DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

They don't have to get rid of him after the end of this season. His contract will be expired. All they have to do is no longer compete for his services.

Matthew 25:31-46 isn't a verse. It's a compete story. You posted your truth. Those aren't facts. They are what you choose to believe and your interpretation of facts.

In case you missed it, "the entire Church" whatever you think that means, does not see things the way you see it either. Much to your surprise it seems you do not speak for all Christians. Also much to your surprise not all who see things differently than you do are some dark, evil forces trying to destroy America either.

Many democrats are Christians. They just believe in the teaching of the New Testament. The message of Christ which was the teachings for the Christians. They don't go back to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they want to preach and follow and which parts they decided to ignore the way you do.


Could it possibly be that he died in Feb. of 2018? Dear Lord man.

So my first sentence was correct. And then at the end I inadvertently used an absolute and said
"All" ... So rather than address the correct part of my sentence, you want to focus on the slip up. Ok

And now apparently, unless I am an expert on making weapons, whether they're regular ordinance or nuclear, I don't have a valid opinion. Got it

As I've said from the beginning, you are not interested in an honest conversation and are trolling. Congrats!. You must feel very smug.

I have reached the point where I really want Shedeur to win the starting job.

I simply do see a world where DW returns to the Browns roster next year.

Shedeur starting gives him the chance to swim or sink. If he sinks go ahead and put DW in.

If Shedeur plays well and continues to show improvement. Depending on how the season goes. It could change the team.

If he were to prove he is the guy. Well then the vision of the future changes. We have a load of picks and a bunch of money.

We can cut DW and swallow what is left to pay him.

The draft becomes about picking talent and value no matter the position. Go after the highest ranked players on the Board. Target certain guys. Move anywhere in the draft.

DW should be viewed as the fall back option to finish the season if Shedeur falls flat. Then get rid of him.

You presented no facts. I told you facts. You pick and choose verses and documents instead of the whole Book. Again, Satan can quote verses in the Bible. He and his kind do that regularly and miss context to promote agendas. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Why would the entire Church not see things the way you do? Are they all wrong and somehow you are so enlightened that you are the only one that is right. Give me a break. Billy Graham was a great man of God and at one time he was supported by both political parties. What changed? The Church, the Bible, or a political party. I can answer that for you. The agenda of the left is so off course it is ridiculous and it is sad when people buy into those lies. In the days following the birth of Christianity and the works of the disciples' people in Greece and Rome worshipped many gods and killed many people that failed to worship those same gods. This globalist movement that supports the alphabet people and all wokeness, support for Muslims, and all forms of socialism has the same demons behind them that was behind the gods of those days. This Country was founded on Biblical principles read the Federalist Papers.

That would make me no different than you. No thanks.

But that's now what you call it when faced with facts and truth.

You quote the Old Testament? Do you eat pork and seafood? Do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday? Or do you only care about the parts of the Old Testament you use to push your beliefs and ignore the rest of it? You ignored this the last time I asked and I expect you will do the same this time.

Go ahead and believe lies all you want.

Your last post had nothing that pertained to this thread. Now you're just trying to get on your pulpit pretending you understand the gospel.

Freedom of religion is not from the book of Deuteronomy. Religious freedom insures we all have the right to believe any religion we see fir and not have a single religion or its teachings imposed upon us.

Nowhere is it said that it is wrong when a government is following the message of Jesus in supporting the poor or you should fight against that either.

Several Founding Fathers, most notably John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, explicitly stated that the United States was not founded on Christianity. They deliberately designed the U.S. Constitution to be secular, avoiding references to God or the Bible.

Specific quotes, documents, and sentiments from the founders include:

John Adams (The Treaty of Tripoli): In 1797, under the Adams administration, the United States unanimously ratified the Treaty with Tripoli (a peace pact with Muslim rulers in North Africa). It explicitly stated: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Thomas Jefferson: A champion of the separation of church and state, Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church & State." In his personal writings, he was highly critical of orthodox Christian doctrines and stripped his own version of the Bible of all supernatural and divine elements.

James Madison: Known as the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the Bill of Rights, Madison consistently fought against state-sponsored religion. He believed mixing religion and government corrupted both, and strongly opposed requiring any religious tests for public office.

George Washington: While a theist, Washington frequently avoided religious jargon in his official duties. During his administration, American diplomat Joel Barlow negotiated the Treaty with Tripoli (including the "not in any sense founded" line), which Washington approved before it was forwarded to the Senate.

