Bob Corker fires back at Trump: 'It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center'

[Frank Cannon]

Well,  to be fair,  I didn't bring it up.

Yeah right. I still don't see your opinion on the minivan question.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good statement.  Only thing I would change is that it is an extension of the war, not a consequence.

That is probably a fair correction,  though it is the influence of this power corridor that caused the disputes between the North and South to turn into a war.   

And, that it is doubly tragic that slavery was the presenting issue in the war.  It should have been a war over state vs. federal, but slavery has forever indelibly linked an abomination with states' rights.

Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.   


I keep pointing out to people that slavery was legal in the Union for "four score and seven years",   and it would have remained legal in the Union virtually indefinitely had the South not attempted to gain Independence.  Therefore it is intellectually dishonest to make slavery a Confederacy issue instead of a Union issue.   Of course that doesn't stop anyone. 



It is a consequence of propaganda that every discussion of the war immediately focuses on the existence of slavery in the South,  while ignoring it in the North and how it was protected by the US Constitution so long as the Union pretended to respect that agreement. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Activist judges in the 20th and 21 Century.  The original Amendment as it was written was good and so was it's purpose.

Have you read it?   The first part is straightforward and reasonable.   The second is a mishmash of gobbledygook that is virtually incomprehensible,  but the general gist of it is something about applying all the rules meant to restrain the Federal government to the states.   

Be mad at the people that have bastardized it...not the original intent and purpose.

Had they written it better,  it would have been less subject to the abuse that it encouraged.    As I said,  it created a loop hole big enough to drive a truck through.   It is single handedly responsible for turning the Supreme Court into an ongoing constitutional convention imposing whatever happens to be their latest whim on "We the People."   

You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm pointing out that the "baby"  was a changeling from the beginning,  and needed to be thrown out.   Better yet,  still born,  and I'm not even yet getting into the discussion about the very corrupt and illegal manner in which it was passed.   

They should have gotten a more intelligent man to write it.   They could have accomplished the same goal with better verbiage,  and it wouldn't have caused all the abuse the 14th has subsequently engendered. 

   
Hey you're the one bashing the "Slave" Amendments of the Constitution as crap...not me.

I'm bashing it as crap because I have been  made aware of how much social destruction was heaped upon the nation as a consequence of how badly written was the 14th amendment.   It may have been well intentioned,   but it has become an abusive weapon in the hands of Liberal kooks on the court. 

Had it been written better,   it would not have caused so much abuse. 


"Penumbra"   ought to be a word that every conservative thinker knows regarding the 14th amendment. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah right. I still don't see your opinion on the minivan question.

I try to avoid discussing subjects in which I have a dearth of applicable knowledge.   


An ignorant man's opinion is not worth soliciting, though I did like your Pontiac picture.   :) 

[txradioguy]

Have you read it?   The first part is straightforward and reasonable.   The second is a mishmash of gobbledygook that is virtually incomprehensible,  but the general gist of it is something about applying all the rules meant to restrain the Federal government to the states.   

Yes I've read it.  There are a lot of Amendments...including a couple in the first 10 that are very vague in parts and very specific in others.

Your point?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes I've read it.  There are a lot of Amendments...including a couple in the first 10 that are very vague in parts and very specific in others.

Your point?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Res ipsa loquitur

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump almost literally speculates he'd win in a ***********. More romper room behavior.

Do you kiss your children with that mouth?

[corbe]

White House hammers GOP senator, escalating feud

The White House escalated President Trump's feud with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday, saying the GOP lawmaker was partially responsible for the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran and refusing to say whether the retiring Corker should resign immediately.

 "Senator Corker worked with Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration to pave the way for that and rolled out the red carpet for the Iran deal," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing.

<..snip..>

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-hammers-gop-senator-escalating-feud/ar-AAtgFYz?ocid=ientp

[KingsX]

 It should have been a war over state vs. federal, but slavery has forever indelibly linked an abomination with states' rights.

By what standard do you call slavery an "abomination"  ?

"Abomination" sounds like a Biblical word,  yet the God of the Bible allowed slavery and even gave Israel  laws to practice it.   Christ never condemned slavery [which was also practiced by the Romans.]   The vast majority of American slave-owners [which included many of the USA's founding fathers] were Christians and a lot more moral than many so-called "Christians" today who have embraced abominations that the Bible does condemn.

[Sanguine]

By what standard do you call slavery an "abomination"  ?

