[Hoot Gibson]

What I said was this: to a lot of voters those things seem like the kind of stuff that politicians do, not something so egregious as to enter an entirely different category. To many independents, in my view, the partisans of both sides yell "high crimes and misdemeanors" at the other side for behaviors not unique or peculiar to either side.

Trading bribes from foreign nationals and global corporations for political access and deliberate violations of the Espionage Act are exactly the kind of high crimes and misdemeanors that the founders had in mind when they penned those words. It is sad that you think that Hillary's criminal behavior is just par for the course for American politicians. American citizens are languishing in prison for such crimes.

[TheRealThing]

^^Didn't you know, Sombrero is an informed voter? True wisdom, the wisdom of the founders for example, includes all truth. That means embracing spiritual truths as well what we might call natural or secular truths though I do not accept the notion that there is any way to partition off the one from the other. One cannot compartmentalize or ignore some forms of truth if he really wants to enjoy an intellectual command of any given situation. If I deny lead is a naturally occurring metal for example, I might ban it in an attempt to 'save the environment' from whence it came. Likewise, speaking in half truths gives us things like ObamaScare, the American public was promised a treat, but all they got was the trick. And could I just remind everyone that it was and continually has been the Republicans, who have steadfastly warned said public about the dire consequences and skyrocketing costs attached to such a hair brained Ponzi scheme? Or as in this case, one might argue that graft, betrayal and corruption are just a part of politics. Laughable and sad at the same time.

The argument being made that the founders did not observe spiritual truths in their deliberations up to and including the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is a denial of history and the obvious. And in my view, the reason we functioned so well as a society through the 20th Century was due to our having honored the original intent of the Constitution. The more we allow any faction to mitigate the original intent, be it liberal, Libertarian or whatever, the more we will see American exceptionalism disappear.

At any rate, the liberal argument though touted as diverse and clear eyed, in fact rejects that spiritual truths are in such case applicable. That argument is therefore flawed. The US has never been perfect, but has become far more flawed in accepting liberalism, which seeks to supplant this nation's ties with her Christian heritage. All one has to do is to watch the news and world events to understand that we as a people are diminished. I hate it because I have watched the decline and in studying Scripture, I know the pain that awaits. That which no world power could have ever taken by force seems to me about to be given up willingly.

[vector]

Are these the same founding fathers who think that owning other humans was
Okay ?

[TheRealThing]

Are these the same founding fathers who think that owning other humans was
Okay ?

Yep, the very same, but whew! Didn't take long to flush you out with that post did it? Liberals love to sit the high ground and decide what is moral and what is immoral.

Philemon 1:9-11 (KJV)
9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

The backstory: Brother in Christ to Paul the Apostle and author of this passage, was a man named Philemon to whom this letter was addressed. Onesimus was the slave of Philemon, a devote Christian and a man who loved the Church and lived a very good and Godly life.

Onesimus had managed to run away from Philemon and was lurking about in the shadows of the town in which Paul found him. Onesimus winds up getting saved and goes back to Philemon, (carrying this letter) who restores him to an honored place in his home. Slavery has been with us for time immemorial and was and is not always a bad thing. So, you say the heck with the Constitution because of slavery huh?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Yep, the very same, but whew! Didn't take long to flush you out with that post did it? Liberals love to sit the high ground and decide what is moral and what is immoral.

Philemon 1:9-11 (KJV)
9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:

The backstory: Brother in Christ to Paul the Apostle and author of this passage, was a man named Philemon to whom this letter was addressed. Onesimus was the slave of Philemon, a devote Christian and a man who loved the Church and lived a very good and Godly life.

Onesimus had managed to run away from Philemon and was lurking about in the shadows of the town in which Paul found him. Onesimus winds up getting saved and goes back to Philemon, (carrying this letter) who restores him to an honored place in his home. Slavery has been with us for time immemorial and was and is not always a bad thing. So, you say the heck with the Constitution because of slavery huh?

Hold on: are you equating the indentured servitude of Onesimus to the slave trade that existed in this country? Please. This nation was not founded by angelic beings upon heavenly grounds. That is Christian Reconstructionist myth.

From the Preamble to its final word, the Constitution should be interpreted at its highest common denominators. Freedom of conscience and the dignity of the individual, sans skin color or gender or ethnicity.

"I listen to Lou Dobbs. I am informed. I dispense wisdom to all the great unwashed masses who would dare vote for a non Republican." Sir, you are just as prone to the selective blindness of the partisan as the next person. Are we to take seriously the "morally superior" premise to prefer Trump over Clinton? That he is more trustworthy? These are court jester propositions.