Thomas Paine: A prominent intellectual and advocate for the separation of religion and politics, Paine heavily promoted Deism. He denounced the union of church and state, arguing that mingling them inevitably leads to corruption and the loss of individual liberty.

The clearest proof of this intent is found in the supreme law of the land itself. The U.S. Constitution contains two specific clauses that cleave church and state:The First Amendment ensures Congress makes no law "respecting an establishment of religion."

Article VI explicitly states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I'm sorry you have been programmed and convinced otherwise.

Also, as far as your comment about the Old Testament. In the New Testament there is this text below in John that shows that Jesus is the word and was there at the beginning in Genisis 1 so the entire Old Testament is as relevant today as it was yesterday. And as for your pork comment Paul spoke about that and while Jewish people still follow the old covenant the new covenant allows for pork to be eaten. The Old Testament in the Bible is relevant, and the laws show man that we are flawed and need a savior. We no longer are under the old covenant which required sacrificing animals as atonement but rather our savior's sacrifice was enough. So again, read the entire Bible and not pick and choose verses to prove an agenda. Satan can do that he did that when he took Jesus up to be tempted. I don't think you want to be like him.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Wrong again you do not know your history. This country was founded on Christianity and wrote the constitution around Biblical principles. The Laws our founding Fathers developed came directly from the Book of Deuteronomy. Over have the founded Fathers that signed the Constitution were ordained ministers. They were running from government controlled organized religion to religious freedom. Not freedom from religion.

Again look at your context it is written for a person to do those things as a follower of Christ. No where is it written for government to take anything from people to give to others. You are using those verses out of context to fit an agenda.

If you don't mean all, don't say all. I bolded your use of it in the quoted text in my previous post.

What do you know about making nuclear weapons? What do you know about making conventional ordinance? While the theory of rocket science is complex, following design specifications is pretty straightforward. Getting the enriched uranium is the "hardest" part of making a nuke. There is evidence they've cleared that hurdle. Iran has a robust military manufacturing industry.

Of course you're going to ignore anything that shakes your overly simplified narrative.

link

I do not support abortion and therefore have never paid for an abortion or advised anyone to get an abortion. Unlike you I don't care who marries who. That's none of my business. We all have to answer for our own life. I have my own beliefs but unlike you I fully understand I have no right to inflict my religious beliefs on the whole of society. You keep using Old Testament scripture to make a point. Do you eat pork or seafood? Do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday as is commanded? If you're going to break out the Old Testament to claim some kind of right to inflict your religious beliefs on society, use all of it and not just the parts to support your agenda.

And we both now I'm not "taking 1 line and twisting that lines meaning." Jesus said all that accept him will be saved. He did not say to force religion down anyone's throat.

I see you have chosen to ignore my entire post for the most part because it doesn't serve your purposes. I expected as much.

In this nation we are founded on the principal of freedom of religion. That makes us free of any one religion or being forced into the teachings of one religion. There are nations where they use their religion to control women, to force people into following their beliefs and customs and punish people who don't. From my understanding you hate them. Oh that's right, that's because it's not "your religion". But when it comes to "your religion" you want to do the exact same thing here.

And BTW- The books of the bible are not in chronological order.

And is this what you meant by "taking 1 line and twisting that lines meaning."?

Matthew 25:31-46 King James Version

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Nowhere does it say anyone in those situations should be judged in order to be helped. Nowhere does it say that it should be only through Christian organizations that such people be helped. Don't blame me because your bible is obviously different than mine. But then I don't own a Trump Bible.

According to you. What about murder of children. What does the Bible say about that. Trust me it is not on your side. In the Old Testament God delivered entire nations into Israels hand for sacrificing babies. How about changing his law in reference to marriage that he invented being between 1 man and 1 woman. I know your twisted view of the Word of God twists what it says to fit your reality, but the Word of God cannot be changed. It is the same from Genisis to Revelation. Try reading it straight thru sometime you may have a different understanding than taking 1 line and twisting that lines meaning.

Well, Myles Garrett just broke the sack record.. I don't think the majority of the players lay down, with the exception of Watson, who most of us said would happen.

What's your point?

Because my point is, it's redundant without a QB.

My statement was mainly about homegrown guys by the way. If you are drafted and perform, they don't mess around with you, they extend you.

I think you are smarter than that.

"NATO allies refuse to let American forces use their bases to fuel planes for proactive strikes against Iran." == Does not make a claim that ALL NATO allies refused. It does say/imply/mean - there are Allies of the US that are in NATO that refused to let the US use their bases fully in regards to proactive strikes against.

