Sehrgrossenbiggenteleskop.

durangodawood said:

If you dont like the USA also being a democracy, you should fight for We The People no longer electing the leadership.

Click to expand...

Never said such a thing - seems a bit over dramatic to me. and vaguely reminiscent of 'Merica - if you don't like the US - go back to where ya came from'.

DaisyDay said:

Some people vote for particular candidates rather than straight line party voting. Should we allow only voting for a party and not for the candidate?

Click to expand...

(As an example) - Shouldn't we allow 44% of a State to have representation? What are the Democrats so afraid of that they feel the need to completely lock out voters representation? Why are the voices of 44% of the voting population silenced through no representation whatso ever. Do their votes and voice not count?

durangodawood said:

Permanent one party rule would be pretty nice. We could stop all this haggling and just accept what we're given.

Click to expand...

Ask the people who have zero representation right now - I know the Democrats like the idea and that is why they are fighting for gerrymandering that helps them and cry against the self same practices when it does not help them.

Ellesmere said:

The only way to ensure the elimination of Hamas members in Gaza is to destroy all infrastructure and housing to effectively render it uninhabitable for all 2.2 million Palestinians!

Click to expand...

Objectively speaking, there is hardly any alternative to invading Gaza, because that is where Hamas and its terrorists are based, where their headquarters and infrastructure are located. If you want to deal Hamas a serious blow, you can only do so in the Gaza Strip, not from outside.

Netanyahu has always made it clear that he will not tolerate Hamas remaining in Gaza in any form. Due to Hamas' intransigence, Netanyahu has little choice but to maintain military operations in the Gaza Strip until Israel has achieved its ultimate war aim, namely the complete destruction of the terrorist organisation's military and political infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas is fanatical, it carries out terrorist attacks and incites fanaticism among the population. Those who hate Israel are already teaching their children to hate Israel, so that they grow up hating Israel without having decided to do so themselves: a vicious circle.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to separate the evil leaders of Hamas from the peace-loving people. A large proportion of Gaza's inhabitants support Hamas or sympathise with it.

Gaza City is not only geographically the heart of the reign of terror, it is the symbol of power that Hamas wants to defend at all costs. But the terrorist organization has long since changed. The "army" of Oct 7 has become a weakened guerrilla force, hunted down in tunnels, shattered in command structures, without real support.

While Hamas is showing toughness to the outside world, its interior ministry is appealing to Arab states that Israel must be stopped, otherwise Gaza will face the same fate as Rafah, Khan Yunis, and the northern coastal region.

Hamas's double message is telling: it boasts of resilience to Israel, while portraying itself as a victim to the Arab world. This balancing act betrays weakness. The fact that a regime that just months ago fantasized about a "victory" over Israel is now seeking protection from Arab governments speaks volumes. Hamas knows that Israel's plan to take Gaza City is serious, and this time there is no turning back.

The more Hamas boasts with threats, the clearer it becomes: it is fear that speaks. Fear of inevitable defeat, of reckoning with Israel and of the rejection of its own people, who believe less and less in the ‘resistance’ because it has only brought suffering.

If Hamas remains stubborn and refuses to surrender its weapons, release the hostages and capitulate, Israel will certainly implement its plan to temporarily take over the Gaza Strip. The costs may be high, both in terms of the suffering of the population in the Gaza Strip and in terms of possible military losses by the Israeli armed forces, but Israel is convinced that they are worth the outcome: the liberation of the hostages, the disarmament of Hamas, and the end of Hamas's 18-year tyranny over the "Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip.

In the end, it will not be Hamas that determines what the future of Gaza looks like, but Israel and those "Palestinians" who finally want to live without the rule of terror.

Despite their widely expressed public sympathy for the "Palestinians", Arab states in the Middle East show little willingness to accept them as refugees from the Gaza Strip. Yet resettling the inhabitants in Arab countries in the Middle East could reduce the number of civilian casualties in the conflict between Hamas and Israel.

The attitude of Arab countries towards "Palestinian" refugees contradicts the propagated ideals of support and solidarity.

It seems as if they turn a blind eye and a deaf ear when it comes to actually taking in "Palestinians". The obvious contradiction between words and deeds also extends to other Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which often vehemently demand rights for "Palestinians" but in practice do nothing to take in their Muslim brothers and sisters in need.

Nowhere are the "Palestinians" as unwelcome as in the Arab states. And the “Palestinians” who are able to flee want to go anywhere but an Arab country. In the West and in Israel, "Palestinians" have long been citizens, but in the Arab states they remain disenfranchised and stateless, even if they were born there.

fhansen said:

Yes, and He covets human cooperation with that will of His, from Eden until now, while allowing us to deny it.