[TheRealThing]

Hold on: are you equating the indentured servitude of Onesimus to the slave trade that existed in this country? Please. This nation was not founded by angelic beings upon heavenly grounds. That is Christian Reconstructionist myth.

From the Preamble to its final word, the Constitution should be interpreted at its highest common denominators. Freedom of conscience and the dignity of the individual, sans skin color or gender or ethnicity.

"I listen to Lou Dobbs. I am informed. I dispense wisdom to all the great unwashed masses who would dare vote for a non Republican." Sir, you are just as prone to the selective blindness of the partisan as the next person. Are we to take seriously the "morally superior" premise to prefer Trump over Clinton? That he is more trustworthy? These are court jester propositions.

You know you like to throw a term out there like you're some sort of expert, or at least well informed of what you speak. Would you like to see a definition of the term indentured servitude? "Indentured servitude was a labor system in which people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a fixed term of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North America" Now, call me geographically inhibited, but I didn't know New World was in the fertile cresent.

I'll skip the rest of your pretensive blather and address the deal between Hillary and Donald. As a person in God's eyes he's no better than she. His record however does in my opinion make him THE solid choice (since our choice is limited to one of the two), for President.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You know you like to throw a term out there like you're some sort of expert, or at least well informed of what you speak. Would you like to see a definition of the term indentured servitude? "Indentured servitude was a labor system in which people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a fixed term of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North America" Now, call me geographically inhibited, but I didn't know New World was in the fertile cresent.

I'll skip the rest of your pretensive blather and address the deal between Hillary and Donald. As a person in God's eyes he's no better than she. His record however does in my opinion make him THE solid choice (since our choice is limited to one of the two), for President.

Now, before we go into it too much, are you sure you want to hold that Onesimus was a slave of Philemon in the manner of slavery as in the trade of captives that went on in this nation's past?
Or, historically, would their relationship have been much closer to indentured servitude, with Onesimus leaving before paying off what was owed with a term of service? You play semantic games.

[TheRealThing]

Now, before we go into it too much, are you sure you want to hold that Onesimus was a slave of Philemon in the manner of slavery as in the trade of captives that went on in this nation's past?
Or, historically, would their relationship have been much closer to indentured servitude, with Onesimus leaving before paying off what was owed with a term of service? You play semantic games.

No, I've laid out my argument and used Scripture to back it up. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and lay out your case and seriously, please be my guest to 'go into it too much.' Onesimus was a slave, and Philemon owned him. But you have the floor now, straighten me out.

Let us hope you can do much better than you did in explaining to us the difference between requirements for the various ID Cards as opposed to why voter ID's would be some sort of disenfranchising and undue burden.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Requiring people of advanced age and declining health, or those who lack transportation, to get to the courthouse creates an obstacle to voting. If you worked with the poor or elderly, you would know that. Instead, you preen like a peacock with a smug cocksureness more befitting a stiff-necked Jew of yore than a servant spirit Christian.

Of course, Paul negated the owner/slave relationship, and offered Onesimus to Philemon as a brother. However, Paul said, "If he owes you anything, charge it to me." If what Onesimus owed was only the work of a slave, how could Paul be charged? It seems that Paul is offering to make good what is owed. The relationship between Onesimus and Philemon bears little resemblance to the slave/master/overseer "human chattel" trade...and you know it.

[TheRealThing]

Requiring people of advanced age and declining health, or those who lack transportation, to get to the courthouse creates an obstacle to voting. If you worked with the poor or elderly, you would know that. Instead, you preen like a peacock with a smug cocksureness more befitting a stiff-necked Jew of yore than a servant spirit Christian.

Of course, Paul negated the owner/slave relationship, and offered Onesimus to Philemon as a brother. However, Paul said, "If he owes you anything, charge it to me." If what Onesimus owed was only the work of a slave, how could Paul be charged? It seems that Paul is offering to make good what is owed. The relationship between Onesimus and Philemon bears little resemblance to the slave/master/overseer "human chattel" trade...and you know it.

Wrong. Onesimus was a son to Paul in the sense that he (Paul) was a prisoner of Christ, and as such had begotten him through the preaching of the word. Bible scholars of any stature, all agree that the most likely scenario is that Onesimus had either stolen something of value or taken money from Philemon to aid him in his breakaway from Philemon who most assuredly owned Onesimus. Through salvation, Onesimus was now a brother to Philemon who had just gotten saved recently himself.

