monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Nope.

Ditto.


It's obvious you don't. Keep it in mind.

Wrong. It is meaningless to threaten to withhold peace when you fully intend to withhold peace regardless of what someone does.

Wrong. The end of land-for-peace means no additional land for the Palestinians.

Well, the Palestinians certainly won't be allowed to return if they don't convert to Judaism.

I did say maybe.

Israel is a Jewish state. Maybe if Palestinians convert to Judaism they will be allowed to return.



Wrong. I always keep it in mind.

Such a surprise. Engaging stupid, intellectually careless people produces stupid, intellectually useless discussions.

I bought a car yesterday. Couldn't pass it up. A 2008 Infiniti M35X with 31,000 miles and in absolutely perfect shape (no accidents) for $8,500. I bought it Here

Prince Charles risks President Donald Trump's fury with historic visit to Cuba as he becomes the first member of the Royal Family to visit since the Communist revolution 60 years ago

By CHARLOTTE WACE ROYAL CORRESPONDENT FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAYPUBLISHED: 20:00 EDT, 23 March 2019 | UPDATED: 20:13 EDT, 23 March 2019

The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall will today arrive in Cuba for the first visit by members of the Royal Family since the Communist revolution 60 years ago.

Their controversial trip risks angering President Donald Trump as he attempts to isolate America’s old foe by tightening a trade embargo and warning foreign firms against doing business there.

John Bolton, Trump’s National SecurityAdviser, last year branded Cuba part of a ‘troika of tyranny’, along with Socialist states Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Prince Charles and Camilla will visit a medical research centre, where they will hear about a partnership with Manchester University that helps Cuba develop its own cancer drugs.

This is ‘particularly important’, according to one source, because Cuban doctors are blocked from getting certain drugs from the US.

Palace aides stress that Charles is visiting the centre due to ‘the interest the Prince has in healthcare.’

A former British ambassador to Cuba, Paul Webster Hare, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘We have long told the US – and this has been the case for 20 years at least – that we don’t agree with isolating Cuba.

‘Equally, we don’t agree with everything the Cuban government does. The US has long known that we take a different view.’

Despite America’s increasingly tough stance against the island state, the UK Government asked the Prince and Duchess to add Cuba to their Caribbean tour to boost commercial relations and political influence. They will be accompanied by Lord Ahmad, a Foreign Office Minister.

There are no plans for Charles to meet Raul Castro, the former president who remains head of Cuba’s Communist Party. His brother Fidel led the one-party state after seizing power in 1959 and died in 2016. The Prince will, however, meet Miguel Diaz-Canel, who took over as President last year.

Charles wont be meeting Raul Castro (left). His brother Fidel Castro (right) had led the one party state after seizing power in 1959

‘The Prince does not set the agenda for the visit,’ a palace source said last night.

According to Mr Hare, efforts will be taken to avoid putting the Prince in a difficult position.

‘It’s complicated but that is how diplomacy often is,’ he said.

‘It’s not going to be a visit where either side wants to engage in great controversy. The point of the visit is symbolic.’

Yesterday the Royal couple flew into the ‘island of spice’, Grenada, where they enjoyed an afternoon sampling the wares at the House Of Chocolate emporium, pictured.

Camilla appeared to blanche at the bitter taste of her hot drink – much to her husband’s amusement, who clearly enjoyed the experience, finishing hers as well as his own.

They were then given a selection of samples to try, which they greatly enjoyed.

Eyeing up a chocolate liqueur, the Prince joked: ‘I might have to try some of that on the way back!’

The couple were given a huge bag of chocolate to take home for the Queen.

Somehow, I can't help but think of Trump as Alberich from Wagner's ring cycle. Alberich the Trump: the perfect personification of egocentrism and greed.

Marvel comics likens him to MODAAK





https://extranewsfeed.com/modaak-is-trump-reveals-marvel-s-stan-lee-before-his-death-100bb8c9465b?gi=466f1a0354f3

His grandfather risked Hitler's fury by backing Churchill. The Royals aren't going to be bothered by that slobbering pile of orange crap. Charlie will be king long after Trump is just a bad memory.

I think Democrats should run and elect a foul mouthed, obnoxious, pussy grabbing, crazy, narcissistic,
whore mongering, self absorbed, illiterate, pathological lying scumbag.
Who promises to cut the military budget and tax the super rich to provide access to healthcare, housing and education for all.
Improve access to welfare and help with housing for the worst off.
A CNN lover too.


