The political face of Satan

[Vort]

No, it's not the Democrat Party, though the people under discussion are certainly almost all Democrats.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/04/democrats-majority-rules-norms-trump-2020-218947

Unvarnished Machiavellianism. We need to be taking very careful notes and have a long memory, then make sure that anyone and everyone involved in this idea is permanently held responsible for their treasonous acts. Because they are certainly treasonous, whether or not they are illegal, and all who have sung this song need to be forever branded with the scarlet T.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Vort

[Vort]

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/supreme-court-packing-fdr-justices-appointments

Never forget these shameless words. Hold them accountable.

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

No, it's not the Democrat Party,

Don't be naive.  It DEFINITELY is the Democrat Party.  Unless you want to make the assertion Rush Limbaugh makes that the Media is actually the dog and the Democrat Party is just its tail instead of the other way around?

Edited July 5, 2018 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

"...break California in seven, with the goal of adding 16 new Democrats to the Senate."

I'm not exactly opposed to such a notion, and I question whether the stated result would be realized.  I'd love to take the whole "California does it first, then the rest of the states have to" process, and shoot it in the head.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

shoot it in the head

A) That would be illegal in Californias 1-6.

B) It would also be known to cause cancer in Californias 1-6.

[estradling75]

This is exactly the kind of response I remember @Just_A_Guy warning about when during the lead up to Trump's election...  Now it is here.

As for Court Packing the writer of the article is being very short sighted... Whatever tool you weaponize to met your own agenda will be used against you.

If the Dems gain power and add 6 (bringing it to 15) Justices they will gain the Supreme Court.. Until the Reps ascend again (And they will it is the nature of the political beast) then they will add more so they have the Supreme Court again and undo everything the Dems did and do their thing.  Then the Dems will regain power and pack in even more gaining power.  They will redo all their stuff and undo all the Reps stuff... and so on and so forth until the Supreme Court is larger then Congress and just as ineffective.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

This is exactly the kind of response I remember @Just_A_Guy warning about when during the lead up to Trump's election...  Now it is here.

There did seem to be, in many quarters, a quite comfortable presumption that if we went low the left couldn’t—or wouldn’t—stoop any lower than it had already done.  

Now it looks like we’re in a tactical race to the bottom.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why the most enlightened and advanced civilization in the universe is a Kingdom and not a republic or a democracy?  It is called “The Kingdom of Heaven”, not “The Republic of Heaven” or “The Democracy of Heaven” – not even “The Socialists of Heaven” or “The Communists of Heaven”.

It is my honest believe that there will not be even one “Republican” or “Democrat” in heaven.  There may be some reformed Republicans or Democrats that have forsaken party but no active or card carrying political party members of any party.  On the other hand – I believe party politics will play out big time in Hell and that the only way to get a head in hell will be through maneuvering and manipulating party politics. 

Holding everyone accountable does sound a lot like the “final judgment”.  But what is mercy and forgiveness?  How can anyone be forgiven that does not intend or want forgiveness?   Sometimes I think we forget and confuse the intent of Satan verses that of G-d.  Sometimes I wonder if the society of Heaven can or ever has worked.  Maybe it is because this is a fallen state – but what we think of or define as heaven – has little chance here and now.

 

The Traveler

[bytebear]

Living in Orange County,  I welcome any change that removes us from the boot of LA and SF.  

[bytebear]

On 7/5/2018 at 1:39 PM, Traveler said:

It is my honest believe that there will not be even one “Republican” or “Democrat” in heaven. 

What about Whigs?

[SilentOne]

On 7/5/2018 at 2:39 PM, Traveler said:

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why the most enlightened and advanced civilization in the universe is a Kingdom and not a republic or a democracy?  It is called “The Kingdom of Heaven”, not “The Republic of Heaven” or “The Democracy of Heaven” – not even “The Socialists of Heaven” or “The Communists of Heaven”.

 

My first thought: Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, SilentOne said:

My first thought: Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.

