192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 04:09 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
You guys cheer for the coverup of Trump's Russian connections, and you accuse someone else of being Commie?

There is a difference between Putinism and Communism.

Putin wants to invade and conquer former-Soviet areas that still have a large population of Russian citizens.

Communism wanted to conquer the entire world.

There is a grave risk of conflict over the Baltics since they have a large Russian population and they are protected by NATO. But it isn't the same thing as Communism trying to conquer the entire planet.

Trump's Russian connections are being exaggerated by the Democrats because they are desperate for a way to attack Trump. It should be noted that it wasn't too long ago that the Democrats were sneering at Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was a threat.

People who portray the Soviets' ruthless crushing of freedom and democracy during the Cold War as a good thing, and who bitterly lash out at the US for protecting against Soviet domination during the Cold War, are rightly denounced as Communist sympathizers.


Blickers wrote:
And Trump is on record as saying that NATO, (the most important and successful Communism-containing force in history), is obsolete. And that the US will change its policy from viewing Russia-still totalitarian in the Communist mode-as an opponent to a foreign policy with Russia "based on mutual interest". Prior to that, the US policy toward Russia was based on containing Communism, and it did. Trump wants to scrap that and replace it with a policy of "mutual interest". So if Russia invades Poland, Trump picks up the red telephone and tells Putin, "I just saw your tanks in Warsaw on TV. I don't like it. What's in it for the US if we agree to go along with it?"

Trump and Putin may well decide that they both prefer to see the EU broken up into small independent countries that can be played against each other.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/the-plan-to-end-europe/521445/

Such is politics.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 04:12 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
And they're lying, nobody is supporting the NK regime, people are pointing out how stupid the idea of attacking NK is. They don't have an answer to that so they spout a lot of vitriolic nonsense about commies.

Nonsense. The comments about commies came in response to posts that excoriated us for protecting the free world during the Cold War.

And I for one have already provided an answer to your point about the problems with attacking North Korea. Once again, yes, going to war against North Korea is going to be a horrible thing that would be best avoided. But we cannot avoid it. North Korea is going to force the war no matter what we do. Our least bad option is to just nuke them as massively as we can in order to limit the damage that they can do.

WWII was a disaster too. It would have been great if everyone could have avoided it. Unfortunately the Axis didn't give anyone the option of avoiding it.


izzythepush wrote:
What this situation needs is less, not more stupidity. Trump may at last be realising that.
Quote:
The US is to tighten sanctions on North Korea and step up diplomatic moves aimed at pressuring the country to end its nuclear and missile programmes.

President Donald Trump's strategy was announced after a special briefing for all 100 US senators.

Earlier, the top US commander in the Pacific defended the deployment of an advanced missile defence system in South Korea.

Tensions have risen amid fears the North is planning new weapons tests.

"The United States seeks stability and the peaceful denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula," said a joint statement issued by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39723747

Trump has always recognized that we should do whatever possible to try to avoid the war before going ahead and fighting it.

I wish the diplomats well in their efforts to resolve the matter peacefully. But I doubt that they will succeed.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 04:21 am
Quote:
Trump released his tax cut proposal today, what there was of it. Trump’s tax cut proposal was not a finished document ready to be voted on but a few ideas loosely thrown together. Eight years ago one biggest concern of the Tea Party and the Republicans was the ballooning federal deficit. The first thing the Trump tax proposal does is cut 3.8% Medicare tax on the ungodly greedy. This is a $500 billion tax cut over 10 years for the richest pigs in America. This is the key tax that funds Affordable Health Care Act. Eliminate the funding and we will have 20 million more uninsured people. Pre existing conditions will no longer be covered and those 55 and over will pay at least five times as much for insurance than a healthy 20 year old. This is the way the Trump plans to back door the advances made to insure those who could not possibly afford insurance. Everybody is in favor of tax cuts but the harsh reality is if you want government services somebody has to pay for them.

We have been down this garden path with the Republicans before. Reagan cut the taxes on the rich from 70% down to 28% but raised social security 5 times and he tripled the national debt. Clinton balanced the budget and began pay the debt down but Baby Bush and Republicans came into office saying, “give the people back their money” and they gave two large rounds of tax cuts to ungodly greedy. The reasoning went like this if you give the rich back their money the economy will take off. Remember Baby Bush gave us the most severe rescission since the Great Depression. Now the conmen are spinning the same tale Trump is going to cut taxes by $10 trillion over the next ten years and says the economy will go wild making up the lost taxes. This is a conman’s song 51% of the Trump tax cut is going to the richest 1%. This is nothing but another Trump swindle.

