Jump to content
270soft Forum
LokiLoki22

US Senate RP

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

1 year, that's crazy, never forget my righteous filibuster that saved Marriage and the Family and killed all of the bill's supporters' political careers.

What led you to this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

1 year, that's crazy, never forget my righteous filibuster that saved Marriage and the Family and killed all of the bill's supporters' political careers.

Are you REALLLY proud of emulating such dirty-pool politics to achieve your ends? I, myself, find them detestable and highly immoral, unbecoming of a true leader or true man (or woman) of the people, regardless of the political goals being pursued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

What led you to this thread?

Not sure, just thought of it.

55 minutes ago, Patine said:

Are you REALLLY proud of emulating such dirty-pool politics to achieve your ends? I, myself, find them detestable and highly immoral, unbecoming of a true leader or true man (or woman) of the people, regardless of the political goals being pursued.

I stood up for what was right in a wholly legal manner and yes, I am proud of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Not sure, just thought of it.

I stood up for what was right in a wholly legal manner and yes, I am proud of that.

These "acts of virtue and conviction stained with vile, underhanded, deceitful, dirty, immoral, and cowardly tactics that tarnish and dirty any gain made and those making such gains, regardless of what they may be, and then taking pride in them and sitting on a high horse over a pile of dung" is why terms like the "Swamp of Washington, D.C." (which, though draining it was a big plank of Trump's, he's only added more detritus, filth, stench, and mud in his administration thus far), and analogous terms in other countries, and why a large number of people in the world as a whole are cynical and mistrusting of government and politicians, as a broad concept in general, regardless of party, and why so many bad stereotypes are attached to merely being a politician alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 5:21 PM, Reagan04 said:

1 year, that's crazy, never forget my righteous filibuster that saved Marriage and the Family and killed all of the bill's supporters' political careers.

How did I never see this lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 5:40 PM, Patine said:

Are you REALLLY proud of emulating such dirty-pool politics to achieve your ends? I, myself, find them detestable and highly immoral, unbecoming of a true leader or true man (or woman) of the people, regardless of the political goals being pursued.

Looks like @Reagan04 did a good RP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Looks like @Reagan04 did a good RP

Depends on how you define "good," I suppose. If emulating a typical scum slug in the swamp of Washington, D.C., then yes. If emulating a true leader of principle and moral fibre, especially one who lives up to true Christian doctrine and tenets, then absolutely not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Depends on how you define "good," I suppose. If emulating a typical scum slug in the swamp of Washington, D.C., then yes. If emulating a true leader of principle and moral fibre, especially one who lives up to true Christian doctrine and tenets, then absolutely not...

I'd argue I did the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I'd argue I did the latter.

 

29 minutes ago, Patine said:

Depends on how you define "good," I suppose. If emulating a typical scum slug in the swamp of Washington, D.C., then yes. If emulating a true leader of principle and moral fibre, especially one who lives up to true Christian doctrine and tenets, then absolutely not...

I may not agree with everything @Reagan04 stood for (relating to marriage and family) but technically he did stand up for Christian values if he's referring to the same issues i'm thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

 

I may not agree with everything @Reagan04 stood for (relating to marriage and family) but technically he did stand up for Christian values if he's referring to the same issues i'm thinking about.

 

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

I'd argue I did the latter.

Christ's ministry is one of forgiveness, non-judgementalism, and loving one's neighbours. His disdain for mortal nations and governments as an instrument toward Salvation, as several notable parables show, indicate that He also view Theocracy, Theonomy, or other fusions of church-and-state and government legislation of morality on all, and flawed and faulted mortals judging sin and virtue as opposed to the perfect and flawless judgment of the Father on Judgement Day unfavourably as an institution to be created or pursued by Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

Christ's ministry is one of forgiveness, non-judgementalism, and loving one's neighbours. His disdain for mortal nations and governments as an instrument toward Salvation, as several notable parables show, indicate that He also view Theocracy, Theonomy, or other fusions of church-and-state and government legislation of morality on all, and flawed and faulted mortals judging sin and virtue as opposed to the perfect and flawless judgment of the Father on Judgement Day unfavourably as an institution to be created or pursued by Christians.

Correct and I kept in all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Correct and I kept in all of this.

