I know this will piss some people off, but folks who think homosexuality is perfectly moral conduct have no basis to condemn this shooting except on purely subjective and idiosyncratic moral grounds. Flame away!

Jordan

"Man is a social animal, and no one can secure what is desirable for himself except in partnership with others. According to Aristotle, if a man had all the health, wealth, freedom and power that he desired, but lacked friends, he would not even wish to live. But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman. As nature is the ground of morality, the distinction of the sexes is the ground of nature. Nature---which forbids us to eat or enslave out own kind---is that which has within it the principle of coming-into-being. Mankind as a whole is recognized by its generations, like a river which is one and the same while the ever-renewed cycles of birth and death flow on. But the generations are constituted---and can only be constituted---by the acts of generation arising from the conjunction of male and female. The root of all human relationships, the root of all morality, is nature, which itself is grounded in the generative distinction of male and female.....Abraham Lincoln once said that if slavery is not unjust, then nothing is unjust. With equal reason it can be said that if homosexuality is not unnatural, nothing is unnatural. And if nothing is unnatural then nothing---including slavery and genocide---is unjust"

Harry V. Jaffa, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question.

I don't think anyone on this website takes you seriously.

I certainly don't think homosexual behavior is moral, but I recognize that there are many aspects of heterosexual behavior that also isn't moral. My beliefs about homosexuality in no way condone hurting or killing them. I don't rejoice when fellow citizens are hurt, killed or deprived of their constitutional rights. If your allegiance is to ISIS or radical Islam you are NOT a fellow citizen, you are scum deserving of an excruciating death and swift judgement.

The sins of us all will be answered for on judgement day. Black, white, straight and gay we have the RIGHT to live our life in peace.

Seconded

I don't give a f*** what those people did

They were innocent Americans who were killed by a psychotic justifying his actions with his religion.

And there is going to be more just like him in the future.

The quote is by Harry Jaffa. Your argument is not with me, it is with Thomas Jefferson, with the rest of the Founders, with Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and ultimately with nature itself.

The point is not to condone or fail to condemn the shooting. But rest assured, the homosexual rights movement will hijack this tragedy and use it for their own (no good) political end, including gun control. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that on the premises of the homosexual rights movement, homosexuals and their apologists have no principled basis to condemn the shooting. Their own "morality" (their rejection of the laws of nature) essentially says its okay. That is the point of the Jaffa quote and all the name-calling in the world doesn't change the truth encapsulated in what Jaffa wrote.

Jordan

I could care less what sex you prefer and this America and you have the freedom to choose without being shot for your choice

Democrats are bringing Muslims into America to kill American citizens.

That's my takeaway from the situation and that's how Trump should frame it.

You know you're on the right side when RJ is against you.

Obviously not!

You summed it up rather nicely.

Yes, but notice your recognition of them as "people", as human beings. In recognizing their humanity as a basis for concluding they have rights which should be respected (the right not to be slaughtered like animals), you are implicitly acknowledging the distinction between the human and the non-human and your premise is that this distinction is morally authoritative. You would not be up in arms, for example (none of us would) if the shooter had killed a bar full of hogs, or cattle (even "gay" ones!).

So, if you recognize the distinction in nature between the human and the non-human as authoritative---as the basis of being outraged at the killings, then then how can you exempt from your moral position a philosophy which calls entirely into question the moral authority of nature? The distinction between the human and non-human is fundamental, but the distinction in nature between male and female is even more fundamental than that between human beings and hogs or cattle because nature itself has within it the principle of "coming-into-being". Homosexuality denies that this principle has any moral claim on their behavior whatsoever and on the premises of their argument they cannot claim that the distinction in nature between men and hogs should hold any moral authority for an Islamic fanatic hell-bent on treating "gays" as if they were hogs when they have called entirely into question nature and the law that is within it.


Jordan

You're talking crazy. This is probably a 2 pill day for you.

Consider it.

After that last bit of babbling, it needs to be repeated.

If so, then it is the crazy talk of Jefferson, Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and the Apostle Paul, to name but a few of some of the greatest moral legislators in history who have opined thusly.


Jordan

One of the more disappointing aspects of the forum is the inability of most folks here to think deeply about any issue or to make themselves aware of the canons of thought upon which western civilization was founded---but which modernity, including the political agenda of the homosexual rights movement (of which Obama is a devotee) call entirely into question.

There should be no pride in admitting ignorance of the thought of Jefferson, the Founders, Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, etc., as displayed here, but then again, that's why being ignorant is so embarrassing---not knowing that you don't know!

Jordan

I don't need any of those people to tell me what my moral value system is

Jefferson, Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and the Apostle Paul all said that Muslins should kill homos?

Chapter and verse on that??

Nice attempt at deliberate obtuseness Bristoe!

Of course not, but why should anyone else be bound by your moral value system??

"With liberty and justice for all" American citizens were murdered in a terrorist attack today what the fug else do I need to know????

I've never questioned that. I've only asked folks to examine the premise which underlies the idea of "justice" in view of the premise which underlies the political agenda of the homosexual rights movement, which essentially holds that justice is a matter of personal preference. That is not the concept of "justice" this nation was founded on.

Any demand for "justice" from anyone who thinks the generative distinction between male and female---which is the basis not only of all human friendship, but the whole of human existence---is morally meaningless, is a positively schizophrenic demand

Jordan

I'm just trying to condense your schizophrenic babbling down to something that can be understood by mentally stable people.

,...since you refuse to take your pill today,..

I've officially given up even trying to figure out what your point is anymore

Then Jefferson and the other authorities I have cited are equally schizophrenic.

But they took their pills.

WTF is a homosexuality apologist anyway?

One that doesn't condemn the choice of others in who they have consensual sexual relations with?

Rob- you are truly no better than the scum that spawned Islam and Christianity and those that continue to deprive others of Liberty in its name.

It is precisely because I agree with you that I started this thread and said what I have said. Again, the point is that anyone who thinks (as do acolytes of homosexuality) that the generative distinction between male and female is morally meaningless cannot consistently condemn the shooting of human beings when they implicitly deny any moral authority for distinction between the human and the non-human.

Jordan

Did you read the quote which began this thread? Re-read it, think about it and then get back to me. The level of ignorance on this forum is astounding.

"God has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own." --Thomas Jefferson to M. King, 1814.

Maybe there is payback on earth for Debauchery.Did not God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the sins of the wicked and depraved??That was a warning to the Sinners and maybe this is also.

It doesn't piss me off - Just confirms my suspicions that your parents had your crib placed too close to the windowsill.

I'd venture this is his latency thread; a precursor to his coming out party thread.

If one swears loyalty to ISIS before killing people does it matter if they were gay or not?

So if he killed 50 straight folks would the deaths be spoken of differently?

I didn't realize ISIS had switched over to killing only gays.

Unless somebody in the vicinity got turned into a pillar of salt for watching it,..I'm going to suspect a Muslim in this instance.

Exactly!! But how many apologists for homosexuality believe that God has created them as "moral agents"---with the freedom to chose right from wrong, or that whatever behavior they choose might be wrong---that merely choosing it does not make it right!?

Jefferson held that the "laws of nature" and "of nature's God" stood in perfect harmony with respect to the demarcation between moral and immoral behavior and Jefferson was not shy about pointing out the immoral character of homosexuality. He wrote a criminal code for the Commonwealth of Virginia making it a felony punishable by castration. Jefferson also recognized that a moral code accessible only by revelation (revealed religion) had no just claim upon the behavior of a non-believer---this is why the moral foundation of this country is grounded on a moral law in which reason and revelation are in agreement---upon which the believer and unbeliever can agree.

