Messages

31

Your Turn / Re: Wrestling with a Pig in Mud

« on: October 09, 2017, 11:00:03 PM »

Arguments like this thread remind me of a quote from the Saturday Evening Post.

"I’m not going to answer any more of your questions. I hope you won’t take this personally, but I am reminded of something my old uncle told me, long ago, back on the farm. He said. ‘What’s the sense of wrestling with a pig? You both get all over muddy . . . and the pig likes it.'"
-Cyrus Stuart Ching
 The Saturday Evening Post
 January 3, 1948

Quoting George Bernard Shaw, of course.

32

Your Turn / Re: Reforming Catholic Confession

« on: September 19, 2017, 07:50:14 PM »

I don't know if this is the original language, or if the ELCA tightened it in response to the NALC/LCMC departures:

"8.63. This church, in accord with constitutional provision 2.05., acknowledges as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that accept the teaching of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and understands that altar and pulpit fellowship with congregations and other entities of such churches may be locally practiced. Local practice of altar and pulpit fellowship, in accord with churchwide constitutional provision 2.05., is subject to the approval of the Synod Council, upon endorsement by the synodical bishop. Notice of such approval is to be given to the presiding bishop as the chief ecumenical officer of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. "
 

I don't know either, but it is certainly an interesting question. I don't have prior versions of the constitution at hand, so can't compare.

In the 2007 version of the Constitution, it was section 8.71 but the language was the same.
In the 2003 version, it was section 8.74.

33

Your Turn / Re: The Pussy Pastor (sigh!)

« on: July 22, 2017, 09:12:47 PM »

She seems to make it quite clear that she has been working with the ELCA on her internship. (See http://messiahvancouver.org/Messiah-Happenings/Comings-and-goings-of-messiah-s-pastoral-interns-heidi-johnson-will-serve-as-17-18-pastoral-intern-at-nativity-lc-bend-or.html)

When I try that link, I get a message saying that my location (CA) has been blacklisted and access denied. I can't help but wonder whether they've gotten a ton of traffic about this.

Worked for me just now.

34

Your Turn / Re: "in accordance with the scriptures"

« on: April 22, 2017, 09:44:25 PM »

My subsequent post was at 4:44:37 (not 1:44:37, as you had written).

Those are the same times, just the timezone difference, and I did not just make it up. You are insulting as usual.

35

Your Turn / Re: "in accordance with the scriptures"

« on: April 22, 2017, 08:53:59 PM »

Is that the post that you edited an hour later, well after Rev Bohler's response? A glitch in the software?!

Are we to modify intellectually dishonest to simply dishonest?

« Last Edit: Today at 01:32:06 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
« Reply #163 on: Today at 01:44:37 PM » from Bohler


Who's dishonest?

36

Your Turn / Re: Remember John Ylvisaker

« on: March 13, 2017, 10:10:06 PM »

Not working.  I get nothing with that instruction.  Will pray harder.

Dave Benke

Use the number pad, not the numbers above the alpha keys

37

Your Turn / Re: Remember John Ylvisaker

« on: March 13, 2017, 03:23:32 PM »

I am beginning to think there a Schwärmer or two in the house.

How do you get the Umlaut to hang over the "a"?  I can't figure that out.  Will pray on it.

Dave Benke

https://translate.google.com/#en/de/Swarmers

Then copy and paste.   

Much faster to hold the <alt> key and type 0228 ä

38

Your Turn / Re: 44th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

« on: February 15, 2017, 10:36:36 PM »

So in Yuma, not enough people of color to make industrialized infanticide a going concern. What's your point?

Obviously, you have none, or are just ignorant.
The racial makeup of the city was 68.8% White, 3.2% Black or African American, 1.8% Native American, 1.9% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, and 4.5% from two or more races. 54.8% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race, according to the 2010 census.

39

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: December 19, 2016, 11:06:57 PM »

Ya. You would think the MSM would at least get the vote correct. Sigh

40

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: December 19, 2016, 09:58:56 PM »

7 dumped Clinton. 2 dumped Trump. If she were not the vile lite weight Lady Macbeth that she is, I would almost feel sorry for her. Snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat.

NYT says 5 dumped Clinton.

41

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: November 28, 2016, 08:38:09 PM »

Jill Stein's campaign missed the deadline for a recount in Pennsylvania.

I haven't laughed this hard in months.

Can you link?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305

42

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: November 23, 2016, 05:17:27 PM »

All the talk about the "popular vote" is like trying to change the rules of the game after it is over. 

Oh, I don't think so. Very few are demanding that Clinton be named president because she won the popular vote (for all the difference such demands would make). I think it's more like taking the opportunity to raise a legitimate question about the rules, yet one that normally lies dormant until something like this happens (which is only, what, the fourth or fifth time in our history?).

I have some ambivalence about the Electoral College, frankly. I think there are coherent arguments both for scrapping it and for keeping it, and generally speaking, changing something so fundamental would result in unforeseen complications that might be worse.

But of course it's a moot point, since three-fourths of the states are never going to ratify an amendment. So there seems little point in railing against the Electoral College, since it is here to stay.

AOL, our most trusted source for news, indicates that there are now problems with "hacked" electronic voting in three or four of the swing states, and that the difference might change the electoral college numbers in the other direction.  Provable?  Useful?  Probably not.  Productive of chaos?  Doubtless.  In the year of great surprises, therefore, who knows?

Dave Benke

I wonder about the reliability of this report from AOL. CNN (a Clinton supporter) reports that 3 "computer scientists" have raised questions about the hackability of the machines in 3 states, but say they have "no proof" that anything was actually hacked.

Seems to be crying wolf in the hopes something might stick. A pox on all their houses.

43

Your Turn / Re: Any Clinton supporters inclined to reconsider?

« on: November 02, 2016, 01:56:34 PM »

Thus far Hillary hasn't been saved by works, but by the interlinking and protection she's received from a corrupt media and well placed insiders. A few well timed suicides also helped.

Please explain why you included the sentence,  " A few well timed suicides also helped."  Thanks!

marie meyer

Think Vince Foster or Gareth Williams or Victor Thorn for starters.

44

Your Turn / Re: Any Trump supporters inclined to reconsider?

« on: October 14, 2016, 04:57:38 PM »

Do you know that to be true about the Clinton Foundation,Peter? I doubt it.

The 990s for the foundation are available online, and, for example in 2015 (the last year filed):
Grants provided were 3% of contributions (deplorable for any nonprofit)
Salaries were 20% of contributions
"other expenses" were 29% of contributions
and they retained 50% of contributions

As I understand it, the bulk of their charitable given went to their own foundation.

True. The Clinton's 2015 individual return is here.

45

Your Turn / Re: Any Trump supporters inclined to reconsider?

« on: October 14, 2016, 04:18:38 PM »

Do you know that to be true about the Clinton Foundation,Peter? I doubt it.

The 990s for the foundation are available online, and, for example in 2015 (the last year filed):
Grants provided were 3% of contributions (deplorable for any nonprofit)
Salaries were 20% of contributions
"other expenses" were 29% of contributions
and they retained 50% of contributions