're rather naive. The ACLU and atheist groups have been attacking Christianity for decades. If Christians choose to pray openly after sporting events they should be allowed to. If they want to put up a nativity scene during what is after all a Christian holiday they should be able to. If their faith precludes them from funding certain kinds of birth control because they believe it's actually a type of abortion, which they're against, the weight of the Federal gov't shouldn't be put upon them. Same goes for gay weddings. Gays can find plenty of businesses willing to participate without having to try to drive someone out of business who isn't willing. And on it goes.
If you google "Christian athletes praying" what do you find in "images"?

Business is another animal. They are playing in the marketplace and need to follow the rules all others follow or it is up to them to make accommodations.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Then let it run it's course. Somewhere along the way someone's head will roll, the independent counsel will have it's trophy to justify it's existence, but nothing will prove what the independent counsel was established to investigate to begin with. We'll see.
It will run its course.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
If you google "Christian athletes praying" what do you find in "images"?

Business is another animal. They are playing in the marketplace and need to follow the rules all others follow or it is up to them to make accommodations.
It isn't Christian athletes and coaches coming together after an event for a quick prayer that's harming people. It's the people who can't stand Christianity for whatever reason that try to put a stop to it. For no better reason than they don't like it.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
It isn't Christian athletes and coaches coming together after an event for a quick prayer that's harming people. It's the people who can't stand Christianity for whatever reason that try to put a stop to it. For no better reason than they don't like it.
Trying to put a stop to it? No. Not really. And if there is a suit filed somewhere that gets hype, so what? In the big picture it's a big nothing-burger.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
I'm not advocating for any of that. But if you believe no one is going after Christianity you're rather naive. The ACLU and atheist groups have been attacking Christianity for decades. If Christians choose to pray openly after sporting events they should be allowed to. If they want to put up a nativity scene during what is after all a Christian holiday they should be able to. If their faith precludes them from funding certain kinds of birth control because they believe it's actually a type of abortion, which they're against, the weight of the Federal gov't shouldn't be put upon them. Same goes for gay weddings. Gays can find plenty of businesses willing to participate without having to try to drive someone out of business who isn't willing. And on it goes.
But when a public servant getting paid with public dollars refuses to grant a marriage license to a gay couple in complete defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding gay marriage on the basis of her Christian views but still expects to continue to collect her $ 81,000 annual salary plus full benefits payed for with taxpayer dollars collected from people from all walks of life including gay people the public's contempt for people who hide their racism bigotry and homophobia behind their "Christian Beliefs" then has a clear and just basis. Is it really a faith or is it simply white privilege being masked by a religious ideology?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
But when a public servant getting paid with public dollars refuses to grant a marriage license to a gay couple in complete defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding gay marriage on the basis of her Christian views but still expects to continue to collect her $ 81,000 annual salary plus full benefits payed for with taxpayer dollars collected from people from all walks of life including gay people the public's contempt for people who hide their racism bigotry and homophobia behind their "Christian Beliefs" then has a clear and just basis. Is it really a faith or is it simply white privilege being masked by a religious ideology?
Weren't the gays white also? She was a Democrat by the way. They could've gone to any other office and got their license. They targeted her to make a statement. They are intent on forcing people to give up their beliefs. What you are saying essentially is gays have the right to believe what they're doing is ok and no one else has the right to believe it's not ok. Accommodations can be made. Other offices can issue the license. She doesn't have to violate her religious beliefs. But in your world only your view is acceptable and everyone must bend to it. How very fascist.
 
Last edited:

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
Weren't the gays white also? She was a Democrat by the way. They could've gone to any other office and got their license. They targeted her to make a statement. They are intent on forcing people to give up their beliefs.
Her beliefs have no part in her serving the public for which she was hired to do.
 
Top