Jefferson held that only the "just" laws can be derived from the consent of the governed. Consent as such cannot authorize anything intrinsically immoral. This means Jefferson recognized a moral order outside of human will. That moral order condemns the shooting of innocent people, including homosexuals, but the philosophic premises of the homosexual rights movement call into question the very moral authority of the moral order which seeks to protect them. My point is only to highlight their hypocrisy.

Jordan

Regardless, their sin and the sin of the gunman is no more damning than your's, mine, or Mother Teresa's. Therein, lies the premise that underlies them all. Everything else is mental gymnastics with a sprained mind.

Says who??? Murder is much, much worse a moral wrong than homosexuality and I doubt Mother Theresa did anything even approaching the moral wrong of sodomy!

<mic drop>

Why bring the Special Olympics into this?

So God works through Islamic jihadists. Got it.

Rob, if the 50 were straight whites would that have been a hate crime?

the only quote by Jefferson that matters on this subject

"Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”"

Its why the Marines hymn includes to the shores of Tripoli. I have a feeling we're going to add another verse.

Rob Jorden,you rate in the top five most ignorant [bleep] that I have seen post here.

I have never, ever believed in the concept of "hate crime". Is there then such a thing as a "love crime"? The entire concept of "hate crime"---the agenda to label some crimes as hate crimes is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize conservative political and moral thought which happens to share an affinity with the so called "hate" which was the animus of a given crime against a protected group. In other words, the concept is intended to buttress the moral condemnation of anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral
(for example) by equating the dislike of homosexuality which eventuates in the murder of a homosexual with the actual commission of that murder. It is clear that this liberal agenda has had considerable success with some here on the forum!

Ever notice how whites and conservatives are never the victims of hate crimes??? Why? Sadly, affirmative action and discrimination have made their way into the criminal arena.


Jordan

I see. You have not refuted anything I wrote and what I wrote is nothing more than what Jefferson and others have written and thought. Moreover, what I wrote provides the only non-relative ground (the ground upon which this nation was founded) on which one can consistently condemn the shooting of innocent human beings, whether they are homosexuals or not.

So who is the real ignoramus??


Jordan

That's certainly one interpretation...........

I'm curious how many "apologists" you see/read around here. I'd guess most simply don't GAF.

Regarding Jefferson.........how "moral" was it to have an (alleged) affair with a slave?

Plato and Aristotle......... Given their location/culture, historically speaking, I wouldn't bet against them engaging in the very behavior (or worse) under discussion.

I can not believe you all give this lunatic the dignity of a response. Why in the hell did I even read past his name.

I'm surprised more people haven't figured out that the reason RJ is so vehemently anti gay, is because he is a closet turd burglar himself

Actually, what I wrote about Jefferson is not subject to interpretation. As far as Jefferson's alleged affair with Sally Hemmings, it is far from proven. Someone in the Jefferson line boinked her, but genetics do not prove it was ole' Tom. Again, political correctness and a Leftist agenda insist that it was him without the necessary proof. There a couple of good books out there on the topic.

Assuming arguendo Jefferson did boink Sally, it would make him a hypocrite. It would not make his arguments wrong.

As far as Aristotle and Plato, both condemned homosexuality in their writings. It is certainly true that homosexuality and pederasty were wide spread in ancient Rome but that tells us nothing of their desirability.

There are few apologists for homosexuality here, but there are some. (What this thread has demonstrated beyond any possible doubt thought is the existence of a lot of folk here who are completely ignorant of the philosophic underpinnings of western civilization and who have very poor reading comprehension!) My point was only to show the hypocrisy in condemning mass shootings while defending a movement whose premises essentially demand the conclusion that the condemnation of mass shootings is a purely idiosyncratic and subjective enterprise.

Jordan

He was boinking Sally Rob.....

(Rob) Jordan Funk, Esq., is nuttier than last year's fruitcake and twice as stale.

How in the name of Hell this schizo SOB can post stuff that he does here and then take a .gov check from the PRK to uphold and defend their laws boggles the mind.

Hell, I wonder what the PRK, State Ethics Board, and good citizens of Modoc County, CA would think of this psycho SOB posting on forums JUSTIFYING the Islamic terrorist slaughter of fifty American citizens because they were gay.

Any further questions as to how sick this bastard actually is?

It is a sad state affairs on this board when the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and the thought of Aristotle and Plato are considered lunacy. Apparently this place has a lot more in common with MoveOn and Daily Kos than we ever thought. did you read the Jaffa quote? If so, you did not comprehend it.

Jordan

It seems as though, throughout history, morality is what you foist upon others, not what you indict upon yourself. Oftentimes the most righteous and "moral" are anything but and even hardened criminals have their "code".

I certainly don't understand RJs premise? If you don't actively try to convert homosexuals (or punish them in absence of conversion) you can't condemn an ISIS terrorist because you're tacitly approving the decline of societal mores?

I was always told to love the sinner not the sin. We may have moral objections to a persons actions or their beliefs however if you call yourself a Christian you would take this opportunity to thank God that your life was saved and not involved in having to do with a tragedy of this magnitude. It is not our jobs to be the final judge that job belongs to the Lord himself. You don't have to agree with their beliefs or their lifestyles but it's not your job to judge them.

This is nothing more than Islamic terrorism at its finest and it is up to us to protect ourselves and try to make our world the best place we can and not use this tragedy to further an agenda. I for one will pray for the victims and their families and hope that sooner rather than later we will have the cajoles to deal with the terrorists they way they should be dealt with.

(Rob) Jordan Funk, Esq., will attempt to justify ANY hatred and murder as being morally acceptable through the words of Jaffa, Jefferson, et al., when at NO POINT did any of them justify the murder of innocent people by jihadi terrorists. (Rob) Jordan Funk, Esq., wants to justify these murders because he WANTS them to happen, and doesn't care who pulls the trigger.

He is, quite frankly, insane.

The fact you can INTERPRET all that from his statement is telling.

He reads into statements what he wants to believe.

When someone believes they are so far intellectually above and beyond their immediate audience, as you very obviously imply that you are, one would think they would search elsewhere for a much smarter audience with mass numbers of intellectual equals to share and debate their deep thoughts and opinions with, rather than waste them on a bunch of intellectual inferiors, as you very obviously imply most folks here are.

So there is something I wrote that does not reflect the thought of Jefferson, the Founders, Aristotle and Plato and with which you take issue? What is that?


Jordan

Why then did Lord God openly intervene in this affair of man?

Nothing I have said here states or implies that I think I am intellectually superior to anyone on this forum. What I have opined on is the apparent ignorance of many here of the underpinnings of western civilization. But that has to do with reading or of making one-self aware, not intelligence.

If I am wrong, enlighten me.

Jordan

Read, comprehend, then comment perhaps?

I don't believe 'buck mentioned any of the above nor their philosophies. He has formed the opinion that you're a lunatic and made said opinion known. Your dragged the Founders in after the fact.

You can argue your interpretation of the FFs' philosophies, it doesn't make your interpretation fact nor does it change the fact that 'buck thinks you're a lunatic.

Carry on......

There ain't one f'kin' way that this psycho SOB, (Rob) Jordan Funk, Esq., can HONESTLY state to the court that he can - without prejudice - deal with homosexuals as victims or parties to a case. No way in Hell.

The post that started this thread has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. It has to do with pointing out that the premise which underlies the justification of that movement calls into question the very concept of nature as a basis of law and morality. In which case, the condemnation of this mass shooting by anyone who thinks homosexuality and their movement is a positive moral good, is pure hypocrisy.

