johnnyrodgers20

Just wondering if you can be intellectually consistent. My guess is no but I'd sure like to be surprised. Anyways, back to you explaining how we should force women to marry their rapists because it's good for them. Ah the old lefty ploy to make someone sound evil, NICE!! The funny thing is that if you lived during the time of Deuteronomy you would have made them do it too, you evil hebrew!!

for your bingo game

I agree, when I was little I couldn't help but wonder why a crowd who loved Jesus just a week before would choose a murderer over him. Not until later did I realized he was a resistance fighter against their oppressors did I realize that many today would make that choice if they were not a follower of Christ and knew who he really was.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times. Bingo. Do you have all the numbers? If so, you get a prize!!

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Atta boy carlfense, let's just do the bait and switch, Nice!! How is that a bait and switch? Showing intellectual inconsistency through a common example is not a bait and switch. Now claiming that something is a bait and switch instead of addressing your own cognitive dissonance? That's something. If you want to be finished with this thread and start talking about the Constitution, fine, let me know, are you done with Deuteronomy?

uh no, knappy, If you are going to bait and switch and try to go to the Constitution then I accept your surrender and you can go onto another tread throw your derp around maybe somebody else will believe your line of thinking.

Can't be true knapplc. Today's GOP repeatedly says that Reagan was a small government fiscal conservative. There is no way that he passed massive spending increases and exploded the deficit. And it also can't be true because Fox News didn't tell me to think this way. Fox News wouldn't misconstrue data to serve their own ends. I mean, if we can't trust Fox News enough to mindlessly regurgitate their derp, then who CAN we trust? If only we could build some sort of derp-to-electricity technology. We could be energy independent in no time at all. Why you hooking up to Rachel, Keith and bill Maher?

Can't be true knapplc. Today's GOP repeatedly says that Reagan was a small government fiscal conservative. There is no way that he passed massive spending increases and exploded the deficit. And it also can't be true because Fox News didn't tell me to think this way. Fox News wouldn't misconstrue data to serve their own ends. I mean, if we can't trust Fox News enough to mindlessly regurgitate their derp, then who CAN we trust? Oh it must be lie Cnn and Rachel Maddow says its so, if we can't trust them enough to mindlessly regurgitate their derp, then who CAN we trust?

So you don't want to know the numbers or don't care to show what BO has done, but you love to blame Bush. Reagan turned the economy of Carter around by the second year of his first term but somehow BO policies just won't solve our issues, how convenient! The worst economy in 35 years is more like it but you guys love to forget about Carter's term now don't ya!! Care to rethink that, Johnny? Reagan destroyed the deficit, doubling it over Carter's, nearly doubling it every year he was in office. That's not to say Carter was a good president - he wasn't, he was crap - but let's use some real numbers, not derp. I would love to forget that Carter ever existed, yes. I was a Reagan Republican back then, dyed in the wool. I was Republican right up until Gingrich's "Contract With America" nonsense. I guess I just got tired of being lied to every single election cycle. That's why I'm an Independent, neither Republican nor Democrat, and have been for almost 15 years. I know both parties are responsible, knapplc. And I am not a real big fan of most pubs because they do not do what they say but what politician does. I do believe in most of their tennants, too bad they don't follow them. We need smaller govt., that is the most improtant issue of our day. If we do not reign in spending all the other problems won't matter. We won't have to have a debate about what to do with SS, MCAID, free birth control, Defense, we won't have any money for any of that and we will be saddled with huge debt interest payments. A little comparison for you two!! http://patriotupdate...cts-and-figures

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times. knapplc, Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer- Don't have anything else to say onthis subject so you get your buddy to help change the subject.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789. Atta boy carlfense, let's just do the bait and switch, Nice!!

So you don't want to know the numbers or don't care to show what BO has done, but you love to blame Bush. Reagan turned the economy of Carter around by the second year of his first term but somehow BO policies just won't solve our issues, how convenient! The worst economy in 35 years is more like it but you guys love to forget about Carter's term now don't ya!!

