@RealBrittHughes Other people may not, but when you’ve spent decades with one woman, you can still see the younger woman in the older woman’s face. And men usually have the gift of focusing on what looks good.
@nmlinguaphile@SenTomCotton@SenateGOP He’s got a nice ratio going there. I don’t know how these guys can be so out of touch that this kind of message would be well received.
In the real world we make decisions based on circumstances and likely outcomes. The the problem with Reagan’s amnesty deal was that they never closed the border. That’s priority #1 in any deal: don’t keep doing what brought you to that place. Strict enforcement of new cases and for those who commit other crimes are also priorities. 10 years is a reasonable cutoff for differentiating new from old cases. But let’s see what gets put on the table before choosing defeat and a new open border because we can’t accept any politically viable alternatives.
Too much in a rush to give their own opinion. Defacto amnesty for the majority is what happens when you take a “no amnesty” position, however. The difference is living under threat or not, not being deported or not. Nothing whatsoever will happen to most. That is certain. IMHO, priority #1 is to keep the border closed. Priority #2 is to deport illegal aliens who have committed other crimes. Giving the Dems the optics of cases of deporting hardworking taxpayers is just stupidly handing political power back to the ones who opened the border in the first place. They can undo 4 years of enforcement work in a year.
You know you have to prioritize enforcement because of the sheer size of the job. At full tilt this is a 10 year project. So you just go at it WITHOUT prioritizing on principle, thereby guaranteeing that you lose political power and the whole project stops, if it isn’t actually reversed. Do you want to enforce the law or don’t you? Because if “principles” prevent you from prioritizing removals, it sounds like you’d rather whine about it from the cheap seats of political irrelevance.
They’re misapplying a verse from the bible where it is said that food sacrificed to Roman gods was sacrificed to demons. While we cannot accept that there is any equivalence between one the Christan faith and another, it certainly does not follow that a person intending to pray to the one true God, creator of the universe and source of all being, is doing anything other than exactly that. To think otherwise is the kind of half-baked theology we have come to expect from the *subset* if Protestants who fully rely on their own personal and private interpretation of scripture.
What you’re describing is invalid logic. Human fatherhood is an imperfect reflection of God’s fatherhood. The same can be said of masculinity. Inferences can only run one way. You can’t prove things by analogy.
Whether feminity is “created and human” does not follow. Our biological forms and functions are created, both. God obviously transcends that. Fundamentally, masculine is giving and feminine is receiving. One challenge for men is to recognize that our relationship to God is not masculine to masculine. We take on the feminine role as receiver.
My impression, which may be wrong, is that Democrats have successfully convinced Catholics over the YEARS that they were the “compassionate” party looking out for the poor, immigrants, and working class, while Republicans are the party of the rich and of evangelical Christians. This has changed a lot, as Democrats dominate in many highly paid professions, and probably among billionaires (though I don’t know the stats on that). Democrats are still defending immigrants, though more illegal than legal, but they largely have abandoned the working poor since Obama. Nevertheless, the legacy of the past party personality lives on. So Catholics probably still think it comes down to advocating for the poor versus being against abortion, and since they are barely if actually anti-abortion to begin with, they lean blue.
As a convert over 40 years ago, I didn’t approach every dogma as a “must be rationally convinced” proposition, rather as “assent and profess”. It would indeed be a problem to be rationally convinced that a dogma is actually false, as in I will die on this hill because what you’re saying is certainly not true. Thomly remaining remedy there is humility, and we all know how difficult humility is.
No idea. The law is crystal clear. Either his intention must be to renounce his citizenship, which it clearly isn’t, or he has the right to vote, same as any citizen residing abroad, permanently or not. He thinks he ought to, you think he shouldn’t.
Your “skin in the game” argument is a dangerous one, as this is precisely the argument made why various classes of noncitizens should be able to vote.
Anyway, the Vatican is hardly a nation in the ordinary sense of the word. Everyone is a temporary (conditional) citizen except for the Pope. That’s like 650ish people with only circa 450 residents of the Vatican. There’s no birthright citizenship, and the whole point of the place is to govern the Catholic Church, which is spread across the globe in citizens of every nation, not to govern 44 hectares of land with 450ish actual residents.
If I live as long as my father, I only have 7 years left. Maybe I have 27, but right now my policy is that life is too short for people who think saying things like that is making a “contribution”. The likelihood that they will ever have anything interesting or insightful to say, or would learn anything from me, is very small. For me, it’s an instant block to increase my signal to noise ratio. Not what you should do, though. Your followers would enjoy some kind of retort.
@FrenzyCastin@MaxMBJ@KimStrassel Honestly, when Trump came out with the sweepin tariffs, my reaction was from My Cousin Vinny: “You were serious about that?”
@realdalegreenin@SemaOkoko@yairken9 I have wondered about that myself and about whether damages might be covered by the team’s insurance. We are so litigious in the US, I would expect something like that.