Here is what Dr J Vernon McGee had to say about the matter of chattel. "The story of this epistle was enacted on the black background of slavery. There were approximately sixty million slaves in the Roman Empire where the total population did not exceed one hundred twenty million. A slave was a chattel. He was treated worse than an enemy. He was subject to the whim of his master."

Now, the reason I said that being a slave was not always a bad thing is because Philemon was a Christian man and as such would have treated Onesimus very well. But Onesimus longed to be free and made his break only to realize there can be a certain slavery in freedom. He was likely hungry, dirty and exhausted from being on the run and living in the streets of Rome where he bumped into Paul. Remarkably, Philemon was also a convert of Paul and Paul arranged for Onesimus to be reunited with his master, asking that Onesimus' debt be charged to him.

But let's at least be honest enough to admit you errantly used the term indentured servitude to describe Onesimus' bond to Philemon.

Back to the voter ID thing. You dodged... again. If they're in such poor health they can't get to the courthouse, how do they magically get to the polls? And why can they manage to get SS Cards, ObamaCare Cards, SNAP Cards and driver's licenses?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Wrong. Onesimus was a son to Paul in the sense that he (Paul) was a prisoner of Christ, and as such had begotten him through the preaching of the word. Bible scholars of any stature, all agree that the most likely scenario is that Onesimus had either stolen something of value or taken money from Philemon to aid him in his breakaway from Philemon who most assuredly owned Onesimus. Through salvation, Onesimus was now a brother to Philemon who had just gotten saved recently himself.

Here is what Dr J Vernon McGee had to say about the matter of chattel. "The story of this epistle was enacted on the black background of slavery. There were approximately sixty million slaves in the Roman Empire where the total population did not exceed one hundred twenty million. A slave was a chattel. He was treated worse than an enemy. He was subject to the whim of his master."

Now, the reason I said that being a slave was not always a bad thing is because Philemon was a Christian man and as such would have treated Onesimus very well. But Onesimus longed to be free and made his break only to realize there can be a certain slavery in freedom. He was likely hungry, dirty and exhausted from being on the run and living in the streets of Rome where he bumped into Paul. Remarkably, Philemon was also a convert of Paul and Paul arranged for Onesimus to be reunited with his master, asking that Onesimus' debt be charged to him.

But let's at least be honest enough to admit you errantly used the term indentured servitude to describe Onesimus' bond to Philemon.

Back to the voter ID thing. You dodged... again. If they're is such poor health they can't get to the courthouse, how do they magically get to the polls? And why can they manage to get SS Cards, ObamaCare Cards, SNAP Cards and driver's licenses?

Onesimus was the bondslave of Philemon. Paul's language does not rule out that Onesimus was a form of indentured servant. While the term "indentured servitude" may not have existed at the time, the typology of relationship was not unknown. Paul offered Onesimus back to Philemon as a brother, as your analysis indicates.

As for the slavery that existed on our shores, it almost sounds like you are Barbara Bush suggesting that the condition of slavery was as the Superdome for the Katrina displaced: an improved condition.

The phrase "indentured servitude" describes a relationship which, as you suggest, most likely does not stretch to Onesimus/Philemon. However, Paul's language also leaves open a much different relationship than Mr. McGee describes.

Making voting more arduous suppresses turnout. It is very easy to hide behind the mantle of legitimate voters only as motive when suppressing legitimate voters is an ancillary result.

[TheRealThing]

Onesimus was the bondslave of Philemon. Paul's language does not rule out that Onesimus was a form of indentured servant. While the term "indentured servitude" may not have existed at the time, the typology of relationship was not unknown. Paul offered Onesimus back to Philemon as a brother, as your analysis indicates.

As for the slavery that existed on our shores, it almost sounds like you are Barbara Bush suggesting that the condition of slavery was as the Superdome for the Katrina displaced: an improved condition.

The phrase "indentured servitude" describes a relationship which, as you suggest, most likely does not stretch to Onesimus/Philemon. However, Paul's language also leaves open a much different relationship than Mr. McGee describes.

Making voting more arduous suppresses turnout. It is very easy to hide behind the mantle of legitimate voters only as motive when suppressing legitimate voters is an ancillary result.

Listen, bluffing your way through this voting rights deal is one thing, well, one wrong thing is guess. But trying that act with God's Word is extremely foolhardy. The term bond slave does not appear in the text. We know that Roman law would have applied here, and we know what Roman law said about slavery because we still have copies of it. Philemon owned Onesimus. The fact that you would place yourself above J Vernon though incredibly arrogant is not surprising, but perhaps you could find within your vast experience the grace to cut John F Walvoord some slack?