The argument is that small business will invest the tax saving in their businesses and create jobs. Why is this a fool’s argument? Anyone that has been in business knows that any investment made in your business is already tax deductible so why would they invest money that was tax free? They would not they would use the money to buy more mansions and yachts and invest less money in their business. In the 60s when taxes on the rich stood at 93% the rich invested the money in their business and the 50 and 60s were the longest prolonged economic expansion in history and it was caused by the high taxes anyone that wants to invest in their business can do it today and it is tax free. What they can’t do today is buy a $40 million dollar yacht tax-free.

wedge7041
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 06:03 am
The Mother of All Bombs: How badly did it hurt IS in Afghanistan?

Quote:
On 13 April the US dropped one of its largest non-nuclear bombs on a tunnel complex used by so-called Islamic State militants in eastern Afghanistan. It was the first time such a weapon had been used in battle.

The BBC's Auliya Atrafi has been to the area to see if it really had any impact in the battle against IS.

The view from the hills overlooking the Mamand Valley is beautiful. Green fields and trees fill the valley floor. Ahead, the valley narrows and hills become mountains. In the distance rises the magnificent Spin-Ghar, the White Mountain, which marks the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But there was no chance of quiet contemplation when I visited this area of Nangarhar province. Above, three types of American fighter planes were circling and dropping bombs.

One bomb hit the narrow part of the valley. It was there, a young soldier told me, that the weapon known as the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) had been used.

I was confused. Reports of the bomb had made me think that it had wiped out the IS stronghold here in Achin district. I assumed that US and Afghan troops would have sealed off the area and that IS (or Daesh, as it is known here) would be in disarray.

An Afghan officer corrected me. "For a start this bomb wasn't as powerful as you think," he said.

"There are still green trees standing 100m away from the site of the impact."
https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E7F1/production/_95777395_moab3.jpg

A large number of IS militants were killed by the MOAB, but it is hard to know how many. The Achin district governor, Ismail Shinwary, says at least 90.

Either way, the battle against IS continues.

"Daesh hasn't gone anywhere; there are hundreds of caves like the one the Americans bombed," the officer says, adding that strikes have continued since the bomb was dropped. "They can't get rid of them like this."

The fighting appeared to be taking place along a huge area in the mountains. The bombardment was relentless, filling the valley with smoke and noise.

But IS were taking casualties. Over a breakfast of eggs and green tea, the district police chief, Major Khair Mohammad Sapai, showed us pictures of dead IS fighters. They had beards and long hair.

In death they looked pitiable, quite unlike the image they try to portray in their propaganda videos - riding horses, carrying their black flags or making the local Shinwari people sit on bombs and then blowing them up.
Major Khair said some of them were foreigners, but from their disintegrating, dust-covered faces it was hard to tell.

He showed us hand-written lists of Afghan telephone numbers seized during operations, and some of the names on the list were indeed Arabic or Pakistani.

The major's claims were backed up by Hakim Khan Momand and his friends. They are members of the so-called "people's uprising" - new militias made up of local people that help with security in the area. They cooperate with state security forces but their existence is seen as a sign of weak central government and instability.

The bearded men lay on portable cots, drinking strong green tea and relishing the sight of IS fighters being bombed by American planes.

"They are all sorts - Uzbeks, Tajiks, Arabs and Wahhabis from Kunar Province. They have nowhere to go; best to bury them in the caves where they happen to be hiding," Hakim Khan said.

His house lies in the Mamand Valley, in an area still under the control of IS. He adds: "God willing, the Americans have given us their word that they would clear the entire valley of Daesh fighters."
Unlike the Taliban, who tend to have many supporters in their core areas, IS seem to have angered a lot of people. Few seemed unhappy about the US bombardment.

A couple of kilometres from the frontline, ordinary life was continuing. Women carried water, boys played cricket and people went about their daily tasks.

However, there was anxiety. One man, Khaled, said local people were pawns in a US game.

"[Dropping the bomb] was a trick to show the world that their mission was going well. But this wasn't the type of bomb they showed in the media. The bomb did nothing."

"Will IS come back?" I asked.

"Yes, as soon as the government leaves, the locals won't be able to fight them. If the government makes permanent bases in the area and helps us, then we will be happy," he answered.
Another local resident suggested IS could do with something a little stronger.

"Let Americans bring down a bigger one, this one was small," he said.

Back in the hills, Hakim Khan and his friends were listening in to IS fighters communicating via walkie-talkies with the help of their radio. The fighters were reassuring each other and communicating with their comrades in a neighbouring district.

A border police officer wondered aloud if the commitment of the Trump administration would match that of IS.