You wanted to keep legislation in place that defines an arbitrary concept of "marriage and family" for all citizens, from a basis of one religious source, regardless of their own religions or beliefs, in a nation that grants Constitutional freedom of religion and association, and claim to uphold a lack of Theocracy, Theonomy, church-over-state, and judgementalism, and you did this solely on "principle." Forgive me if I'm confused by your declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

You wanted to keep legislation in place that defines an arbitrary concept of "marriage and family" for all citizens, from a basis of one religious source, regardless of their own religions or beliefs, in a nation that grants Constitutional freedom of religion and association, and claim to uphold a lack of Theocracy, Theonomy, church-over-state, and judgementalism, and you did this solely on "principle." Forgive me if I'm confused by your declaration.

This is in no way Theocratic, this is through democratic and republican processes so you can lose the buzzword even though it suits you. And you are correct, we have freedom of religion, I did not violate this either. We are simply keeping in with the Christian definition of Marriage and arguing from a Christian perspective, it defies our common faith to say that the definition of Marriage is arbitrary, because we both know it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

This is in no way Theocratic, this is through democratic and republican processes so you can lose the buzzword even though it suits you. And you are correct, we have freedom of religion, I did not violate this either. We are simply keeping in with the Christian definition of Marriage and arguing from a Christian perspective, it defies our common faith to say that the definition of Marriage is arbitrary, because we both know it is not.

Yes, I know the Christian definition of marriage, and, as a Christian, I wouldn't marry another man, or multiple wives, or such. But, God, as part of the Path to Salvation through the Sacrifice of Christ, gave free will to humanity to choose whether or not to follow His path, to make Salvation a true and valid choice, and not to "automate" humans into following it like "machines" or "sheep." This means that it is not from a Christian perspective to force Christian dogma on a whole population, who may or not be Christian, just because the particular lawmakers at the time are Christian. Salvation, properly speaking, cannot be forced on people on by threat of legal punishment, through brainwashing and other insidious indoctrination, an atmosphere of fear, and other tactics leaders, past and present, who've called themselves Christian, have attempted. A Christian must willingly choose that path of their own volition. In fact, in the VERY early Church, the Apostles Andrew and James both believed it was wrong to baptize infants or children - that only adults who fully know what the Christian path entails and are fully and consciously dedicated to pursuing it, should be allowed to be baptized. They were overruled in their day, but I, myself, can see wisdom in their point-of-view there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, I know the Christian definition of marriage, and, as a Christian, I wouldn't marry another man, or multiple wives, or such. But, God, as part of the Path to Salvation through the Sacrifice of Christ, gave free will to humanity to choose whether or not to follow His path, to make Salvation a true and valid choice, and not to "automate" humans into following it like "machines" or "sheep." This means that it is not from a Christian perspective to force Christian dogma on a whole population, who may or not be Christian, just because the particular lawmakers at the time are Christian. Salvation, properly speaking, cannot be forced on people on by threat of legal punishment, through brainwashing and other insidious indoctrination, an atmosphere of fear, and other tactics leaders, past and present, who've called themselves Christian, have attempted. A Christian must willingly choose that path of their own volition. In fact, in the VERY early Church, the Apostles Andrew and James both believed it was wrong to baptize infants or children - that only adults who fully know what the Christian entails and are fully and consciously dedicated to pursuing it, should be allowed to be baptized. They were overruled in their, but I, myself, can see wisdom in their point-of-view there.

3

I would never commit murder, I would never own slaves, I would never rape, but God gave Free Will so it's unChristian to impose Christian beliefs on society. There are certain laws and measures which are passed to establish societal order and to keep a moral and just society. All we are doing is keeping the nation true to its values and core principles in upholding the Lord's definition of Marriage, we are not stoning homosexuals nor even making their intercourse illegal, simply refusing to recognize that which is not true and holy, refusing to participate or legitimize that afront to God's holy truth and refusing to place ourselves above our Lord by accepting these worldly lies as truths above the one Holy Truth of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

I would never commit murder, I would never own slaves, I would never rape, but God gave Free Will so it's unChristian to impose Christian beliefs on society. There are certain laws and measures which are passed to establish societal order and to keep a moral and just society. All we are doing is keeping the nation true to its values and core principles in upholding the Lord's definition of Marriage, we are not stoning homosexuals nor even making their intercourse illegal, simply refusing to recognize that which is not true and holy, refusing to participate or legitimize that afront to God's holy truth and refusing to place ourselves above our Lord by accepting these worldly lies as truths above the one Holy Truth of God.