Excellent - the only things I would add to what you have said is to substitute Senators, Representatives, Presidents and Judges for kings - all of which live better from the taxes gathered from the people they govern.  The example of king Benjamin was someone that labored to support himself without taking from the people for his support.  I refuse to call those elected - public servants.  If our politicians were subject to the same laws as are citizens - we could solve all the problems that politicians have created that we currently face in our government.  If elected officials had the same health care and retirement as those that serve in the military - even the public health care would be better off.  The question we should ask - is why they (those elected) are compensated more?   Why is anyone working for the government (outside of the military) compensated (including benefits) more than those that risk their lives for the rest of us on the battle field?   The only possible exception would be those that risk their lives on home soil discharging and enforcing the laws and protecting citizens that abide the laws that our politicians create.  It appalls me that those that work in the public sector think themselves to be of greater value than those in the military and the front lines of law enforcement.

One last statement - to be clear.  Anyone that serves in the military or in the front lines of law enforcement that abuse that station are traders to the society, government and the people and as I have stated - no one in the employ of the government should think themselves better.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, bytebear said:

What about Whigs?

Anyone that serves party over country and people.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Excellent - the only things I would add to what you have said is to substitute Senators, Representatives, Presidents and Judges for kings - all of which live better from the taxes gathered from the people they govern.  The example of king Benjamin was someone that labored to support himself without taking from the people for his support.  I refuse to call those elected - public servants.  If our politicians were subject to the same laws as are citizens - we could solve all the problems that politicians have created that we currently face in our government.  If elected officials had the same health care and retirement as those that serve in the military - even the public health care would be better off.  The question we should ask - is why they (those elected) are compensated more?   Why is anyone working for the government (outside of the military) compensated (including benefits) more than those that risk their lives for the rest of us on the battle field?   The only possible exception would be those that risk their lives on home soil discharging and enforcing the laws and protecting citizens that abide the laws that our politicians create.  It appalls me that those that work in the public sector think themselves to be of greater value than those in the military and the front lines of law enforcement. 

Don't know if you read fiction, Traveler, but L. E. Modesitt Jr. has a science fiction book titled Adiamante set in the future of Earth (all his science fiction is future Earth / earthlings) where they don't have a permanent head of government, and anyone who accepts the position when one is needed racks up debt (instead of getting paid), which he must repay by doing some form of public service once his time as head of government is completed.  That's not what the book is about, just an interesting feature of the world it portrays.  The link above is to Amazon, but the Utah library system should have it (that's where I read it, and Modesitt is a Utah resident).  As a bonus, unless it's the exception (I can't remember), you'll find a futuristic version of Mormons (with a slightly tweaked name) portrayed in a somewhat negative light (they say Modesitt doesn't like the Church) - I always find these mildly amusing.

Edited July 10, 2018 by zil
correcting spelling of author's name

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, zil said:

Don't know if you read fiction, Traveler, but L. E. Modessit Jr. has a science fiction book titled Adiamante set in the future of Earth (all his science fiction is future Earth / earthlings) where they don't have a permanent head of government, and anyone who accepts the position when one is needed racks up debt (instead of getting paid), which he must repay by doing some form of public service once his time as head of government is completed.  That's not what the book is about, just an interesting feature of the world it portrays.  The link above is to Amazon, but the Utah library system should have it (that's where I read it, and Modessit is a Utah resident).  As a bonus, unless it's the exception (I can't remember), you'll find a futuristic version of Mormons (with a slightly tweaked name) portrayed in a somewhat negative light (they say Modessit doesn't like the Church) - I always find these mildly amusing.

 

I have read science fiction and fantasy but have been disappointed that there is just too much unbelievable fiction or fantasy and almost no reality.  I have attempted to write my own science fiction (“Enigma” – a first contact of earth with advanced intelligence – symbolic of discovery of G-d.  “Mariana Trench”  - explores the fear of greater intelligence – symbolic of why Christ was crucified and why G-d is dumbed down in worship.  Feathers – about an idiot savant that communicates with birds – autobiography, symbolic of my own life as an idiot or misfit in one circumstance but considered a genius in another circumstance and the real individual caught in between.) 

I tried short story contests – one titled “First Date” submitted as a personal story but was rejected as being fantasy.  And one titled “Dream Quest” a personal story about a 40 day fast in the wilderness desert of southern Utah – also rejected as fantasy – I think our culture does not understand the native American concept of a dream quest.   I am convinced that fantasy is more believable than real life.