"The more we kill, the more they come from the other side of the Durand line, in Pakistan," he said.
After a night back in the safety of Jalalabad, we returned the next morning.

There was no fighting so we drove into the valley until we were stopped near the bomb impact site by Afghan special forces, who agreed to show us around.

They said that IS fighters saw the district as their own. After most locals fled, IS banned poppy cultivation and began farming wheat, turning the valley green.

Now the lush allotments were their battlefields. Bodies lay next to hollow trees that fighters had been sleeping inside.
Shear, a tough-looking special forces soldier, said that IS fighters were "crazy" and very committed.

"They make the most of their basic Russian guns; they are technical fighters," he said.

"You can't hear them coming in the mountains: they will wear six pairs of socks and get within striking distance without you hearing them.

"In the mountains they fight individually or in groups of two or three. They don't leave their positions, so you have to kill them. And their friends don't come to collect their bodies; they lie where they die."

We waited for permission to visit the impact site, surrounded by crates of military supplies dropped from the air.

Our escort was Haji Beag, a unit commander, who first showed us a smaller "IS command base and prison".

One door opening into a spacious courtyard led to a room which led to a small cave that could house around 10 people.

It was dug into the rock and felt very solid. It was clear why finding and killing IS militants in these mountains took so much time and energy.
At the entrance to the cave stood an improvised cage, made of mesh frames. It held two tight spaces which Haji Beag said were used as prison cells.

He said he believed the US made a good decision to use the MOAB to target caves used over decades by different militant groups - from the Mujahedeen, to the Taliban, and most recently IS.

"We found about 20 bodies around the site after the explosion. The cave system has been destroyed," he said. "It's possible that most of dead are buried inside those caves."
The drive to the impact site with Haji Beag and his unit was a short one. American planes were still flying above us, targeting the next valley a kilometre away. The mountainous terrain was hard on our four-wheel drive and as we approached the site a rocket landed 200m in front of us.

No one was hurt, but it made Haji Beag cautious, and we weren't allowed to set foot on the impact site.

But we could see it, and it was unremarkable. There was no big crater. Trees had been burnt and a few rooms had been flattened. Not far from it, houses still stood and there were green trees around.

As we left the valley, the bombardment continued. It seemed clear that the bomb that was dropped on 13 April had not come close to delivering a knock-out blow to IS militants entrenched in the area, and the locals certainly expect more conflict ahead.

To me, at least, the Mother Of All Bombs failed to live up to her reputation.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39705128
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  5  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 06:41 am
Trump says no plan to pull out of NAFTA ‘at this time’ (WP)

Quote:
President Trump told the leaders of Canada and Mexico on Wednesday that the United States would not be pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement “at this time,” opening the door to future negotiations on the same day that Trump was considering signaling a strong intent to withdraw as a potential way of bringing the parties together at the deal-making table.

Trump spoke with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau late Wednesday afternoon after reports circulated during the day that the president was contemplating withdrawing from NAFTA.

“President Trump agreed not to terminate NAFTA at this time and the leaders agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation of the NAFTA deal to the benefit of all three countries,” the White House said in a statement late Wednesday.
revelette1
 
  5  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 06:49 am
San Francisco celebrates after "sanctuary city" victory (CBS News)
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 09:26 am
Must read on corruption at University of California

Don't worry though, when Napolitano ran Homeland Security she was entirely above board.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/26/uc-president-janet-napolitano-hid-175-million-raising-tuition-paying-excessive-salaries/?utm_source=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 09:41 am
I was thrilled that Ann Coulter was challenging the free speech cred at Berkeley. Disappointed that she cancelled.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 10:05 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Trump says no plan to pull out of NAFTA ‘at this time’ (WP)

Quote:
President Trump told the leaders of Canada and Mexico on Wednesday that the United States would not be pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement “at this time,” opening the door to future negotiations on the same day that Trump was considering signaling a strong intent to withdraw as a potential way of bringing the parties together at the deal-making table.

Trump spoke with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau late Wednesday afternoon after reports circulated during the day that the president was contemplating withdrawing from NAFTA.

“President Trump agreed not to terminate NAFTA at this time and the leaders agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation of the NAFTA deal to the benefit of all three countries,” the White House said in a statement late Wednesday.



You didn't provide your take on this news. Given your history in this forum it would be easy to assume this is something to criticize Trump over, or that throwing him a bone is something you just can't bring yourself to do.

For me it's hard to imagine how it cannot be seen as a positive development for Trump.

He makes a lot of noise about pulling out of NAFTA and shortly thereafter Mexico and Canada contact us to say they would like to renegotiate.