Jordan

I follow Jesus Christ. Aristotle, Plato and Thomas Jefferson were sinners. They were smart and productive, but sinners nonetheless. They don't dictate what is moral by their writings; Jesus showed us by his actions.

Aristotle (like nearly all Greeks at that time) was a queer as a football bat. Ditto Plato, and Socrates.

They don't call it Greek sex for nothing

Tell that to the homosexual clients I have had or to the acquaintances (albeit very few!) I have who are homosexuals. By your logic, neither Thomas Jefferson or Blackstone could serve as a justice on our Supreme Court and George Washington certainly could not serve as commander in chief.

This is not the first time you have expressed outrage at the philosophy on which this nation was founded and its condemnation of unnatural acts, which is why I think I am correct in identifying you, fundamentally, as a man of the Left.

Jordan

How 'bout your insane ability to OVERTHINK things you dyck! By the way your proctologist called-they found your head.

False as to Aristotle and Plato---but even if true it would make them hypocrits but would not make their reasoning flawed or false.

Pointing out your ignorance of the foundations of western civilization does not make me a dick. It makes you ignorant.

Jordan

How cute - Robert Jordan Funk, Esq., picking and choosing posts to reply to.

A "man of the left"? You're a delusional, psycho bastard. If you can post your diatribes here, and then honestly represent or deal with gays you are either a liar in one or other context or have a multiple personality syndrome that is astonishing.

Leftist, eh? Not hardly, but keep deflecting from your post that seeks to justify the slaughter of dozens of innocent Americans.

You're insane, Robert (or Jordan, which ever is the hardline straight persona). You're in your manic phase and it shows.

Mmmmmmmkaaaaayy.

Re: Apologists for homosexuality cannot condemn this shooting...

Sounds a lot like he's happy it happened and justifies it, eh? His posts only confirm this.

He's a complete nut.

What's visiting day?

Well, it's settled then! Those of which you speak, though I'm not sure who "here" qualifies, are hypocrites........right there with some of your "moral legislators".

The very fact you are now unhinged---calling me a "psycho bastard" for posting the philosophy of Jefferson and the Founders should tell everyone with the IQ of an ant that I've struck nerve. And that nerve is the fact that you are incensed because I've pointed out that on your premises Jefferson could not be a Supreme Court justice and Washington could not be commander in chief. If that does not define a Leftist, I don't know what does. But your anger should be directed at your espousing of Leftism not me.

You are also apparently incapable of comprehending simple prose. It is the philosophy of the Founders (and the foundation of western civilization) which I have cited and which condemns the mass killing of innocents. Likewise, it is the rejection of that philosophy which (which the homosexual rights movement does in spades) that makes the condemnation of those killings by anyone who agrees with that rejection (by agreeing with the premises of those who reject it) which constitutes the complete denial of any objective ground for condemning mass killings.

Yes, you are indeed a Leftist. Out of your own mouth. Deal with it.

Jordan

Exactly the opposite. What did I write which states or implies agreement with mass killing? Everything I have said has been directed at establishing the validity of the objective basis for condemning it. It is you who give aid and comfort to mass killers by denying the existence of any objective reason to think mass killing is wrong.


Jordan

The objective basis to condemn the killings is because it is wrong to kill innocent people. That's it!

Most people don't need to justify or rationalize their condemnation for the murder of innocent people. You, Rob Jordan, sound a lot closer in philosophy to an Islamic terrorist justifying his jihad, than a Jeffersonian scholar.

this

I'll second that. Huntz's comment is one of most moronic things posted on this site.

OP is a retard.

Plato and Aristotle may have condemned homosexuality in their writings but it is pretty well known that mere buggery was not homosexuality to them. Homosexuality as they defined it was catching instead of pitching.

It was alright to bugger a ten year old boy, but best not open your back door.

The premise is faulty not because there is no divine authority, but because we cannot agree on what it is and what standards it promulgates.

For Christians it is the Bible. For Muslims the Koran. For the secular types, the rights of man. But there is no agreed upon standard no matter how much some Trotskyite Jew tries to argue there is. Western Civilization is Christian Civilization. There is no agreement for long between the secular and Christian. As the authority of God is removed, you get what you get.

Now that isn't to say that Christianity is right or true, but merely that it was the standard and in reality it was also the secular standard in the West. When it is explicitly rejected, we eventually end up here.

I presume you started this thread in response to the massacre in Orlando. Beyond that, I can make little sense of your post. There is no justification for this horrific act of mass murder and terrorism.

The Jaffa quote you posted is not only an example of a rhetorically incoheret argument plagued my numerous logical fallacies, particularly the naturalistic fallacy, it has absolutely nothing to do with the atrocity in Orlando. Rob Jordan, your post clearly evidences of your most insincere intentions. I had avoided responding to this thread for fear of feeding a shameless troll. I pity you and the suffering you celebrate in others.

I seldom agree with you but this time you nailed it.

[/quote]

The objective basis to condemn the killings is because it is wrong to kill innocent people. That's it! [/quote]


Precisely. But what do we do with the philosophy that says some people are not "human beings"? Nazism held that Jews were sub-human---plague-bearing bacilli to be exact. Stalin believed that anyone who was counter-revolutionary could be dumped in a mass grave as if they were the mere by-products of a rendering plant. The movement in the ante-bellum south to justify chattel slavery as a positive moral good did so on the argument that blacks were not human beings---that there was no difference between a chair (a real chattel without a will of its own) and rational human beings who were as much possessed of free will as their putative slave masters. On what basis can we tell these purveyors of evil that their philosophies really are wrong?

Nature and reason tell us that a negro is a man, not an ox, or a hog and that a Jew is a human being, not a bacterium. And with the very same voice that they tell us these things, nature and reason also tell us that a man is not a woman and that the right ordering of sexual relations is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. Again, here is Jaffa:


"Man is a social animal, and no one can secure what is desirable for himself except in partnership with others. According to Aristotle, if a man had all the health, wealth, freedom and power that he desired, but lacked friends, he would not even wish to live. But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman. As nature is the ground of morality, the distinction of the sexes is the ground of nature. Nature---which forbids us to eat or enslave out own kind---is that which has within it the principle of coming-into-being. Mankind as a whole is recognized by its generations, like a river which is one and the same while the ever-renewed cycles of birth and death flow on. But the generations are constituted---and can only be constituted---by the acts of generation arising from the conjunction of male and female. The root of all human relationships, the root of all morality, is nature, which itself is grounded in the generative distinction of male and female.....Abraham Lincoln once said that if slavery is not unjust, then nothing is unjust. With equal reason it can be said that if homosexuality is not unnatural, nothing is unnatural. And if nothing is unnatural then nothing---including slavery and genocide---is unjust"

Harry V. Jaffa, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question.

The premises of the homosexual rights movement are identical with those of Nazism and chattel slavery: each claims that the authority of nature is no authority whatsoever. And my point---the only point I have stressed throughout this thread (apart from pointing out the hypocrisy of [people like 4ager) is that if the distinctions in nature are authoritative in condemning slavery and genocide, they are equally authoritative in condemning homosexuality and conversely, if the generative distinction between male and female is meaningless, then why not the distinction between Jews and bacteria or between hogs and negroes? You can't have it both ways.

Does any of this mean homosexuals should be denied their equal rights under the law? No, it only means that anyone who espouses the premises of their movement can condemn mass killings on only subjective, idiosyncratic (and ultimately) hypocritic grounds. That is the entire point of my original post.