Click to expand...

Read Php 2:13 again. . .unbelief makes God too small.

fhansen said:

His whole plan down through the centuries has been to patiently steer that will back to Himself. Otherwise there's no need for revelation, for the bible, and for the centuries of human suffering casused by our alienation from Him, if He's only intending to do it all for us anyway at the end of the day. We're here to learn a very crucial lesson: "Apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Click to expand...

Lotta' human reasoning with no Biblical source. . .

I think both of them are creeps. It's just that the former hates America's symbol and the latter hates America.

essentialsaltes said:

it follows in the footsteps of the Very Large Array.

Click to expand...

And precedes the Extremely Large Telescope under construction. At some point, it makes sense to stop trying to make interesting and pithy names and just go with the basics; say what they are and do, and make sure you don't give them to a German to name.

DaisyDay said:

That's the glaring problem with this - no emergency actually exists, just the declaration.

Click to expand...

...and if the POTUS plans to deploy the guard to Chicago or any other city, the Insurrection Act will have to be invoked.

Strong statements from the IL governor will probably be argued as an act of "rebellion."

Clare73 said:

Php 2:13.

Click to expand...

Yes, and He covets human cooperation with that will of His, from Eden until now, while allowing us to deny it. His whole plan down through the centuries has been to patiently steer that will back to Himself. Otherwise there's no need for revelation, for the bible, and for the centuries of human suffering casused by our alienation from Him, if He's only intending to do it all for us anyway at the end of the day. We're here to learn a very crucial lesson: "Apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I think the name 'Very Large Telescope' is very funny and probably quite apt.

Click to expand...

it follows in the footsteps of the Very Large Array.

Both make use of interferometry, which helps multiple 'small' telescopes pretend to be one great big one. Radio in the case of VLA, and visible light for the VLT.

ThatRobGuy said:

"We need to make it look more modern instead of Rustic and Country'ish"

Click to expand...

Have you seen it? Its still plenty country ish. Youre acting like they made it Berlin modern or something.

ThatRobGuy said:

"We're going to add these more "trendy" menu options"

Click to expand...

Have you seen the menu? Its still dominated by the same kind of food as before. No avocado toast etc.

ThatRobGuy said:

"We're going to scale down the gift shops and change up the product selection that's in them"

Click to expand...

Yes I can see how people might be offended by the new rainbow flag thongs and vinyl record section. Rolleyes.

ThatRobGuy said:

When the aesthetics and "clutter items" were part of the "vibe" itself, and was done in the name of "creating a welcoming and approachable space for a wider audience" -- one could reasonable interpret that to be some "coded language".


It should be noted, while it was nowhere near the scale of this backlash, there were some folks who weren't thrilled when Popeye's Chicken did a similar kind of rebrand (where they just made every thing sort of "vanilla" for the decor and style)


And it doesn't even have to be something as drastic as a full flown u-turn. Simply the removal of a specificity in favor of "neutral" can be perceived that way as well. We've seen that with several brands in the past few years.

When brands pulled back on some of stuff in favor of "let's just be more neutral so it's more approachable for a wider audience", there were some progressive groups who saw it as a "betrayal" of sorts (Target and Starbucks would be good examples of that)


It's understandable that people don't necessarily love the idea of when "my kind of place" gets morphed into "generic place for everyone"


As another example, let's say there was a restaurant chain that heavily focused on Latin Americana in terms of the style, decor, menu offerings, music... If a corporate re-brand took place that made it bland/neutral in the name of "this way it'll appeal to a wider audience and be more generic". The Latin American patrons would be understandable in raising the objection of "Wait a minute, this was our kind of place and our thing, and you're making it into a watered down version of TGI Fridays... they've already got one of those for people want a characterless generic dining experience"

Click to expand...

All that has nothing to do with "woke". This is just a big corporation looking at the customer base aging up and asking how are we go to stay relevant. Some people dont like even a little change. But thats life. But making this out as a targeted assault on their cultural values is just hyperventilating nonsense.

Oompa Loompa said:

And Americans have things they can be proud of,

Click to expand...

And people in pretty much every other country have things they are proud of.

Oompa Loompa said:

in many cases more so than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

Click to expand...

First, you said "in many cases" which does not mean "in every case."

Second, I think a lot of countries would say they have either more things to be proud of or more significant things to be proud of.

Oompa Loompa said:

America is the only country who can say that.

Click to expand...

People in a number of countries would say, "No."
People in a lot of countries would start counting the things they're proud of from 2,000 years ago.

fhansen said:

???

Click to expand...

Php 2:13.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kids

I think the name 'Very Large Telescope' is very funny and probably quite apt.