Murder, slavery, rape, theft, etc. are not JUST prohibited in Judeo-Christian law - any but the most barbaric, savage, and (mostly) no longer validly followed law codes freely allow these things. These things are ALSO elements that nations must legislate on from a SECULAR point of view to maintain law and order and national, economic, and social integrity, and MOST nations, regardless of whether of not they have a Christian majority or a strong Christian heritage to their society, have legislated against these things. Flexibility in marriage law, while it displeases God, and Christians should, by their own choice, restrain themselves to God's Will on the issue, does that outright destroy a whole nation the way legalizing murder, slavery, rape, theft, etc. would. Put things in perspective and proportion here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Murder, slavery, rape, theft, etc. are not JUST prohibited in Judeo-Christian law - any but the most barbaric, savage, and (mostly) no longer validly followed law codes freely allow these things. These things are ALSO elements that nations must legislate on from a SECULAR point of view to maintain law and order and national, economic, and social integrity, and MOST nations, regardless of whether of not they have a Christian majority or a strong Christian heritage to their society, have legislated against these things. Flexibility in marriage law, while it displeases God, and Christians should, by their own choice, restrain themselves to God's Will on the issue, does that outright destroy a whole nation the way legalizing murder, slavery, rape, theft, etc. would. Put things in perspective and proportion here!

Ah, Secularism, the rejection of God from the halls of governance, a fools errand indeed. We are called to be people of God and to allow such blatant evils as redefining Marriage and allowing people to slaughter others indiscriminately should be condemned in any government of the people. Humanist Secularism, I believe is all too often followed just as blindly the religions which its followers seek to remove from civil government. But then, there are certain things, I agree that in a free society cannot be legislated upon despite being blights to the Lord. Homosexual Intercourse, for example, would be banned in any good Theocracy but I oppose such sodomy laws as I find them to simply be unAmerican in their essence of Big Government. That being said, I believe America is a Christian Nation and for us to fundamentally reject the nature of good relations between Man and Woman and to fundamentally reject the cornerstone of any Godly nation or people would be a foul mistake. We cannot allow ourselves to make proclamations against God and simply sit back and not fight against the disintegration of the moral fabric of society before our very eyes. John Adams once said that Freedoms and Liberties are built for a people of God and for a moral population and that furthermore, an immoral people would burst and break through those protections and rights laid out in the Constitution as "a whale does through its netting."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Ah, Secularism, the rejection of God from the halls of governance, a fools errand indeed. We are called to be people of God and to allow such blatant evils as redefining Marriage and allowing people to slaughter others indiscriminately should be condemned in any government of the people. Humanist Secularism, I believe is all too often followed just as blindly the religions which its followers seek to remove from civil government. But then, there are certain things, I agree that in a free society cannot be legislated upon despite being blights to the Lord. Homosexual Intercourse, for example, would be banned in any good Theocracy but I oppose such sodomy laws as I find them to simply be unAmerican in their essence of Big Government. That being said, I believe America is a Christian Nation and for us to fundamentally reject the nature of good relations between Man and Woman and to fundamentally reject the cornerstone of any Godly nation or people would be a foul mistake. We cannot allow ourselves to make proclamations against God and simply sit back and not fight against the disintegration of the moral fabric of society before our very eyes. John Adams once said that Freedoms and Liberties are built for a people of God and for a moral population and that furthermore, an immoral people would burst and break through those protections and rights laid out in the Constitution as "a whale does through its netting."

There are so many flaws in the reasoning of this statement, I don't know where to begin. But, I do need to sleep, as I have full day tomorrow. I will address this tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

There are so many flaws in the reasoning of this statement, I don't know where to begin. But, I do need to sleep, as I have full day tomorrow. I will address this tomorrow.

We really don't have to, we're just going to drive each other up the wall, let's call it a truce, go to bed, and continue on without this old irreconcilable debate drawing us closer to each others' throats friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...