Jordan

Nothing in the nature of man is "the ground for all reality". To believe so would be to believe that there is a harmonious state of primitive being where all is just and good and the relationship between the sexes is the basis for it. But aside from a short time in the garden, such a state has never existed in man. The natural state of man is sin, depravity, and violence, regardless of the nature of the relationship of the sexes.

Will you shut up....you're sick.

Gawd what garbage.

I second that.

Sorry Rob, you just cemented your status as a fruitcake.



I mean honestly dude,....

Where did I ever state or imply that there was?

[/quote]

The Jaffa quote you posted is not only an example of a rhetorically incoheret argument plagued my numerous logical fallacies, particularly the naturalistic fallacy, it has absolutely nothing to do with the atrocity in Orlando. Rob Jordan, your post clearly evidences of your most insincere intentions. I had avoided responding to this thread, for fear of feeding a shameless troll. I pity you and the suffering you celebrate in others. [/quote]

Please prove that it is rhetorically and logically incoherent and plagued with fallacies, including the naturalistic fallacy. If the argument is correct, it has everything in the world to do with establishing a non-relative ground for condemning evil, of which mass killing is a prime example.

Respectfully, you've wholly misunderstood the argument First of all, the argument is not that "the nature of man is 'the ground for all reality'. Secondly, the argument does not imply a "harmonious state of primitive being where all is just and good". You mention "sin"--the argument I am making is non-sectarian. The history of human kind is indeed the history of depravity of violence as it is also often-times the history of courage, valor, justice and love. The issue is whether there is a non-relative basis to distinguish the latter as preferable to the former and if so, what is that basis?

Far from unhinged, you schizo nut; just IDing Robert Jordan Funk, Esq., as a nut job.

Mission accomplished.

Non nut cases understand this.

Ah, so you defend this by claiming that the dead gays were not innocent, therefore it was acceptable for a radical Muslim terrorist to kill them.

Yep, you're a nut case.

Not making any excuses for the shooter , nut job for sure , but many peoples lives would be much simpler and less stress if they kept their private live private. There has been a lot of "gay" shoved down America's throat the last couple years. Lots are sick of their [bleep] , luckly most people are stable and not nut cases

Exactly right which in a sense backs up Rob Jordan. Without God and his teachings to follow and set as a moral compass man has always been a mixed bag of kindness and violence. We can condemn that behavior as being unchristain and seek forgivness but if we choose not to believe in God what basis do we have for condemning the behavior?

Is he this guy: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/152160

??

The Left will play this to the hilt--in much the same manner as some are doing here. Anyone who has the least disinclination, in the furthest reaches of their soul, to be in sympatico with the homosexual rights movement will be equated with condoning this mass murder. The "special victim" status of homosexuals will be elevated further and of course, the demand for gun control will be even greater.

Jordan

No fan of Rob Jordan but unless he cheats or hurts a Campfire member, I don't think it's right to try and destroy someone's life.

No, I understand it quite well. "Reality" should have been "morality" but the iPhone has a way of saying what it thinks you want to say.

But no I understand it quite well. And the answer is no, there is no non-relative basis in nature. All non-sectarian arguments are in error and like a blind man in a dark room.

In short there is no morality without the Christian God. Sometimes people act morally. Others have codes that coincide with truth. But there is no understanding of truth without the Christian God.

And this guy...

Holy....them some.Jimmy dean fingers

I agree with you, however calling out a public official is altogether different.

http://www.co.modoc.ca.us/departments/district-attorney

What a crock of manure.
Zealous abound in Orlando, around the world and the Campfire in not spared either.

Robert Jordan Funk, Esq., has - once and for all - demonstrated that the only real difference between the psychopaths like himself and those of ISIS/Taliban is that the Muslims don't lack the courage of conviction to do what both Mr. Funk and them both claim should be done. The radical Muslims will kill "infidels, apostates, heretics, and sodomites"; Rob will simply cheerlead them as they do so and rationalize it as acceptable.

I'm not saying that those who don't believe are immoral, I'm saying that there is no morality withou Him. It is a distinction you might not wish to understand. If you believe in God you MUST believe that everything good comes from him. In short your belief or lack thereof may be immaterial to the source of your moral actions.

go figure.

think it'll be charged as a hate crime or terrorism ?
....and will Bernie link it to global warming?

Positing that your "God" is the basis for a singular universal and absolute morality isn't the only explanation for the ethical mores widely shared among people, notwithstanding, race, culture, country of citizenship, race, era, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, etc.

My belief or even the truth of the argument does not require your agreement. Nor do I expect everyone to agree.

Therein lies the difference between you and those like the jihadis and Robert Jordan Funk.

It was my intention to use the possessive pronoun "your" in a universal sense. I meant to highlight a personal/subjective component of belief. Perhaps I should have omitted it altogether. We're not in disagreement.

kingston,



If Godless evolution is a fact, explain to us why there is such a thing as morals. While you're at it maybe you could explain why it is a baby in the hospital nursery will watch a pretty nurse longer than they will an average looking nurse.

I couldn't agree more!

Just wanted to let you know Rob that we all think it's ok that you homosexual, it doesn't bother us at all.

If the baby watches the pretty nurse longer than the average nurse, does that mean he's Christian?

If the boy baby watches the male nurse longer than the female nurse, does that mean he's gay? Since he was just born, doesn't that mean that God made him gay?

As to JoeBob's post, Jefferson and the founding generation thought otherwise. They thought that unassisted human reason (what Jefferson meant by "the law of nature") and revelation (what Jefferson meant by "the law of nature's God") were in agreement on what constituted moral behavior and therefore, that it was not necessary to appeal strictly to revealed religion to discover the ground of the distinction between right and wrong. On the essential moral questions, the Founders saw reason and revelation as reinforcing one another, not in conflict.


Jordan

Newborns can't see beyond about 6", you ignoramus jackass. They certainly cannot focus, and what they can see is only light/dark shadows. Your example fails (shockingly) on facts and science.

While your not always right, your almost always logical.

Oh, I'm always right.

Spoken like a true believer in freedom. Plus one.

That a whole lot of stupid in that post

I skipped to the bottom and didn't read but the first reply. I don't believe homosexuality is moral I also do believe God gives freedom of choice and what ever someone wants to do is their own buisness. I don't rejoice in the death of a bunch of root lickers. That being said it's better them than a grade school somewhere or a church or synagogue.

While I think the Gay crowd needs to be taken down a couple of notches, this isn't the way....

on the flip side, I don't necessarily care for gays....

but as the same time, I have less care about Muslims, especially those who come here and then kill folks, regardless of reason and do so in the name of God/Allah....

and then want to take over our nation and the free world, by killing all of its inhabitants....

I've always maintained, you play by your enemies rules...

Maybe its time we played by theirs...... its long over due and more than justified....

Are you and out-and out moron? How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Nowhere have I stated or implied that homosexuals in the Orlando night club deserved to be murdered because they were homosexuals or that it was right or moral for them to be murdered. For the umpteenth time what I have tried to show (and what I think I have shown)is that one cannot consistently condemn this mass murder while simultaneously accepting as true the premises of the homosexual rights movement insofar as those premises deny any moral authority to nature and the law that is in nature.

4ager, you have consistently, gratuitously and quite mendaciously misrepresented what I have written either because (a) you don't comprehend it or (b)because you are incensed that anyone has the temerity to publicly criticize the philosophical underpinnings of the homosexual rights movement. I think it is the latter, which is why I think, that at a very basic level, you are a man of the Left. I note that you still have not explained why, if I shouldn't be a lawyer, Jefferson should not be on the Supreme Court or Washington shouldn't be the CINC, given their condemnation of homosexual behavior.