Rather than this being a "flip-flop" or an indication of Trump's hollow bluster, it's an indication of a man who knows how to negotiate a deal. It's also an indication of how much Canada and Mexico value NAFTA which was not particularly smart of them in terms of negotiations.

Now Trump knows he has their attention and that they want NAFTA more than he does (at least as far as anyone can tell which is all important). That's a great place to be in a negotiation.

Obviously there will be limits to what the two nations will concede during negotiations, but given how poorly they've begun, it shouldn't be too hard to find our just how much they are willing to give up.

Most nations don't have highly skilled negotiators representing them at the table in these deals and if they do, political considerations tend to top the list of their "must haves;" above what is best for their country and citizens. I don't have a clue as how the actual negotiations of the original NAFTA played out, but it's entirely possible, and even probable, that it wasn't a case of the Canadian and Mexican reps taking the US guy's lunch money as much as the US guy was the worst of three lousy negotiators and/or Clinton made it clear he wanted the deal at all costs.

If NAFTA is renegotiated (and it appears highly likely it will) it is assured that the US will come away with a deal that is better for us...or the whole thing will fall apart. The latter is an unlikely outcome and so folks who are big fans of trade agreements like this should be very happy: We'll still have NAFTA but with more favorable terms for the US!

It's a win-win except for far left kooks who think these trade agreements should be structured so that the "poor" nation (Mexico) benefits far more than the bloated, capitalist, colonialist, imperialistic and essentially evil "bully" country (America). For them the deal's shouldn't be about a mutually beneficial trade arrangement, but reparations and wealth redistribution. I don't think that had much at all to do with the way the Clinton Administration approached the deal though. That's something an Obama Administration trade rep would have in the back of his or her mind.

Olivier5
 
  4  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 10:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You actually believe this bullshit???
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 10:56 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I was thrilled that Ann Coulter was challenging the free speech cred at Berkeley. Disappointed that she cancelled.


Her rationale for cancelling was that the two organizations that invited her to speak backed out and indicated that for safety concerns she shouldn't come.

Despite how liberals feel about her, Ann is not Milo and principles do underlie her provocative rhetoric. If she insisted on making an uninvited, even disinvited, visit to Berkeley it would be, at best, a one woman crusade event. Her critics who are now calling her a cowardly phony, would be going nuts over her arrogant chutzpah. It's a typical no-win situation when dealing with people who are consistent only in their hatred for anything that even appears to be right-wing, and particularly when it comes from a highly intelligent, sharp tongued woman who even the likes of Bill Maher can't fluster.

The Berkely administrators were in a tough spot: Cave in to the obviously illiberal tactics of groups like Antifa and campus fascists in general, or risk a repeat of a demonstration turning violent, and this time ending up with very serious injury or even death. However, it is a spot they created for themselves by excusing, accepting and even encouraging illiberal rhetoric and actions on their campus. They sowed the wind and now are afraid to reap the whirlwind.

Unfortunately, they have assured that these illiberal tactics will remain a fixture at Berkeley for some time to come. As Dr. Frankenstein found, it's often difficult to control the monsters you create, and eventually they decide to come after their creators.

People like Matt Rozsa, Gay Alcorn, David Frum, Jonathan Chait, Catherine MacKinnon, Bill Maher, Robert Birgeneau, Hanna Rosin, Bettina Aptheker, and most recently Laura Kipnis are all liberal pundits or academics who have acknowledged that left-wing illiberalism is something of an out of control monster on college campuses across the nation, and to one degree or another they have all been attacked by that monster. Ironically, and I would say deliciously, they have all, to one extent or another, helped create the monster.

All of these folks, as well as quite a few more who are not on this list, have spoken out against the rampages of the little monsters they've created. In most cases it was after the monsters turned on them or friends and colleagues, but in all cases, speaking out got greater attention from the monsters and those whose strategy is to keep defending them in hopes they will maul someone else.

One of the best commentaries was Jonathan Chait's "Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say" published in New York magazine in 2015. In it, he described Political Correctness as “as a system of left-wing ideological repression.” It caused quite a stir, and resulted in public print jousting with Progressive Paladins like Glenn Greenwald, Amanda Marcotte, Alex Pareene, and too many others to list. In fact, the ruckus got so much attention that James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column titled “Is Jonathan Chait Liberal?” in which he quipped “The obvious thing to say about Jonathan Chait’s battle against the left is that we’re rooting for casualties.” It also got him numerous bags of hate mail including a few death threats.

