Why most candidates don't run again after losing twice

[jvikings1]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Something that is not at all realistic anymore. The United States military (and militarized police) have MANY advantages over their analogous groups in other countries. Their standard issue personal firearms (the only part of the U.S. military arsenal guaranteed to civilians by the 2nd Amendment) is not actually one of them - U.S. standard issue small arms are comparable (inferior to, in a few cases) those of major allies, and large potential opponents like Russia and China. You've seen in the news does what the U.S. military to other countries in war - and consider that the U.S. Civil War was the military conflict by Americans where the greatest amount of cruelty, spite, malice, venting, and just plain battlefield hatred was shown by American soldiers to their opponents - who were, in that instance, other Americans rebelling on a sharp, vicious, ideological divide. Is something you cherish potentially happening?

Because an outgunned, outmanned force has never won a military conflict ever in history. Though it is also bad to assume everyone in the military/police force would join in on such an action. Rather, there would likely be a significant faction of both that takes the opposing side (depending on what the issue was).

But to answer your question, I favor resistance as a last resort when the powers threaten my rights. If they try to shut down churches that reject the government's narrative on the homosexuality issue, then that deserves to be resisted by every means possible. If they decide to force me to show papers proving immunity to a certain virus, then that deserves to be resisted by every means possible.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

No private citizen needs to own an AR-15 or AK-47, or should own one, unless their nation is in a state of civil war or violent revolution. These are NOT hunting weapons (at least for hunting game animals).

As long as government stooges can own an AR-15 or AK-47 to potentially use against private citizens, then private citizens deserve access to the same weapons. On a similar note, as long as these weapons exist and criminals have access to them via the black market, so should non-criminals to defend themselves with the same level of equipment.

[jvikings1]

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Better to die on my feet than live on my knees!" - Che Guevera

Practically a paraphrasing, no?

Also, how is being homosexual not by protected by the Bill of Rights, and what church that follows the Ministry of Christ and His Path to Salvation would make such incendiary, denunciatory, hate-laced rhetoric. Freedom of religion should only be guaranteed if you're actually following the religion you claim to be.

And the vaccination issue is a public health issue. A society that says the rights of the individual are far more important than the safety of the community is not much a, "society," is it, but a very, very warped approach to any sort of framework of people living together. Then again, Thomas Jefferson was a self-centred, self-congratulatory, near-solopsist, Ayn Rand was a twisted, hateful, greed-driven, hypocrite, David Koch was a soulless mega-plutocrat, and Ron Paul was a very face of Government apathy and inaction portrayed as a, "good thing," so the fruit is very much the product of the tree, in the case of Libertarianism.

In order to prevent further off-topic discussion, this will be my last comment on the matter.

The Bill of Rights does not apply to a church, it is a restraint on government. Any church that is forced to hire someone openly living in sin is having it's religious freedom violated. Someone openly living a homosexual lifestyle, an adulterous lifestyle, a porn-filled lifestyle, or any other sinful lifestyle should not be employed by a church. You cannot claim to be living for Christ and also live for the world at the same time. That does not just apply to the homosexuality issue, but unfortunately that is the one that threatens religious freedom in this day and age.

And no, a government does not have a right to tell make to pout a foreign object into my body. You health is your responsibility, not mine. My medical decisions are my business (and my business only). If I have no control over my own body, then I am nothing more than a slave to whoever feels something is best for the "public health."

[pilight]

50 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Someone openly living a homosexual lifestyle, an adulterous lifestyle, a porn-filled lifestyle, or any other sinful lifestyle should not be employed by a church

Everyone lives a sinful lifestyle.  "There is none who does good, no, not one.”

Quote

If I have no control over my own body, then I am nothing more than a slave to whoever feels something is best for the "public health."

I didn't realize you were pro choice

Edited June 11, 2021 by pilight

[pilight]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

the, "hierarchy of sins," or, "mortal and venial sins," or any other theological doctrine of any sin being more or less, "forgivable," or, "offensive to God," have no grounds at all in Christian scripture, but are inventions of Medieval Roman Catholic theocrats

I John 5:16 mentions a "sin that is not a deadly sin". Matthew 5:19 says breaking "the least of these commandments" lessens your place in heaven but doesn't keep you out. Matthew 12:32 says "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come", marking a clear designation between the two sins. There are lots of other verses that mention pardonable and unpardonable sins.

[The Blood]

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

Someone openly living a homosexual lifestyle, an adulterous lifestyle, a porn-filled lifestyle, or any other sinful lifestyle should not be employed by a church.

lol

[Zenobiyl]

2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

In order to prevent further off-topic discussion, this will be my last comment on the matter.

The Bill of Rights does not apply to a church, it is a restraint on government. Any church that is forced to hire someone openly living in sin is having it's religious freedom violated. Someone openly living a homosexual lifestyle, an adulterous lifestyle, a porn-filled lifestyle, or any other sinful lifestyle should not be employed by a church. You cannot claim to be living for Christ and also live for the world at the same time. That does not just apply to the homosexuality issue, but unfortunately that is the one that threatens religious freedom in this day and age.

And no, a government does not have a right to tell make to pout a foreign object into my body. You health is your responsibility, not mine. My medical decisions are my business (and my business only). If I have no control over my own body, then I am nothing more than a slave to whoever feels something is best for the "public health."

Interesting viewpoint. Do you intend to practice what you preach and release your internet history?

[Dobs]

8 hours ago, Patine said:

 

It's amazing how a, "right," conceived in the context of a frontier, pioneer nation with undefended, hostile borders, lax law-enforcement, brazen wild animals, Native and other insurgencies, pirates, bandits, land encroachers, etc. and where men brought their own guns (and horses) to answer the call of military duty, not issued them on the Government dime, and the concept of militias armed with personal firearms holding the Government  to account was actually realistic, remains such a huge and militant dividing, even uncompromising, when the need and context that the, "right to bear arms," even being relevant has long since passed it's sell-by date, and has, become, instead, a cause of massive amounts of violent crime, and addressing the gun fetish of the nation as one of it's biggest sources has become a ridiculous elephant in the room.

Thank you Patine