Will I be hearing from the State Bar on account of you? If so, I will not be surprised since I think, at bottom, you are incensed that anyone who is a lawyer should be permitted to speak out, in any manner, against homosexuality. You have made that very, very clear in this thread and historically, on this forum. I don't accept your attempt to put me in a politically correct, censorious straight-jacket. Your not much different than college radicals who shout down conservative lecturers who dare to refuse to toe the line on publicly acceptable political positions. I will not be intimidated by your thinly veiled threat.

Jordan

RJ opining on the lack of cerebral thought here is like claiming the .270 Win is gay.

You're not making an argument, your hiding behind your words.

Then you should have no difficulty refuting what I wrote. So do it.

There are a lot of sentences in this paragraph, and they all have words, but together they do not make a coherent argument. The problem comes with sentences like "But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman". This is nonsense. The "root of all friendships" is not "that of a man and a woman", no matter what nonsense you use to tie the two phrases together. You might say that the root of friendships is mutual respect, or mutual interests or any number of things. You might also say that the coming together of a man and a woman is required for a new person to exist, and thus is a requirement in order for future friendships to occur, but this doesn't mean that any relationship between men is wrong. I could go on with the rest of your argument, but since this cornerstone of it is so badly incorrect I see no need.

Am I correct in thinking that you have identified yourself as a lawyer in this thread? If so then I am surprised that you aren't aware that the basis of the Western legal system is the Deontological ethical system (also the cornerstone of libertarian thinking). The fundamental principal of this ethical system is that your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's face begins (in layman's terms). Thus what two people may do consensually together, if it doesn't cause harm to others, is not something the courts should deal with. Killing people with guns on the other hand, is generally considered bad because it both causes harm to others and is not consensual. How you could miss something as basic as this in your multisyllabic attempts to justify your belief that there's nothing wrong with the murder of more than 50 people is almost mind blowing. But on the plus side for you, because your illogical rant doesn't cause direct harm to others, your right to say it is protected by the laws of the land, as are our rights to inform you of how poorly formed your argument is. This also answers for me the burning question of why there are so many foolish law suits filed every year.

Support your local sheriff:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=521381144701796&id=153688004804447

I get what Jordan is arguing and from the very narrow perspective of his initial point on morality, what he's saying is fairly consistent and logical. I don't think he's saying that gays deserve to be killed because they're immoral. He's saying that the gay rights movement can't represent something that is, under the views of many people, immoral at its core and then express outrage over other immoral acts (like murder).

I simply don't agree with the positions of people like Jaffa, who concluded that there is a 1:1 relationship between morality and justice or that there can be no sense of just and unjust if we accept homosexuality, since homosexuality is immoral because it's not natural. First, while it certainly isn't natural for the majority of members of a species that survives over generations, but I'm pretty sure it's been a part of human existence from the early days for a minority of folks. Second, there are many things that one can deem to be immoral that do not give rise to the termination of rights to assert the immorality of other acts.

If Jordan is only saying that he finds the gay rights movement to be a bunch of hypocrites for basing their demands upon an argument of morality, I agree with him. But you'll find hypocrisy in virtually every movement and anyone who would make the leap to stripping a group of legal rights (such as, say, the right to not be murdered) based on a wholly separate system of moral beliefs is a total lunatic. I don't think Jordan did this, explicitly, but many people presumed that is where he was heading with his argument.

If I thought there was even the smallest chance it could make a difference, but there ain't no cure for what you've got.

Holy fugg

Nowhere have I said or implied that the murders in Orlando were anything but wrong. Quite the opposite: what I have argued is that on the premises of the homosexual rights movement those murders can only be criticized on idiosyncratic (subjective) grounds and impliedly asked "is this what we as a society want?

The meaning of the statement "but the root of all friendship, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman" is self-evident. You and I exist in virtue of having a mother and father who themselves had a mother and a father and so on and so on. Human friendship---as with human existence itself---is ultimately the product of that first sexual friendship between a man and a woman. The homosexual rights movement denies that there is any meaning to be drawn from these facts. Likewise, they deny there is anything meaningful to be drawn from the distinction between the human and the non-human. Jaffa's argument (like Jefferson before him) is that nature and the law that is in nature are the rational ground of all moral distinctions. Nature, which has within it the principle of "coming-into-being", is constituted in and by the generative distinction between male and female. If nature and the law that is within nature condemn slavery and genocide (for example) then surely they equally condemn homosexuality because the distinction in nature between male and female is even more fundamental than the distinction between the human and the non-human.

You are not correct in thinking I have identified myself as a lawyer. Others have, though it happens to be true. Let us then deal with your condescending (and utterly ill-informed) notion that law school teaches anything about the basis of the western legal system. It emphatically does not. (There might be a course on the matter available at some schools. I would be shocked if it is part of the general law school curriculum.) That's supposed to be the product of a liberal education. Did you not know that?

Your invocation of deontology is analytically silly and unavailing. In the first place, the fundamental principle of American law is not that whatever two people consent to is just and proper. Quite the opposite, Jefferson made clear in the Declaration of Independence that only "the just laws" are derived from the consent of the governed. Consent as such cannot justify that which is intrinsically immoral. Virtually everything Jefferson wrote speaks to his believe in a non-relative normative system that consent cannot properly contravene and in that vein, condemnation of homosexuality is consistent throughout western civilization since at least Plato. Jefferson in fact wrote a criminal code for the Commonwealth of Virginia making it a felony punishable by castration. Whether we should so regard it today is certainly open to question, but apparently questioning this new morality---the morality of immorality is not open to question. Jefferson would be surprised at that, but apparently he too was ignorant of your "deontology".

You are obviously quite proud of yourself for learning that big word (deontology) but virtually everything you assert in your thread is incorrect. Nowhere have I justified or tried to justify the murder of innocent homosexuals in Orlando. I have done exactly the opposite. The American legal system is emphatically not grounded in the notion that consent justifies anything and everything so long as only the consenting parties are affected.

Jordan

The TEXT, re: "Rob Jordan"

........can't say I'm in the least bit surprised, either.

Rob, ....you care to respond to any of this ?