It's basic comprehension, granted the English language does have a lot of nuance.

I'm not going to get into a debate about Uranium. I have always started with and maintained "imminent ability to make/create" a nuclear weapon.

Neither am I going to get into what % of NATO the US makes up or whether the US needs those EU bases.

I'll simply stick to my opinion and Occam's razor - those countries did not fully support the USA. I believe if there was evidence of an imminent threat - they would have.

No, your initial observation was a generic "NATO allies refuse to let American forces use their bases to fuel planes for proactive strikes against Iran." link

5 countries are not all of NATO. (Your use of all bolded above)

Later you brought in specific countries and I brought evidence that including the UK was misleading.



I never claimed it was just politics. Too many people seem to have a need to simplify complex topics until they are either meaningless or in no way actually reflect the situation. They focus on individual "facts" without really understanding what those "facts" mean or how they fit together. They hear some neatly tied narrative in the media that seems to fit the "facts" that same media tells them, and they believe that is the whole story. I hate to break it to you, but governments lie to people. People in government use the media to lie to people. It's not just Trump. The real world of politics, defense/war, and espionage aren't simple. It's complex, and shady, and deceitful, and compartmentalized. Misinformation is a weapon, in politics, the military, and intelligence. It gets even more complex when you have to operate around your own head of state because he's a rampaging simpleton whose lies are to stroke his own ego rather than to effectively govern, and you never know what he's going to blurt out. Yet, threats still have to be neutralized, and unfortunately there are a whole lot of them to worry about currently. Not everyone can do everything, so things get compartmentalized.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand proof when they see it. They think weapons-grade uranium means something that it doesn't. Governments want people to believe that misconception. Further people don't seem to understand that evidence of 83.7% uranium is essentially evidence of weapons-grade uranium. Governments don't want people to understand that. Governments think their citizens are stupid and can't handle complex and/or harrowing information. Many of those citizens apparently can't.



Russia is a real and tangible threat in real time to Ukraine who if not an official member is closely affiliated and wants to be a member. No one wants Ukraine to fall because then there is no buffer for NATO. EU NATO members staying there from a compartmentalization standpoint makes sense.

We don't need to use those bases to attack Iran. There are plenty of others we are using. We don't need other countries assistance with assets. The US makes up ~60% of all NATO military expenditures. More assets in a restricted theater could actually cause more problems. Joint operations complicate communications and oversight. They make great photo ops and do perform the function of relations building, but when it comes to actually getting things done they in many ways make things harder. Like many things, Trump doesn't really understand that. He just thinks he knows best and everyone should just follow his every whim.

I think the characterization that every EU nation shrugged is bogus. Again, it's not that simple. They likely just understand the military situation better than Trump and know that their military forces are better used elsewhere if Trump is going to be Bigfooting with our forces. They know we have the forces to do what needs to be done, and if Trump wants to waste a bunch of money doing it the way he has been, more power to him. They'd be happy to be rid of him as soon as possible if this craters his popularity. While the US can likely handle things despite Trump (or they might be putting more faith in Israel), they'd still like us to go back to something resembling rational leadership. If they can score points at home at the same time by talking what their constituents want to hear, while having minimal, if any, material effect on the outcome in Iran, they will. Politicians don't shrug, they scheme for advantage, even the well intentioned ones.

Again this is just my opinion. My interpretation of the facts. But I do have some basis for them having participated in Joint operations and having been stationed overseas and having witnessed the juncture of military and politics during the "global war on terror."

Because most people don't know dumb ends with a B.

It's obvious this message was meant for trump voters.

#notarando

House votes to rebuke Trump over war with Iran

The House passed a largely symbolic war powers resolution over Republican leaders’ objections that it would “weaken the president’s hand” in negotiations with Iran.

WASHINGTON — The House offered a rare rebuke to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, passing a Democratic-led measure to end his war with Iran over objections from Republican leadership.

It was one of two Democratic-led measures opposed by the White House that advanced in the GOP-led House. Lawmakers later passed a motion that would unlock a vote on sending aid to Ukraine.

The Iran war powers resolution, offered by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, had been heading for a vote before the House left for its Memorial Day recess May 21. But it was abruptly pulled from the floor when it appeared too many Republicans were absent to defeat it.

On Wednesday, it passed 215-208, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in voting yes: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio.