In light of the fact that homosexuals are often mistreated, I can't help but wonder if early commands against it have more to do with protecting them from said mistreatment. Shielding them from harm. Much suffering might be avoided by remaining celibate or acting straight. On the other hand, there are Christians who seemingly go out of their way to make LGBTQ+ people suffer, which makes it look like Christians are part of the problem. They mostly seem like hypocrites to me because Jesus said we should love or neighbors as we love ourselves. Gay people are counted among our neighbors. At the very least, we could mind our own business.

That said, I don't usually consider it any of my business. I don't experience same sex attraction myself, but I also don't like it when people are harassed or bullied. That part bothers me quite a bit. Especially, when done in the name of Jesus, who I'm reasonably confident would not partake in the bullying.

Last I checked, Christianity isn't a religion of public stonings or other such things. That ended with Christ. We are not under Levitical law. It's about the individual's personal relationship with God. If somebody reads God's word and feels convicted by the holy spirit that being gay is wrong, the change comes from within. A place that they must arrive at of their own free will for it to be meaningful.

Clare73 said:

???

Once human life is deleted from any meaningful role whatsoever in man's salvation, the same conclusion applies.

Click to expand...

???

fhansen said:

I previously deleted that post because it was meant for another thread. Anyway, once the human will is likewise deleted from any meaningful role whatsoever in man's salvation,

Click to expand...

???

fhansen said:

many passages of Scripture must be ignored or twisted to fit one's theology.

Click to expand...

It can also be said that once human life is deleted from any meaningful role whatsoever in man's salvation, the same conclusion applies.

Man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). Slaves are not free.

The human will is governed by the disposition. . .one chooses what one prefers. . .and man's disposition is governed by his fallen nature, which prefers self over God.
Man's fallen human will is not free to make all moral choices. . .he cannot choose to be sinless.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

On both sides of the political spectrum, some people are unwilling to change their views or seek rational compromise, and there is little we can do about it.

Click to expand...

Then why would you specifically bring up one of those groups that is unwilling to change their views as an example?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

About 10–15% of Americans are open to changing their opinions, but using labels like "fascist," "socialist," "Nazi," or "Marxist" won't persuade them.

Click to expand...

Would you agree that Trump is someone who desires the concentration of power in an individual (e.g. the President) at the expense of political freedoms and civil rights? Does he demonize immigrants? Does he reject the democratic process? Does he promote the glorification of the nation and its leader? Is his core messaging about the decline of American society and how he's the only person who can fix it?

Clare73 said:

Saving faith is always accompanied by works.

Click to expand...

I previously deleted that post because it was meant for another thread. Anyway, once the human will is likewise deleted from any meaningful role whatsoever in man's salvation, many passages of Scripture must be ignored or twisted to fit one's theology.

Clare73 said:

Did they violate the law?

Click to expand...

We won't know unless and until they are charged and tried, but the opinion of some experts are that these are 'insignificant trifles' that are all but unavoidable in lengthy loan documents. If 4 pieces of paper say the house is for the niece, and 1 piece of paper says it's for herself, is this fraud or a negligible mistake that had no effect on the terms of the loan?

stevevw said:

Yes I remember reading how the churches helped the poor on the streets in the cities and they opened up soup kitchens and refuges. we see this same charity throughout history of good Christians going about helping those in need. It it was not for this chariable work society would collapse.

I think charities can be advocates for the poor but not really politically active. Its more just bieng there no matter what authority is in power. The good consistent work of Christians is itself a powerful example that exposes the injustice of the world systems that don't care for the poor and disadvantaged. Or only care for their own kind.

Click to expand...

But the marginalized also need a voice- in politics or wherever that voice may serve to benefit humanity as a whole. The human treatment of humans must be a major focal point of the church. This has also mainfested itself in "just war" theories, for example, the purpose of which is to mitigate suffering in the unfortunate inevitability of war- even as all war is denounced from the larger perspective of love of neighbor.

fhansen said: (post #5)

From Jesus' persepctive its not either/or but both/and. We can't truly love our neighbor, wanting them to be saved, while observing their suffering and doing nothing about it. And loving and accepting and healing people is a major means to their own acceptance of the faith anyway.
"Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Click to expand...

Saving faith is always accompanied by works.

Tropical Wilds said:

It’s that when something becomes a thing used by racists to be racists,

Click to expand...

Such as what? Enforcing immigration laws?

She's still aiming to get some attention. This time with a flamethrower to a Koran.

Like everyone else, I never have to bow down to any rocks, whether she's in Congress or not.

However, the Constitution guarantees the rights of those who do want to pray in that manner, so it's definitely better if she continues to stay out of Congress, since she doesn't appear to understand this.