GTC


Modoc County Sheriff's Office
February 3 ·
Hello again to everyone,
A lot going on right now within your Sheriff's Office.
First I want to let the citizens of Modoc County know a few critical and very important things that you will not hear elsewhere. I have been very quiet on this subject for some time now, but enough is enough. My question to the people of Modoc County is just how long are you going to allow an unethical, untruthful, vindictive defense attorney pose as your District Attorney?????
Your DA has had an ax to grind against the Sheriff's Office since before our "We know what is best for you, so just sit down and shut up," board of supervisors appointed him to fill Chris Brooke's vacated position. He has particularly been focused on one specific employee as per his add in the paper, he is more than willing to accept anything he can get his hands on period, as long as it pertains to and is damaging to the Sheriff's Office specifically. He has not only dismissed serious criminal charges, but invited suspect/s to his home for a visit, provided them with evidence against them and encouraged them to file complaints per suspects own statements and surely to file law suits against the County and your Sheriff's Office, for all I know he has even referred them to attorneys that might be interested in suing the county. We in fact have been sued by the suspect in this case the county settled for nearly $100,000 dollars. An outside nationally recognized legal expert in this field of law was consulted, studied the case in great detail and rendered the opinion that there is no merit to the Colts claim and that no responsible county would have settled this case, but rather would have defended it with utmost zeal. These types of settlements only encourage further such claims at the expense of the county and create undue ill-conceived damage to the reputation of the Sheriff’s Office and the public servants involved. I have also been informed by numerous subjects that these are all things the DA believes necessary if he is to “Get the Sheriff”.
Investigations and records indicate that Jordan Funk has checked out inmates from the jail that he personally prosecuted and then under prior management checked them out of the Jail at $10.00 a day, so that he can pay them under the table to help construct and do work around his personal residence. He has written letters to the United States Attorney's Office that are not truthful; he has tried to extort the Sheriff's Office with quid pro quo correspondence. He has hired an Investigator contrary to County Code and Peace Officer Standards of Training guidelines, who is being paid by you the tax payers. This man’s job appears to be for the sole purpose of digging up any "dirt" he can find on the Sheriff, Sheriff's Office or its employees. This man has interviewed many, many people attempting to find some "chink in the armor" and he has threatened the Sheriff with obstruction of justice and arrest. God only knows how many citizens he has coerced or attempted to coerce derogatory statements from in order to attempt to satisfy the DA's personal dislike for the Sheriff and its employees. If you have been contacted by this so called DA investigator and feel that you have been unduly coerced or pressured to make statements against your will please contact the Sheriff’s Office.
Last week the DA summoned potential jurors from the registered voter rolls and selected a Criminal Grand Jury in an attempt to prosecute Deputy Nessling. This stemming from a case of Assault with intent to produce great bodily injury responded to by multiple agencies and investigated by the Sheriff’s Office, against a local career criminal, which occurred November of 2014. The DA has publicly put Deputy Nessling and his family through a living hell for some fifteen months now. Why? Because he has some preconceived dislike for him? Meanwhile accused murderers continue to sit in our dilapidated jail, child molesters, domestic violence cases, drug cases, elder abuse cases, assault cases are dropped or dismissed and criminals continue to walk the streets and recidivate. Cases are rejected, for reasons such as, "Not worth my time". Now don't get me wrong not every case warrants prosecution, but I believe we work for you the people, your crises becomes our crises. We try to never forget that if it is real enough for you to call we are going to show up and attempt to help with the situation. Every call has some citizen that is or at least truly feels like a victim. I could go on and on and on with this subject. I'm certain that most people have no idea of what is or has been occurring. If you have seen any of this or follow any of this in the local paper then you can be sure that unfortunately you only have one side. The California Legal Defense fund PORAC is monitoring any developments regarding Deputy Nessling and the DA’s actions related to these proceedings and is fully prepared to defend Deputy Nessling should this travesty actually proceed.
We have asked an outside law enforcement agency to initiate a criminal investigation of Jordan Funk regarding these incidents and allegations. Three law firms have agreed to file a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct and various other violations of the law with the California State Bar.
Moral around the Sheriff's Office is low; our patrol deputies are reluctant to do their job, for fear that our district attorney's dislike for the Sheriff's Office will lead to more unwarranted action against them. We have had several good people and deputies leave the Sheriff's Office and the county, certainly for several varying reasons to include low pay, short staffing. You should know that during exit interviews the one major common denominator is their lack of trust in our district attorney. It saddens me to now have to inform you that we are losing our Under-Sheriff Ken Richardson. Ken "Has had enough" Ken will be retiring and moving out of the State of California at the end of the month. Again the primary reason is an absolute lack of trust and or confidence in the district attorney. Some other major concerns of Ken's are a CAO and Board that has no concept nor concern for public safety or the loyal county servants that sacrifice day in and day out to help keep the people of Modoc County Safe. No confidence in State government, unconstitutional gun legislation. We write letters stating our disapproval of bill after bill after bill, authored by rogue legislators aimed at eroding your second amendment rights. We agree that none of these will do a thing to curb gun violence. Add federal government over reach and lack of coordination and several other issues certainly
That leaves yours truly to be the Sheriff, Under-Sheriff and Patrol Sergeant as of March first. Guess I will just move a bunk into my office. As I have stated several times in the recent past, “I am telling you all of this because, the pace we are working at is NOT SUSTAINABLE!”
Thanks for your continued support. Sorry for the rant, but it is high time you were made aware of what we have been putting up with on our end. Too bad we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore.
Mike

A criminal grand jury indicted the deputy in question. He is facing charges. The county just settled its second excessive use of force lawsuit involving the same deputy. The Sheriff is irate that anyone would question the absolute right of a deputy to criminally assault citizens with impunity. The grand jury saw it differently. Sorry sheriff!

Jordan

It was generous of you to try...

Jilted lover, how sweet.

Always knew something was wrong with JF (aka RJ) now we know the whole truth, not surprised.

Jordan will get his this I'm sure of as for credibility around here he has none and this will stay with him for a long time.

No wonder Cali is so fugged up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob's Story.


Modoc County Sheriff's Office

February 3 ·
..

Hello again to everyone,

A lot going on right now within your Sheriff's Office.

First I want to let the citizens of Modoc County know a few critical and very important things that you will not hear elsewhere. I have been very quiet on this subject for some time now, but enough is enough. My question to the people of Modoc County is just how long are you going to allow an unethical, untruthful, vindictive defense attorney pose as your District Attorney?????

Your DA has had an ax to grind against the Sheriff's Office since before our "We know what is best for you, so just sit down and shut up," board of supervisors appointed him to fill Chris Brooke's vacated position. He has particularly been focused on one specific employee as per his add in the paper, he is more than willing to accept anything he can get his hands on period, as long as it pertains to and is damaging to the Sheriff's Office specifically. He has not only dismissed serious criminal charges, but invited suspect/s to his home for a visit, provided them with evidence against them and encouraged them to file complaints per suspects own statements and surely to file law suits against the County and your Sheriff's Office, for all I know he has even referred them to attorneys that might be interested in suing the county. We in fact have been sued by the suspect in this case the county settled for nearly $100,000 dollars. An outside nationally recognized legal expert in this field of law was consulted, studied the case in great detail and rendered the opinion that there is no merit to the Colts claim and that no responsible county would have settled this case, but rather would have defended it with utmost zeal. These types of settlements only encourage further such claims at the expense of the county and create undue ill-conceived damage to the reputation of the Sheriff’s Office and the public servants involved. I have also been informed by numerous subjects that these are all things the DA believes necessary if he is to “Get the Sheriff”.

Investigations and records indicate that Jordan Funk has checked out inmates from the jail that he personally prosecuted and then under prior management checked them out of the Jail at $10.00 a day, so that he can pay them under the table to help construct and do work around his personal residence. He has written letters to the United States Attorney's Office that are not truthful; he has tried to extort the Sheriff's Office with quid pro quo correspondence. He has hired an Investigator contrary to County Code and Peace Officer Standards of Training guidelines, who is being paid by you the tax payers. This man’s job appears to be for the sole purpose of digging up any "dirt" he can find on the Sheriff, Sheriff's Office or its employees. This man has interviewed many, many people attempting to find some "chink in the armor" and he has threatened the Sheriff with obstruction of justice and arrest. God only knows how many citizens he has coerced or attempted to coerce derogatory statements from in order to attempt to satisfy the DA's personal dislike for the Sheriff and its employees. If you have been contacted by this so called DA investigator and feel that you have been unduly coerced or pressured to make statements against your will please contact the Sheriff’s Office.