The resolution directs Trump to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran, unless Congress votes to declare war or authorizes using military force against it. It would not force him to end the conflict, however; it is a symbolic expression of disapproval of the war with Iran.

Republicans had rejected three other attempts to pass a war powers resolution this year. The most recent vote ended in a 212-212 tie, and Democrats celebrated, saying that more Americans are turning against the war and that it was only a matter of time before they would be successful.

Wednesday’s vote gives momentum for the resolution in the Senate, which had already advanced its own war powers resolution on the floor last month but had not yet held a final vote. The Senate version has teeth, however, and it would require Trump to end the war without congressional approval. But it would need to pass the House, and then Trump could veto it.

A White House official responded to the House vote by noting that a handful of GOP lawmakers were absent for it and that previous efforts on similar resolutions were unsuccessful.

The House resolution was opposed by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and most Republicans, who complained that it undermines Trump and his top negotiators when they are trying to secure a nuclear deal with Iran. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., called Wednesday’s action “just a total BS vote.”

“I think there’s no Democrat, no Republican, that can tell you what forces they would want pulled from Iran. There’s really nothing they actually want pulled from there. They just want a stupid political vote, which is what this is,” Mast said Wednesday. That “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.”

In the same vote series Wednesday, the House voted 218-204 in favor of a motion to “discharge,” or bring forward, legislation that would provide aid to Ukraine. That vote took place after the so-called discharge petition reached 218 signatures — a simple majority of the chamber — on May 13, allowing supporters to bypass Johnson and GOP leadership and bring the measure directly to the floor.

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, a Republican-turned-independent, joined all Democrats and two Republicans, Fitzpatrick and Don Bacon of Nebraska, in signing the Ukraine petition.

Kiley and six Republicans voted Wednesday to discharge the bill. That sets up a final vote Thursday.

“This vote is not a process vote,” said Meeks, who also led the discharge effort. “It’s a statement on whether this Congress and all of its members stand with and support Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and its fight for freedom, its fight for democracy and its fight for liberty.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-votes-rebuke-trump-war-iran-rcna348281

Trump: 'I started Iran war, would be no Israel without me'

US President Donald Trump confirmed that he called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "f****ing crazy" during a call on Monday in an interview on Pod Force One released on Wednesday.

US President Donald Trump confirmed that he called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "f****ing crazy" and told him that Trump kept him out of jail during a call on Monday, in an interview on the New York Post's "Pod Force One" with Miranda Devine, released on Wednesday.

Reports of Trump's language were first released on Monday, with an Israeli source later disputing the account.

In his interview, Trump clarified that he wasn't angry but that he "was a little perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon."

"I like Bibi a lot," Trump added. "I'm a wartime president, he's a wartime prime minister."

Trump also disputed theories that Netanyahu had "tricked" him into joining the war.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-898221

Diplomacy at its finest.

That's not what Jesus said. That's what you "feel and believe Jesus meant". What he meant was clear. Those with less should be taken care of. He never said anything about anyone "deciding or judging who deserves it". The stranger should be welcomed. The only one adding context here is you.

Yes FDR wanted working people to make a living wage. He wanted the south and the west to have an electric grid. He no longer wanted the elderly who worked when they were younger to starve when they got old.

Yet another democrat, President Lyndon B. Johnson started Medicare and Medicaid. He signed the Social Security Amendments into law on July 30, 1965. Providing that the poor and elderly could get medical care. He and JFK helped get the Civil Rights act passed so that people of all colors could at least begin to get equal rights.

Men whose objectives closer resembled Jesus than you do were horrible people according to your ilk. That's why people can see through your kind.

Sing it Jade.

Keep taking that quote out of context. That refers to the individual and not a country. Countries are sovereign. Christianity is not taken from some and give to others. It is for a person to graciously give from their increase to take care of someone of need. Not for a Government to take from who they feel does not deserve it and give it to someone they feel deserves it. That is wrong entirely. Yes, FDR was a horrible person.

Really? At what point and to whom? You see, Myles has already made a fortune and has a guaranteed contract no matter where he plays. Do you really think that money matters since he will make the same amount no matter where he plays? At what point do you think players have enough money but are tired of losing?

In this case he gets paid the same if he plays for a contender or not. So which one would you want to play for?


Yet another poster speaking for the collective we again. Talk about anything you like but football I suppose.

Did you hear that The New England Patriots acquired three-time Pro Bowl wide receiver A.J. Brown from the Philadelphia Eagles? #football