[SIZE="3"]"The occasion for writing is almost identical with the story of the epistle itself. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, had run away, having evidently robbed his master (Phile. 18). His travels somehow brought him to Rome where, in the providence of God, he came in contact with Paul. Through this contact Paul led Onesimus to know the Savior. Then Onesimus in some way became useful to Paul (vv. 12-13).

But Paul realized that Onesimus had a responsibililty to Philemon and should make restitution for his thievery. Thus Paul deemed it right to return Onesimus to Philemon. Tychicus was given the responsibility of carrying Paul's letter from Rome to the Colossians, and Onesimus evidently traveled back with him. (Col. 4:7-9).

In this letter to Philemon Paul explained his situation and asked Philemon to treat Onesimus not as a runaway, thieving slave, but now as a beloved brother in Christ (Phle. 15-16; cf. Col. 4:9). In so doing, the apostle gave not only some insight into the institution of slavery in the Apostolic Age but also his Christian response to it."[/SIZE]

But please stick with your indentured servitude concoction if you choose. And let's face it. There is no logical answer to my question about voter ID's, but the challenge for you to come up with one still stands.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Listen, bluffing your way through this voting rights deal is one thing, well, one wrong thing is guess. But trying that act with God's Word is extremely foolhardy. The term bond slave does not appear in the text. We know that Roman law would have applied here, and we know what Roman law said about slavery because we still have copies of it. Philemon owned Onesimus. The fact that you would place yourself above J Vernon though incredibly arrogant is not surprising, but perhaps you could find within your vast experience the grace to cut John F Walvoord some slack?

[SIZE="3"]"The occasion for writing is almost identical with the story of the epistle itself. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, had run away, having evidently robbed his master (Phile. 18). His travels somehow brought him to Rome where, in the providence of God, he came in contact with Paul. Through this contact Paul led Onesimus to know the Savior. Then Onesimus in some way became useful to Paul (vv. 12-13).

But Paul realized that Onesimus had a responsibililty to Philemon and should make restitution for his thievery. Thus Paul deemed it right to return Onesimus to Philemon. Tychicus was given the responsibility of carrying Paul's letter from Rome to the Colossians, and Onesimus evidently traveled back with him. (Col. 4:7-9).

In this letter to Philemon Paul explained his situation and asked Philemon to treat Onesimus not as a runaway, thieving slave, but now as a beloved brother in Christ (Phle. 15-16; cf. Col. 4:9). In so doing, the apostle gave not only some insight into the institution of slavery in the Apostolic Age but also his Christian response to it."[/SIZE]

But please stick with your indentured servitude concoction if you choose. And let's face it. There is no logical answer to my question about voter ID's, but the challenge for you to come up with one still stands.

See Adam Clarke. And, I conceded that the concept of indentured servitude, as you define it, does not apply. However, the concept existed before your citation's timeframe. It is indeed logical to argue that any requirement which makes voting more arduous is an effort to suppress the vote. Look up the pro arguments for poll taxes. You act as is if we all exist in a vacuum. We don't.

[Hoot Gibson]

See Adam Clarke. And, I conceded that the concept of indentured servitude, as you define it, does not apply. However, the concept existed before your citation's timeframe. It is indeed logical to argue that any requirement which makes voting more arduous is an effort to suppress the vote. Look up the pro arguments for poll taxes. You act as is if we all exist in a vacuum. We don't.

Actually, it is not logical at all to argue that any requirement that makes voting more arduous is an effort to suppress the vote. Before I explain why such an argument is actually quite fallacious, I will give you some time to figure out why that is the case and explain it yourself.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Actually, it is not logical at all to argue that any requirement that makes voting more arduous is an effort to suppress the vote. Before I explain why such an argument is actually quite fallacious, I will give you some time to figure out why that is the case and explain it yourself.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/articl...out-fraud/

Play with youself on this one. I will read your thoughts on the matter, while disregarding the spreading of your plume.

[The Urban Sombrero]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/articl...out-fraud/

[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/articl...out-fraud/
Play with youself on this one. I will read your thoughts on the matter, while disregarding the spreading of your plume.