Last week the DA summoned potential jurors from the registered voter rolls and selected a Criminal Grand Jury in an attempt to prosecute Deputy Nessling. This stemming from a case of Assault with intent to produce great bodily injury responded to by multiple agencies and investigated by the Sheriff’s Office, against a local career criminal, which occurred November of 2014. The DA has publicly put Deputy Nessling and his family through a living hell for some fifteen months now. Why? Because he has some preconceived dislike for him? Meanwhile accused murderers continue to sit in our dilapidated jail, child molesters, domestic violence cases, drug cases, elder abuse cases, assault cases are dropped or dismissed and criminals continue to walk the streets and recidivate. Cases are rejected, for reasons such as, "Not worth my time". Now don't get me wrong not every case warrants prosecution, but I believe we work for you the people, your crises becomes our crises. We try to never forget that if it is real enough for you to call we are going to show up and attempt to help with the situation. Every call has some citizen that is or at least truly feels like a victim. I could go on and on and on with this subject. I'm certain that most people have no idea of what is or has been occurring. If you have seen any of this or follow any of this in the local paper then you can be sure that unfortunately you only have one side. The California Legal Defense fund PORAC is monitoring any developments regarding Deputy Nessling and the DA’s actions related to these proceedings and is fully prepared to defend Deputy Nessling should this travesty actually proceed.

We have asked an outside law enforcement agency to initiate a criminal investigation of Jordan Funk regarding these incidents and allegations. Three law firms have agreed to file a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct and various other violations of the law with the California State Bar.

Moral around the Sheriff's Office is low; our patrol deputies are reluctant to do their job, for fear that our district attorney's dislike for the Sheriff's Office will lead to more unwarranted action against them. We have had several good people and deputies leave the Sheriff's Office and the county, certainly for several varying reasons to include low pay, short staffing. You should know that during exit interviews the one major common denominator is their lack of trust in our district attorney. It saddens me to now have to inform you that we are losing our Under-Sheriff Ken Richardson. Ken "Has had enough" Ken will be retiring and moving out of the State of California at the end of the month. Again the primary reason is an absolute lack of trust and or confidence in the district attorney. Some other major concerns of Ken's are a CAO and Board that has no concept nor concern for public safety or the loyal county servants that sacrifice day in and day out to help keep the people of Modoc County Safe. No confidence in State government, unconstitutional gun legislation. We write letters stating our disapproval of bill after bill after bill, authored by rogue legislators aimed at eroding your second amendment rights. We agree that none of these will do a thing to curb gun violence. Add federal government over reach and lack of coordination and several other issues certainly

That leaves yours truly to be the Sheriff, Under-Sheriff and Patrol Sergeant as of March first. Guess I will just move a bunk into my office. As I have stated several times in the recent past, “I am telling you all of this because, the pace we are working at is NOT SUSTAINABLE!”

Thanks for your continued support. Sorry for the rant, but it is high time you were made aware of what we have been putting up with on our end. Too bad we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore.
Mike

Apechit crazy to start with,...THIS is what's pushing Jordan completely 'round the bend, now.

Anybody forwarded the trash he posts here over to that S.O. ?

GTC

A criminal grand jury indicted the deputy in question---following the counties second settled lawsuit. Any sane sheriff would understand the problem. Ours is arguably not sane.

You saying that is like the blind leading the blind.

Good luck I have a feeling you won't be a DA for much longer.

Explain why.Show me in the Bible where I am wrong.

RJ seems to be a first class retard, but he's never struck me as dishonest. If the SO is guilty, they're guilty. If he is guilty of misconduct, I'm sure he will get his.

All I can say is, I'm happy I don't live in Modoc county.

County DA is a SALARIED position, Mooner.

NOTHING vaguely DISHONEST about spending the bulk of his time posting weird political rants here, day in, day out ?

I doubt his contract includes that in a list of his duties, also doubt the Modoc County taxpayers had that in mind.

GTC

I don't track when he posts.

Certainly some of his posts would raise more than the eyebrow of a defense attorney.

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that if he gets canned, it will be for surfing gay porn on his work computer.

So yes. You are correct, sir. That would be pilfering the funds and trust of his constituents.

actually, we don't have, as Americans, a "right" to live our life in peace at all.
We have been privileged to live in peace, because previous American Presidents went to war, to secure that privilege. Millions of Americans fought, and hundreds of thousands of them died, to secure that privilege.

Nothing will happen to RJ, he's in California and probably only joined this site to try and sniff out site members in his county that he can have raided.

Lets focus on the GOOD news.

This mass murder plays into the Trump narrative and further makes Obama and Hillary look like "Chamberlin"s.

Trump now needs to name his cabinet: Kasich, Rice, Bolton, McCain, Carson, Christie and so on. You won't like them all but none are dolts and Hillary cannot do the same as her party is so divided.

Trump needs to start trotting out all the women, blacks, hispanics, gays etc. that he employs, drawing a stark contrast to Hillary who has never created a real job.

Dare we hope for more of the same from our "integrated" Muslims ?

Well, based on the OP, if there was to be such a thing as homosexual sex in nature, would that kinda shoot the whole original argument to schit?

Stuff like this reminds me that some people NEED rules, hard and fast rules, to be able to live their lives comfortably. I can only surmise that they do not feel they are able to come to conclusions of their own, and must be able to shift that responsibility to someone else, who they can then point to and say "I was doing what I was told".

Common sense goes a long way, however rarely its used. If someone is doing something I find distasteful but isn't harming anyone but themselves, common sense tells me to leave them to it and move the hell on with my life.

If I understand the OP correctly, the position is that if you don't condemn homo's then you can't condemn mass murder.I don't particularly care what anyone had to say about it, to me common sense tells me one act is at most harmful only to the willing participants while the other harms a bunch of innocent, non-willing participants. No need to make it any more complicated than that.

You don't know what the fug you're talking about.

Take ya fuggin pill and try again tomorrow.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Hey, you're a big shot here. WHY don't YOU do it ?

BTW you're still attributing that quote to Twain who never said it.

If what the OP says is so, then the lifestyle is not to blame so much as the society that allows it to become so openly accepted.

Hey Jordan, can you send us the Email addresses of the city council please.

What, like you are doing you miserable prick of a thing...fellow citizens of yours are dead and you are waving a f cking bible and condemning the victims.

You truly are the biggest prick on these fora.

Homosexuality is wrong, and nowhere in God's laws or natures laws can it be justified. But, neither can cold blooded murder and that's what this was. I see two things here......the Democrats need to quit sugarcoating Islam for being the "religion of love and peace", because it is not and never will be. Secondly, when you engage in behavior that is considered immoral by some people, then you can be at danger from those people. Not saying it's right to abuse them, but a lot of people find homosexuality to be repugnant, and they're not all Muslim either.

You bible waving, paedophile enabling, pack of pansies are the first to bitch and moan when you are singled out for your beliefs yet you are all quick as heck ready to throw anyone you don't agree with under the wheels.

Wake up to yourselves...YOU ARE NEXT!

Buzz off, Larry Root.

GTC

BUSINESS HOURS, Señor,....all day long, for days on end,....particularly once Trump's bee got under his frilly little bonnet.
Wonder what kind of "work" the fellas he signs out of the local slammer have been doing for him,....

I am not, but if I were then it would be by my choice not yours you foul piece of crap.

There is absolutely NO excuse for what you pack of bastards are doing...those people are your countrymen!

Rob, you are out of your mind. I do not believe homosexuality is normal as EITHER God or nature intended, that being said they are still human, I believe most to be born the way they are, so, ya, I condemn this shooting. What I can't figure out is the strategy in ISIS targeting gays.

I don't believe it is just because gays are gay, they are targeting gays for political purpose. They know the people who advocate the most in the USA for open borders and Muslim rights is the liberal left, but now they purposely enrage the liberal left, what is their purpose in doing that?

You are trying to connect dots which are not even on the same page.

I deplore homosexuality but its practitioners have just as much right to condemn this terror attack as anyone else.

To carry your thinking to its logical conclusion, an Atheist could not condemn a terror attack on the Temple at SLC.