So the fools (and there are plenty) who think it's great fun to see Ann Coulter silenced, and perfectly acceptable given that all she ever spouts is horrible hate speech, will probably come face to face with the monsters before many conservatives do. Conservatives, unless they are taking a stand on free speech or looking for an opportunity to sell books through provocative speech, tend not to associate much with the monsters. Shrill, angry, and eternally offended moppets occupy the offices of the American Heritage Foundation, and similar organizations, not work in them. On the other hand many of the monsters' creators are in intimate contact with them on a daily basis.

The monsters have finished off the conservative village students in their midst, and are looking for fresh blood and who better to prey upon than the people who are responsible for their creation and who find themselves paralyzed when the very arguments and tactics they they imparted to their creatures are turned back on them.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 11:00 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You actually believe this bullshit???


What bullshit is that?

The bullshit of Leo Gertner and Moshe Marvit published in the Washington Post?

Did you even read the linked article?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 11:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I did, and it devoid of any evidence. The claim is also absurd.
revelette1
 
  4  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 11:59 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I didn't offer an opinion because I really don't understand trade agreements. I only know, no one has seen it last I heard so I am not sure how you know it is bad to start with. (that info may have been updated)

Most of the leftist who disagree with the trade agreement do so because they feel it takes away jobs here at home, not anything to with taking advantage of Mexico.

I just remember him saying he was going to tear it up or something like that, didn't hear nothing about any renegotiation with his campaign promises. Not sure that would have appealed to those who liked Trump based on this single issue more than most others.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 01:31 pm
@revelette1,
On my side of the border, I'm continuing to contact my representatives and telling them that I'm part of the group that wants Canada out of NAFTA. We didn't support it at its onset and want out now even more. I'd rather see us (Canada) more attached to the TPP and to push the trade agreements with Europe even further.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 02:27 pm
@ehBeth,
What you seek may not be in Canada's self-interest.

If you check Canada's recent trade balances with various partners, I think you will see why.. Since 2011 Canada has developed a slight negative overall balance of trade (~ $25 billion more imports than exports.) The United States is by far Canada's biggest export Market ( ~ 75% of total exports ) and they constitute about 20 % of Canada's total GDP ( mostly oil, timber and various minerals). Canada's exports to the United States are currently almost ten times those to the EU. Canada is a net importer in its trade with the EU and a major net exporter in its trade with the United States.



0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Thu 27 Apr, 2017 04:59 pm
@ehBeth,
Oh, well, you can see how much I keep it straight. I got NAFTA mixed up with TPP, to be honest, I don't really have a clue what either is about.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 28 Apr, 2017 06:23 am
Quote:
That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9New King James Version (NKJV)


Quote:
Tax Plan Shifts Trillions From U.S. Coffers to Richest Families

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s proposal to slash individual and business taxes and erase a surtax that funds the Affordable Care Act would amount to a multitrillion-dollar shift from federal coffers to America’s richest families and their heirs, setting up a politically fraught battle over how best to use the government’s already strained resources.

The outline that Mr. Trump offered on Wednesday — less a tax overhaul plan than a list of costly cuts with no price tags attached, rushed out by a president staring down his 100-day mark in office — calls for tax reductions for individuals of every income level as well as businesses large and small.

But the vast majority of benefits would accrue to the highest earners and largest holders of wealth, according to economists and analysts, accounting for a lopsided portion of the proposal’s costs.

“The only Americans who are very clear winners under the new system are the wealthiest,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimates the revenue effects of tax proposals.

Repealing the estate tax, for example, would affect just 5,300 or so fortunes a year. For 2017, couples can shield up to $11 million of their estates from any taxation, leaving only the largest inheritances subject to taxation. Repealing the estate tax alone would cost an estimated $174.2 billion over a decade, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said.

Reducing the rate on capital gains, noncorporate business taxes and those in the highest bracket, as well as repealing the alternative minimum tax, would also ease the burden on wealthier Americans. So would the repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent surtax on the investment income of high earners, put in place to subsidize health coverage for low-income Americans.

“These are all afflictions of the affluent,” Mr. Kleinbard said



The rest at NYT

We have been through this before under both Reagan and George W. Bush, tickle down economics does not lead to economic growth nor does it cause business owners to hire more workers or pay higher wages. Instead they either spend it on their business or buying yachts or more vacationing homes.

oralloy
 
  -3  
Fri 28 Apr, 2017 07:04 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
New King James Version (NKJV)

Ugh.

Not that I think that anyone does a remotely competent job of translating the Bible.

But ugh anyway.

I flushed a King James Version down a toilet once. I told the silly evangelist guy that I would do it if he insisted on giving it to me. I guess he didn't believe me. It was just a pocket-sized New Testament, and it was a public building with those jet powered toilets, so it shot right down.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.26 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 08:58:01