"Abomination" sounds like a Biblical word,  yet the God of the Bible allowed slavery and even gave Israel  laws to practice it.   Christ never condemned slavery [which was also practiced by the Romans.]   The vast majority of American slave-owners [which included many of the USA's founding fathers] were Christians and a lot more moral than many so-called "Christians" today who have embraced abominations that the Bible does condemn.

And?  Slavery is an abomination.  There is a lot of things in the Bible that may rightly be called abominations, and that is one.  God "allows"?  Yes, we have free will to do bad things.  What is your point?

[Bigun]

Yes I've read it.  There are a lot of Amendments...including a couple in the first 10 that are very vague in parts and very specific in others.

Your point?

@txradioguy  @DiogenesLamp

You shouldn't stop at just reading the amendment itself. You should also read the congressional arguments leading up to it as they provide a great deal of useful information on the subject and especially to intent!

http://www.14th-amendment.com/Historical_Documents/Congressional_Globe/14th_15th_Amendments/Congressional_Globe.pdf

[KingsX]

And?  Slavery is an abomination. 

You didn't answer my question.   By what standard do you condemn slavery as an "abomination" ??

You have posted that my Christian forefathers practiced an  "abomination"... so it's only fair that I know by what moral standard you make such an accusation.

As I pointed out... the God of the Bible allows slavery and even codified laws on how to administer it.  Christ never condemned slavery.  It's not in the Bible... so you must have gotten the idea that slavery is an "abomination" from somewhere else.  I just want to know where.  Do you have your own personal set of moral standards apart from the Bible or are you following a modern general consensus standard that morphs over time and circumstance or ??

[Sanguine]

You didn't answer my question.   By what standard do you condemn slavery as an "abomination" ??

You have posted that my Christian forefathers practiced an  "abomination"... so it's only fair that I know by what moral standard you make such an accusation.

As I pointed out... the God of the Bible allows slavery and even codified laws on how to administer it.  Christ never condemned slavery.  It's not in the Bible... so you must have gotten the idea that slavery is an "abomination" from somewhere else.  I just want to know where.  Do you have your own personal set of moral standards apart from the Bible or are you following a modern general consensus standard that morphs over time and circumstance or ??

Back off there a bit, Sparky.  Maybe you don't mean to come across so aggressively but you sure do.  Get to know people a bit before you start demanding things from them.

I'm not arguing the Bible here.  If you don't think slavery is an abomination, so noted.   

[Hoodat]

As I pointed out... the God of the Bible allows slavery and even codified laws on how to administer it. 

Oh goodie.  After getting owned on taxes, you now bring up a second topic you know nothing about.

[DiogenesLamp]

You didn't answer my question.   By what standard do you condemn slavery as an "abomination" ??

You have posted that my Christian forefathers practiced an  "abomination"... so it's only fair that I know by what moral standard you make such an accusation.

As I pointed out... the God of the Bible allows slavery and even codified laws on how to administer it.  Christ never condemned slavery.  It's not in the Bible... so you must have gotten the idea that slavery is an "abomination" from somewhere else.  I just want to know where.  Do you have your own personal set of moral standards apart from the Bible or are you following a modern general consensus standard that morphs over time and circumstance or ??

Hmmm.... I initially dismissed this line of conjecture,   but  after contemplating it for a bit,  I think I begin to see what you are getting at.   


If the Bible isn't the source for the immorality of slavery,   what was the source of it?   


So now you've got me in the position of believing slavery is immoral,   but you have more or less disarmed me of the normal "go to"  reference on all things moral.   


I think slavery is perceived as theft.   An extreme form of theft.  Therefore it falls under the moral prohibition against theft from the bible.   


I think it hinges on the difference between the old and new testament.   The message of Christianity is that we are all brothers;  that we are all children of God,  and therefore equally worthy in his sight.   

Christianity tosses out the old testament pecking order of who is more holy or more favored by God,  and as a consequence it demolishes the class structure between the lords and the peasants.   

Under the old structure,  it is rational that someone more worthy of God should have authority over those less worthy,   (Divine right of Kings) but when your structure changes to egalitarianism,   then one person is just as good as another,  and forcing them to give you the fruit of their labor becomes theft. 


I think the American  path away from Slavery led through the philosophers of Natural Law such as Locke, Rutherford,  Wolfe,   Vattel,  and so forth.   

All rely heavily on Christian foundations for their derived insights into the proper relationship between Man, God, and Society. 

So I would have to answer that the moral prohibitions against slavery do derive from the Christian part of the bible,  but do so indirectly as a consequence of the apostle's ministering to the Gentiles as well as the chosen. 