Make Republicans go through what they've put the rest of us through under Trump and Bush.

Sort of an: "Our egocentric is better than your egocentric". Somehow I think they wouldn't understand anyhow.

It would nearly be worth it (nearly) just to witness the wave of Republican hypocrisy that would wash over us all.

That would be interesting, actually, to see how much forgiveness there is in Democrats for the sins of social injustices, sexual harassment, inequalities, etc. they work so hard to condemn.

There are supposedly many Christians who support Democrat ideologies, including abortion rights, sexual diversity, socialism, economic-outcome egalitarianism, and so forth.

It would be interesting to see whether such Christians can simultaneously preach true faith with regard to these issues (i.e. not fake faith exhibited to instrumentally support political causes), as well as forgiving people who have failed to avoid those sins in their worldly lives.

It would be a strange left-wing political program because the left is already promoting a different form of Christianity and other religions from the traditional ones, so then they would be forgiving sins against their revised religious ideologies, which would mean effectively forgiving true Christians for deviating from their fake Christianity that's designed to whitewash sin.

That could result in some kind of modern inquisition, I think, if forgiveness became nominal instead of actual. E.g. take an example like this woman who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple out of conscience and ended up getting slapped with a huge fine. Would gay-marriage supporting Christian Democrats support forgiveness for such a person despite her sinning against sexual diversity in marriage, in their minds? If so, would the traditional biblical view of homosexuality as sin and marriage for heterosexuals only ultimately be regarded as mistakes within the Bible? Will they start burning Bibles while forgiving those who had embraced what they now regard as 'fake news' of God's true word and will?

No thanks.

I want a president who isn't a public embarrassment.

Someone who cares about ALL of the American people, not just the ones who belong to a Country Club. Someone who can balance the needs of people along with the needs of business. Someone who can show compassion and strength not spite and rhetoric.

Someone who can build us up not tear us down. Someone who can speak across aisles without using derogatory terms. Someone who is insightful not inciteful (and actually knows the difference.)

It's a hope I think we all can share.

It just isn't the current president.

Religion has no place in politics right or left.


Either way by the sound of it you would like to see how forgiving the Democrats would be.
I don't think you should be forgiven for electing and supporting (even through inaction) that fascist crew you have in the White House.

Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if Obama had done a fraction of the stuff this scumbag President has done.

Hypocrisy .........

Well, I'm not actually interested in your religious perspective of unforgiveness toward the sins you are defining here either.

What my point was is that Christian Republicans may be able to overlook the alleged sins of President Trump because he is a self-proclaimed Christian believer and thus a supporter of the pro-life movement.

What the post I responded to seemed to be saying was that Dems should elect someone with as many or more alleged sin than Trump. That led me to wonder whether Christian Democrats could be as forgiving toward their party's candidate/president as GOP Christians have been able to do.

As I started thinking about it, the issue became more complex because I realized many left-wing/liberal 'Christian' views actually defy and revise the kinds of traditional Christian views held by GOP Christians still, such as restrictions on marriage and beliefs about sexual diversity, abortion legislation, etc.

So to approach the question of whether Dem 'Christians' can be as forgiving as GOP Christians, you have to address the idea of what they actually consider as sin and why, and how they forgive such sin, what their approach to dealing with it in their forgiveness would be, etc.

Liberalism would be an embarrassment if we didn't believe in forgiveness and second chances for immature foolishness.


Conservatives do care about ALL the people. That's why we don't want to spoil them with free money and all the destructive temptations and consequences that come with the fiscal/economic irresponsibility it breeds.


Fiscal conservatism and saving, however slowly, is exactly what builds you up. Liberal spending is what tears you down. Borrowing and spending tears you down. You have to make sacrifices and save the money you make. People in more affordable areas have to resist the temptation to indulge in self-destructive cultural activities and pleasures that destroy them from both inside and outside themselves.

Stop protecting crime by only focusing on law enforcement as racist discrimination and borders as nationalist segregation. Stop trying to legalize drugs as yet another form of growth-stimulus to spread easy money around instead of seeking to achieve more robust forms of economic participation. Stop falling for the temptations of consumerism that eat away at your income and savings with all those little purchases that nickle and dime you into poverty and debt.