Really? You really can not think of any reason for making the voting more "arduous" than it could be other than to suppress the vote? Are you serious? Why require voters to register? Why take any steps to ensure that they cannot vote multiple times instead of just employing the honor system? Why not just allow voters to cast ballots for 2020 and beyond by simply selecting the party of future candidates? If there are 5,000 citizens in a precinct registered to vote, why not just close the polls when the 5,000th vote is cast? Why not just let people vote online like Matt Drudge allows people to vote in his polls?

Voting could be made much easier than it is now. Do you believe that implementing some of my suggestions above would improve turnout or simply result in fewer people casting more votes?

The desire by liberals to allow anonymous people to vote without establishing their identities is one of the most obvious signs of the decay of our civilization. There is no logical argument to allow unvetted people, who may or may not be eligible to vote for a variety of valid reasons, to decide who governs this country.

Cheating has become a fundamental part of the Democrats' party platform, which is fitting considering their candidate is a criminal.

[Granny Bear]

[Image: https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...e=5814FFB5]

[Hoot Gibson]

[Image: https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...e=5814FFB5]

...and those are just the ones who have not yet been buried. :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Really? You really can not think of any reason for making the voting more "arduous" than it could be other than to suppress the vote? Are you serious? Why require voters to register? Why take any steps to ensure that they cannot vote multiple times instead of just employing the honor system? Why not just allow voters to cast ballots for 2020 and beyond by simply selecting the party of future candidates? If there are 5,000 citizens in a precinct registered to vote, why not just close the polls when the 5,000th vote is cast? Why not just let people vote online like Matt Drudge allows people to vote in his polls?

Voting could be made much easier than it is now. Do you believe that implementing some of my suggestions above would improve turnout or simply result in fewer people casting more votes?

The desire by liberals to allow anonymous people to vote without establishing their identities is one of the most obvious signs of the decay of our civilization. There is no logical argument to allow unvetted people, who may or may not be eligible to vote for a variety of valid reasons, to decide who governs this country.

Cheating has become a fundamental part of the Democrats' party platform, which is fitting considering their candidate is a criminal.

I do not oppose the "5,000 registered, 5,000 have voted" provisions. I do not claim that Democrats do not have the "Vince Lombardi" attitude. The DNC is certainly not above "by hook or by crook." Our nation has an ugly history of disenfranchising people. We do not exist in a vacuum. We have not outgrown human nature. The knife cuts on both sides. Seeking to make voting more difficult is not something I am ever going to support. The idea that the RNC is more virtuous than the DNC is laughable.

[TheRealThing]

Really? You really can not think of any reason for making the voting more "arduous" than it could be other than to suppress the vote? Are you serious? Why require voters to register? Why take any steps to ensure that they cannot vote multiple times instead of just employing the honor system? Why not just allow voters to cast ballots for 2020 and beyond by simply selecting the party of future candidates? If there are 5,000 citizens in a precinct registered to vote, why not just close the polls when the 5,000th vote is cast? Why not just let people vote online like Matt Drudge allows people to vote in his polls?

Voting could be made much easier than it is now. Do you believe that implementing some of my suggestions above would improve turnout or simply result in fewer people casting more votes?

The desire by liberals to allow anonymous people to vote without establishing their identities is one of the most obvious signs of the decay of our civilization. There is no logical argument to allow unvetted people, who may or may not be eligible to vote for a variety of valid reasons, to decide who governs this country.

Cheating has become a fundamental part of the Democrats' party platform, which is fitting considering their candidate is a criminal.

I already asked that Hoot, all he can come up with is a not so artful bob-n-weave.

[Hoot Gibson]

I do not oppose the "5,000 registered, 5,000 have voted" provisions. I do not claim that Democrats do not have the "Vince Lombardi" attitude. The DNC is certainly not above "by hook or by crook." Our nation has an ugly history of disenfranchising people. We do not exist in a vacuum. We have not outgrown human nature. The knife cuts on both sides. Seeking to make voting more difficult is not something I am ever going to support. The idea that the RNC is more virtuous than the DNC is laughable.

:hilarious: Considering that the projected turnout for this election will be somewhere around 40 percent, I am sure that Hillary supporters would fully support allowing as many votes to be cast as there are registered voters on the rolls (including those among the dearly departed), with no requirement for voters to substantiate their identities or whether they have already voted multiple times.

Not ensuring a fair election by establishing voters right to vote is disenfranchising voters. Such is the vision of a banana republic that Barack Obama and his followers seek to impose. El Presidente for life, without the bother of presenting voter photo IDs. Majorities of 90 percent or more. Liberal Utopia. Back in the USSR.