They revealed a foundation of equality in the eyes of God,  and this excludes the concept of one man being better than another.

[Frank Cannon]

I try to avoid discussing subjects in which I have a dearth of applicable knowledge.   


An ignorant man's opinion is not worth soliciting, though I did like your Pontiac picture.   :)

If you like the Transport you're going to LOVE the first gen Aerostar.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOX0WwrLF8

[Hoodat]

For the record, God's law regarding slavery made slavery impractical.   All slaves were to be freed in the year of Jubilee.  And any slave could be redeemed at any time at the same price it would cost to hire someone.  He also forbid the Hebrews from making slaves of one another.

Of course all that changed with the New Covenant.

[roamer_1]

For the record, God's law regarding slavery made slavery impractical.   All slaves were to be freed in the year of Jubilee.  And any slave could be redeemed at any time at the same price it would cost to hire someone.  He also forbid the Hebrews from making slaves of one another.

Of course all that changed with the New Covenant.

No, not really... Just replaced with usury and debtor's prison, wherein one becomes a slave to the state instead of the actual person you owe money to... and you still owe the money to the person when you're done.

And now we have usury and bankruptcy laws, making the debt holder the slave of the debtor.

None of that is Biblical or practicable either.

As for outright slavery, the capture and sale of humans, be it by commerce or by war, That particular question was not resolved in Christian thought for fifteen hundred years... It being more a question after the rise of the Magna Carta and resulting Western Civ. Christians, no doubt, but hardly a Christian precept, excepting the Laws of YHWH.

In fact the Laws of YHWH were revolutionary, with liberty and full citizenship at the end of the nearest Jubilee. The laws regarding slavery were remarkable.

[KingsX]

For the record, God's law regarding slavery made slavery impractical.   All slaves were to be freed in the year of Jubilee.  And any slave could be redeemed at any time at the same price it would cost to hire someone.  He also forbid the Hebrews from making slaves of one another.

Of course all that changed with the New Covenant.

There are two different rules for two different kinds of Biblical slavery.

You are referring to indebted slavery which only applies to Israelites.

I was referring to a totally different kind of Biblical slavery - slavery of aliens.

" You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property;
you can make them slaves for life.... "  Leviticus 25:46

Colonial America had both types of these slaves.  Christian Europeans
who were enslaved temporarily to work off a debt...  and non-European
aliens [ie, black Africans] who were slaves for life.

Indians didn't make good slaves. But some Indian tribes also had black slaves.

The Chief of the Southern Cherokees and Confederate Brig-General, Stand Watie,
owned black slaves as did many in his tribe.


God's Biblical laws... both civil and moral... did NOT change when God incarnated.

The only thing that changed with the New Covenant was the temple and animal sacrifices.
Jesus Christ became our Temple made without hands. He is our priest and our sacrifice.

[Frank Cannon]

For the record, God's law regarding slavery made slavery impractical.   All slaves were to be freed in the year of Jubilee.  And any slave could be redeemed at any time at the same price it would cost to hire someone.  He also forbid the Hebrews from making slaves of one another.

Of course all that changed with the New Covenant.

Speaking of Hebrews, who can forget the economical price and miserly fuel economy of the Mitsubishi L300 Delica Power Wagon LS....

[DB]

Those Aerostars were worse than a Fiat and that's saying something... A rolling pile of junk...

[roamer_1]

Speaking of Hebrews, who can forget the economical price and miserly fuel economy of the Mitsubishi L300 Delica Power Wagon LS....

Bleah. Here is a mini van:



That's right.

[Frank Cannon]

Bleah. Here is a mini van:



That's right.

Color's all wrong....

[roamer_1]

Color's all wrong....

 

[DCPatriot]

You didn't answer my question.   By what standard do you condemn slavery as an "abomination" ??

You have posted that my Christian forefathers practiced an  "abomination"... so it's only fair that I know by what moral standard you make such an accusation.

As I pointed out... the God of the Bible allows slavery and even codified laws on how to administer it.  Christ never condemned slavery.  It's not in the Bible... so you must have gotten the idea that slavery is an "abomination" from somewhere else.  I just want to know where.  Do you have your own personal set of moral standards apart from the Bible or are you following a modern general consensus standard that morphs over time and circumstance or ??

This works for me:   

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

Every child since 1776 who attended school memorized that, like they did the Lord's Prayer.   They were tested on the Bill of Rights.

It would seem natural for the populace ingrained with those words to declare slavery an abomination.