Do you really think simply naming the budget deficits explains why those deficits exist? You seem to be steering this into a "Barack Obama is turning us into Greece in ten years" conversation, and that's not remotely true. Obama's policies do not exist in a vacuum, and you can look back to Fox News' most favorite recent president, George Bush, for the reasons why most of our current economic policies are happening. Bush left Obama with an economy the equivalent of a Stage III cancer patient. Obama is applying chemo and Fox News is herp-derping about the poison going into the system. They're right - these economic policies are not good in the long-term. But, like chemo, they're better than letting the patient die. aH Bush's fault!! The last bastion of the left to explain his dismal policies. Most president's use that derp for about a year and then it is their baby but not old cry baby. And if he can't fix what Bush left him he should leave and let someone else give it a go. You still have told me what the next two budget deficits are under BO? Any idea? Care to guess what is the single largest policy contributor to projected deficits? I'll point you in the right direction . . . it's not Barack HUSSEIN Obama's spending. The numbers don't lie. Link please!!

So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting. knapplc, God doesn't change but that doesn't mean that laws can't change. You have different rules for children as they grow up don't you, you wouldn't let a three year old drive would you? So as society changes certain laws may not be needed or used. Changing a law doesn't change God.

Buzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer. Rape was wrong back then, too. That's why it was called rape, and why Leviticus called for the execution of the rapist in some cases. I suppose you could continue to hide behind the cloak of "it was a long time ago," Johnny. But the reality is, rape was wrong then, it's wrong now, and any attempts to justify making a violated woman marry her rapist is silly, by today's standards and by the standards of four millennia ago. Let's remember that the entire world didn't treat women as property, and that if a man raped a woman in, say, ancient Greece, he wouldn't be rewarded with the right to marry her, he'd be executed. And she'd go on with her normal life. Not an outcast. I never said it wasn't wrong and we are talking about Deuteronomy not about the greeks, knapplc. You would have enforced the laws if you lived back then and you wold have forced a raped woman to live with her rapist. So don't act all high and mighty when you would be critized for the very action you abhore. And you, somehow, like most liberals paint me as some uncaring male that would make a woman live with her rapist when you know that isn't true. I have the same view of rape as you and I have the same anger and dismay by the way women are treated unjustly so go back to your high horse and continue with your self righteous bag of crap, it doesn't affect me. I know the truth about lefties like you.

Is that a haiku? God bless you!!

No doubt there are some very bad parts to the book. Those are rules from an ancient time and knapplc is using our knowledge today. That just doesn't work, obviously, Christians like me would be appauled to make a woman live with her rapist. knapplc twists the circumstance and then uses our morals today to try and make his argument, it is really pathetic, considering if he lived in Israel at the time he would have enforced those laws.

Sorry, Johnny, but I'm just trying to keep you afloat here. So, what would have happened to the girl who was raped in approximately "Deuteronomy times" if they didn't make the man who raped her marry her? She would have been the responsibility of her father or eldest brother and lived with him in his household. Were this not possible her existence would have been similar to that of Esther - she would have eked out an existence gleaning grain from the harvested fields. Why? Because the "same yesterday, today and tomorrow" God of the Bible apparently told the men of that time to treat women that way. Oddly enough, that "same yesterday, today and tomorrow" God of the Bible seems to have changed his mind today, and allows single women the right to work and earn a living on their own, without having to be the chattel of some male - especially not a male who raped her. Bonus, huh? Knapplcy, Exactly, she would have been homeless if she had no father or elder brother. Thank you, finally you came up with the answer you get a treat!! See I knew you could figure it out, of course, today is much better for women, the text was written how many years ago and man was much more of a patriarchal society. So... you're saying it's better for her to have to live with her rapist than to be free to live on her own? Wow. I don't know what a woman of that time might think. Do you know how a Jewish woman during the time of Deuteronomy would think, you are amazing? Was she given the choice to live the rapist or did she have to go, you get back to me on that one? Obvciuosly by our standards now that would be ludicrous.

Highly doubt it, that is an old beater. My son has a Thomas train worth more than that!!