You do a disservice to great thinkers of the past when you attempt to make their thoughts fit your agenda.

Bark, there is no rhyme or reason here...the bad bastards HATE ALL Westerners.

They do not care how you vote or what you indulge in behind closed doors...they HATE US ALL!

Please note my avatar. I ain't real fond of them islamists.

Nowhere have I said I condone the killings. I do not. But, my point is that when someone is engaged in behavior that not everyone considers normal or moral, they put themselves at risk. I'll bet that a lot of posters on here have fooled around with another mans wife, and while that might not be against the law (just like homosexuality is not against the law), you better believe that there are some husbands who think it is. The graveyards are full of men who tried it, and paid the price it. The courts can pass all the equality laws they want to, but they still can't enforce people to accept it. The Muslims view homosexuality as being wrong, and have no problem with putting people to death for it. I do not think Christians feel that way, at least not this one. But, I also think that you can control your own fate, at least up to a point, and when you flaunt your behavior in front of people who don't like it, then you risk something happening as a result.

Not everyone considers hunting "normal" or "moral."

Your argument doesn't hold water.

If God is not the author of evil, who then, is?

If the left (halliry/o) can try to lay the blame for a potential surge in muzzy violence at trumps door step over something as simple as common sense immigration vetting procedures, Then surely a connection could be summarized between that infamous rainbow lights on the white house "stunt" and similar agenda ploys to the targeting of the gay community by the same.
By their own reasoning, The left owns this target direction IMO.

Your mindset, reflected by the drivel you've posted can be summed up in one word, James.

SMARMY.

Stuart nailed it 10X

GTC

Spot on. It's a pity that most here do not recognize the obvious.

Remember Lot. He and his family only were saved that day.

Are we on the highway to hell?

By that reasoning you bring it on yourself if Muslims attack you because you are Christian...second is that Muslims do not view homosexuality as wrong or they wouldn't be buggering young boys, they would be putting a stop to it...the same goes for slavery and molesting small girls.

As to the last bolded section, I like to hunt so should I see it as my fault if some lefty piece of crap physically attacks me?


And last but not least you are saying that it is your fault that Muslim terrorists are attacking you because they do not agree with the way you believe and act.


Well f ck you, and f ck them.

It takes a special kind of idiot to get that much stupid into 1 paragraph. Kudos

That wouldn't be right.

I agree.

Why would that be wrong, pray tell ?

GTC

Because he is not here as a DA, he is just here as the resident lunatic.

Probably just giving Hawk a breather.

The Book of Job was written to give you the answer to that question.

I was listening to a science show on CBC radio called "Quirks and Quarks" on Saturday. They interviewed a scientist who studies sexual behaviour in the Animal kingdom. Among the many things they talked about was how homosexuality was quite wide spread in the Animal Kingdom, thus invalidating the 'unnatural' argument no matter how many fifty cent words used in an argument or how many old white guys quoted in it.

Your common sense seems to me to be well backed up by both logic and reason.

edit to add: The show in it's entirety is graciously posted online at the CBC web site.

[quote=crossfireoops]Why would that be wrong, pray tell ?

GTC [/quote
Well because in these days opinion can effect your personal and professional life, but because you might hold different views from those who can effect your professional future.

Could you translate that into English, please ?

GTC

That is absolutely correct.

Could you translate that into English, please ?

GTC [/quote
OK, your boss might be a Phucan liberal who decides to hold your politics against you, and that might have [bleep] up ramifications that cost you come evaluation time.

Must be some kinda' California English that I don't speak.
Incoherent B.S.
Oh well.

GTC

+1

You limited vocabulary isn't my problem, if I were there, I'd draw you a picture in Crayola.

hellooooooo, Hey Jordan you there? hellooooooo

COCK!


That will smoke him out.

Two men cannot procreate and two women cannot procreate, so as far as I'm concerned, it's not natural for them to have sex and imo immoral. That being said, someone shooting them for doing something voluntarily in their privacy is also immoral.

Much appreciate your confession, RJ.

SCOOTERBUM,



Generally you will not get a Biblical answer for your question. Most Christians believe in a god of their own making. Someone mentioned the Book of Job. If one reads It carefully they will see clearly God did it. Job says God did it and God says Job speaks about me what is correct.

Hears a Passage from Scripture to support my contention:


Isaiah 45:6-7 King James Version (KJV)

"'That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'"

smokepole,





It has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with creation. In the beginning beauty was programmed into our brains; along with morality.

Of course the evil he speaks of is punishment of those deserving souls. Job was a test of Job's faith in God. Satan had to ask permission to vex Job. Job was later rewarded many times for his troubles brought by Satan.

SCOOTERBUM,

Why do you feel a need to tell us what it means. We can read for ourselves.

As far as Job goes, I think you need to read the first two chapters of Job again. Take note that God sicks Satan on Job like a farmer sicks his dog on a raccoon or opossum. God, unlike the farmer, sets limits on Satan. At first Satan was not allowed to touch Job. Then later God allowed Satan to hassle his body but was not allowed to kill him. And take special notice of the last chapter where it reiterate all the evil God brought on Job.

I believe all threats should be terminated. I don't find homosexuality itself to threaten anything but itself. (By definition, they can't breed.) Liberals are the enemy.

ROR!!!!!!

Dillweed,

Why do u feel a need to tell us what it means?

Now, blow off heathen.

Who is Dillweed Heathen?

A dillweed is any heathen that takes Bible scripture out of it's proper context.

Does your candidate Hillary agree with you?

Programmed into all brains, including the 50 killed in the nightclub?

Most queers are liberal and I've never heard of a transgendered conservative.

Of course.

Romans 1:18 - 27
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal Power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

To be fair, many commenters to the linked story applaud RJ for taking on the SO.

http://m.krcrtv.com/modoc-co-sheriffs-deputy-indicted-by-grand-jury-for-assault/38308288

Where the fugg Rob go? Trying to peep through the sheriff's bathroom window again? COCK

Guess I'm down with calling it crazy talk from Aristotle. What did he know about nature, anyway...



If that's what he thought about nature, he didn't know much.

Yeah - you've fallen clear off the credibility wagon.

I'd be very careful about referencing opinions on morality from a slave owner.

Jefferson did acknowledge the hypocrisy of slave ownership. Regardless of that hypocrisy, the natural law thesis stands on its own (is true or false), independent of Jefferson's shortcomings.

I guess I just don't understand the premise of this thread.

You hardly ever have to apologize for homosexuals. They are always polite, and hardly ever commit a social faux pas.

[

So,admitting your hypocrisy upholds your status as an intellectual? Throws some light on why the left idolizes Jefferson.

If "natural law" stands on its own, why must you resort to such name-dropping? An idea that stands on its own needs no celebrity endorsement.

Natural law is simply a justification for acceptance of moral standards by people who wish to deny or marginalize God.

You still here, I thought you had buggered off to liberate Africa.

8

?? What have I ever said about Africa?

Rob,

How's the sheriff these days? Blue lives matter.

ONCE AGAIN ONE OF THE BIG "HIDE BEHIND A KEYBOARD" tough guys is happy to suggest someone else do the work (contact the LEO) that he is, apparently, to scared to do. Must be concerned that the cops and DA might take an interest in what he is up to ????

You're going to be a smash hit in New Mexico, sport.

GTC

Hope to see a gen-u-ine Arizona Junk Yard owner (you) there.

Don't forget your big tough keyboard !

Still have not figgered out Twain never said it eh ?

Why are all trolls STUPID as well as azzhats ?

BTW, the Sheriff now has all the info on dipschiet. Some are not scared of law enforcement