Originally I started posting on internet forums in an attempt to connect to others that I would phrase as normal people through writing.  Obviously I am a work in progress that will experience death long before success on any rational level.  It would seem that I am doomed to fantastic failure on one hand or abundant unexplainable success on another.

So to answer your question – I am interested in science fiction and fantasy but do not seem to be able to connect through the written medium – regardless if I am reading or writing.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have read science fiction and fantasy but have been disappointed that there is just too much unbelievable fiction or fantasy and almost no reality.  I have attempted to write my own science fiction (“Enigma” – a first contact of earth with advanced intelligence – symbolic of discovery of G-d.  “Mariana Trench”  - explores the fear of greater intelligence – symbolic of why Christ was crucified and why G-d is dumbed down in worship.  Feathers – about an idiot savant that communicates with birds – autobiography, symbolic of my own life as an idiot or misfit in one circumstance but considered a genius in another circumstance and the real individual caught in between.) 

I tried short story contests – one titled “First Date” submitted as a personal story but was rejected as being fantasy.  And one titled “Dream Quest” a personal story about a 40 day fast in the wilderness desert of southern Utah – also rejected as fantasy – I think our culture does not understand the native American concept of a dream quest.   I am convinced that fantasy is more believable than real life.

Originally I started posting on internet forums in an attempt to connect to others that I would phrase as normal people through writing.  Obviously I am a work in progress that will experience death long before success on any rational level.  It would seem that I am doomed to fantastic failure on one hand or abundant unexplainable success on another.

So to answer your question – I am interested in science fiction and fantasy but do not seem to be able to connect through the written medium – regardless if I am reading or writing.

 

The Traveler

Well, hard to say, but you might like Modesitt - he's quite different from a lot of typical fantasy / science fiction.  His science fiction is "soft" - he doesn't generally go into detail on the science - but he's pretty good at predicting the use of technology in the future / its impact on economy and government (this seems to be closer to his area of expertise).  Anyway, I'm sure you can read the blurb / preview and know whether it might be appealing to you, but I understand if it's not.

Edited July 10, 2018 by zil
correcting spelling of author's name

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Well, hard to say, but you might like Modessit - he's quite different from a lot of typical fantasy / science fiction.  His science fiction is "soft" - he doesn't generally go into detail on the science - but he's pretty good at predicting the use of technology in the future / its impact on economy and government (this seems to be closer to his area of expertise).  Anyway, I'm sure you can read the blurb / preview and know whether it might be appealing to you, but I understand if it's not.

 

I did some quick background into Modessit – In general I dislike authors that write about things with which they have no experience.  I did not find any reference to Modessit serving in the military so I would be prejudice of his efforts to write of Cyber Warriors and how military training effects various individual and personality types trained for war (killing).  I would quickly pick this up as I read if it appears he has no military experience.  I find a lot of writing to stereotype individuals of different personality types in similar life circumstance without taking both to account (which I see as the logical thing to do) – this is one of my favorite rubs of characters in literature.  I believe characters to be much more complex but with logic based in personality type and background and not just the result of one.  But I have been greatly criticized for my own characters not making personal contact with readers.  Obviously my characters have the same fault as I myself.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I did not find any reference to Modessit serving in the military

According to Brandon Sanderson, he did.  I assume the source was Modesitt himself (Sanderson talked as if they knew each other).  Confirmed - US Navy pilot: http://www.lemodesittjr.com/about-the-author/

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I did not find any reference to Modessit serving in the military so I would be prejudice of his efforts to write of Cyber Warriors and how military training effects various individual and personality types trained for war (killing).

I don't recall fighting or other serious military details in this novel - it was more political (to my recollection), but I could be wrong - it's been several years.

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I find a lot of writing to stereotype individuals of different personality types in similar life circumstance without taking both to account (which I see as the logical thing to do) – this is one of my favorite rubs of characters in literature.  I believe characters to be much more complex but with logic based in personality type and background and not just the result of one.  But I have been greatly criticized for my own characters not making personal contact with readers.  Obviously my characters have the same fault as I myself.

Obviously, this isn't something I can predict - you'll have to judge that for yourself.  Fortunately, his SciFi are all (to my knowledge) stand-alone and comparatively short, so not much invested to test them.

Edited July 10, 2018 by zil