Sorry, Johnny, but I'm just trying to keep you afloat here. So, what would have happened to the girl who was raped in approximately "Deuteronomy times" if they didn't make the man who raped her marry her? She would have been the responsibility of her father or eldest brother and lived with him in his household. Were this not possible her existence would have been similar to that of Esther - she would have eked out an existence gleaning grain from the harvested fields. Why? Because the "same yesterday, today and tomorrow" God of the Bible apparently told the men of that time to treat women that way. Oddly enough, that "same yesterday, today and tomorrow" God of the Bible seems to have changed his mind today, and allows single women the right to work and earn a living on their own, without having to be the chattel of some male - especially not a male who raped her. Bonus, huh? Knapplcy, Exactly, she would have been homeless if she had no father or elder brother. Thank you, finally you came up with the answer you get a treat!! See I knew you could figure it out, of course, today is much better for women, the text was written how many years ago and man was much more of a patriarchal society.

No. Try again. I don't have to try again it is you who need to show what would happen to the girl. Why would I need to do that? Me . . . well I'm more concerned with how to protect people from rape rather than wondering how they will be treated after they are raped. Your priorities are different. Usual bait and switch when losing an argument. You make that statement and it sounds like I am for rape how shallow and insincere is that. Do you really believe you car more aobut a woman being raped than me, you have some ego!! If you follow the text they are found and he has already raped her, what happens to the girl now? This is in Israel in the time of deuteronomy, whathappens what is your knowledge of the culture and the time?

Do you really think simply naming the budget deficits explains why those deficits exist? You seem to be steering this into a "Barack Obama is turning us into Greece in ten years" conversation, and that's not remotely true. Obama's policies do not exist in a vacuum, and you can look back to Fox News' most favorite recent president, George Bush, for the reasons why most of our current economic policies are happening. Bush left Obama with an economy the equivalent of a Stage III cancer patient. Obama is applying chemo and Fox News is herp-derping about the poison going into the system. They're right - these economic policies are not good in the long-term. But, like chemo, they're better than letting the patient die. aH Bush's fault!! The last bastion of the left to explain his dismal policies. Most president's use that derp for about a year and then it is their baby but not old cry baby. And if he can't fix what Bush left him he should leave and let someone else give it a go. You still have told me what the next two budget deficits are under BO? Any idea?

When was deuteronmy written, who applies the old testament to their lives. Israel is the only answer that I know of. So it would be Israel in the time of deuteronomy. You should listen to your own advise (Reading is fundamental), I really hope you are just being coy, I hope you are smarter then you are letting on right now.

I'll ask for knowledge at the next secret meeting. You may want to ask for a double scoop if they are giving it out!!

Johnny, you need to brush up on your reading skills. At no time have I ever said we are not in trouble. In fact, I've said the opposite several times. You seem to have this narrative pre-determined in your brain that you cannot diverge from. Read what others are saying, not what you want to hear. You say the numbers are not good but then you say we have low unemployment and other things that are not the critical issue. When do you think (what year) our interest payment on the debt matches our GDP? How many years until we can't pay anything but the interest on the debt? What do you think will happen to inflation when the Us govt tries to print money to pay it's debt? I am just wondering how much trouble do you think we are in? And as far as the left/ right thing, I was getting madder at Bush every year he had a bigger deficit. Even as bad as he was with the debt, he added five trillion total, I believe. BO has already added that much in three years. And if he gets reelected you can add another 6 trillion to the debt after his next four years. No one will touch SS or MDCIAD and we are in deep doo, doo. My kids we never see what a great country this was before all this spending and I really feel sorry that no one has the discipline to do the right thing (R or D). At leas the R tried to reign in spending with the Ryan plan. Good or bad, they tried something. The sad thing is that when we are all in the crap hole there is no solace in knowing we told you so. "We told you so?" Who is this "we" and "you" that you're dreaming up? You seem to believe that you're the only person who thinks we're in a big hole. You're not. Simply because I do not agree that we are Greece now, Greece ten years ago, or that in ten years we will be Greece, does not mean that I - or anyone else - thinks we're OK. You're not enlightening anyone on anything. We're in a bad way. We cannot spend our way out of it. Your Fox News Derp that Obama is going to add another X-number of dollars to the debt is bunk, it's based on fear-mongering that you fall into all too easily, and those of us who do not suck the Fox teat don't have to agree with the worst-case-scenario to understand that we're in a bad economic time. How much is BO deficit this year and projected next year, just curious?