Xeno.of.athens said:

I'm not so sure of that. Jesus didn't comply with Sadducee law and Roman law did

Click to expand...

ralliann said:

With regards to the united states, they are here illegally, as ILLEGAL ALIENS

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

It's far more fun to attack the Catholic Church than to do any of that. Which was kind of like the point of the initial post. And low and behold a bunch of attacking the Catholic Church ensued. Which backhandedly attacks the Orthodox and even most Protestants in the process. It's a whole cottage industry. In the mean time the more traditional Christians keep praying and hearing the Bible read and walking the walk quietly and wishing the attackers would get over it. Knowing they can't and won't.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

Are you trying to get me to argue against God? Or, does that end the conversation, because I can't understand why I should have to debate against scripture. I surely didn't ask for this. I don't speak for God. And your politics are not God breathed.

Click to expand...

ViaCrucis said:

It most certainly does. Taxes aren't the whole story, but it is part of the story.

Click to expand...

ralliann said:

No it has not.
Status of the parents
1. who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision[2] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States

2. but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States

This decision is coming before the supreme court because
Number one applies to them. With regards to their countries of origin
Number two does not. With regards to the united states, they are here illegally, as ILLEGAL ALIENS

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

I disagree entirely. Rather, it has *nothing* to do with taxes. At all

Click to expand...

dogs4thewin said:

or you can put it on the PERSON to prove it. In other words, kinda of like how in a criminal trial it is on the state to prove the person guilty, but for disability it is on the PERSON to prove they are disabled to get benefits, so in that way it could be that a person is assumed to not qualify until THEY prove otherwise. Maybe even have them pay out of pocket keep records if you win you get your money back if you lose you do not.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

That's what a wealthy young man said to Jesus when Jesus told him what he should do. Your eternal home depends on caring for others.


Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Click to expand...

Pommer said:

SCOTUS has already ruled upon this exact issue, c.f. United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

Of course it does. Higher tax rates encourage reinvestment and discourage private equity predation and other financial shenanigans.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

I disagree entirely. Rather, it has *nothing* to do with taxes. At all

Click to expand...

Chesterton said:

My point is, "things" aren't always getting better.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

What do you mean "abducting without due process"? You mean checking documents and making arrests if they don't have them?

Due process is a feature of the judicial phase, not the executive/enforcement phase (especially with regards to Immigration law)

With regards to the limitations on ICE themselves... They're largely only bound by reasonable suspicion with regards to who they can question and ultimately detain/arrest upon the results of that questioning.

This is right from the Immigrant Defense Project (an organization that's on the side of the undocumented immigrants)
While an ICE officer may not enter a residential home without a judicial warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent, ICE officers are only required to have “reasonable suspicion” (RS) of an immigration violation to initiate a car stop or a detainment for the purposes of questioning in a public place.
See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 396-97 (2014). Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1357, authorizes ICE officers to interrogate and arrest noncitizens for suspected immigration violations. Under implementing regulations, ICE officers can detain individuals for questioning if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable merits, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense or is illegally in the United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)

The standard for determining whether an action was justified by reasonable suspicion is an objective one, not dependent on the intentions or motivations of the particular detaining officer. Illinois v. Wardlow, 582 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); see also, e.g., United States v. Singletary, 798 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2015) (examining “the totality of the circumstances through the eyes of a reasonable and cautious officer”).

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). Officers may “draw on their own experience and training” in making this judgment, id., looking to factors including:
• Proximity to an international border;
• Patterns of behavior;
• An officer’s previous experience with undocumented individuals;
• An officer’s knowledge of “[r]ecent illegal border crossings in the area”;
• In matters of vehicle stoppages, a driver’s erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers;



While some people may suggest it's "Un-PC" to say, the reality is, receiving a tip that there is a factory employing undocumented workers (who's been busted for things like that before) is not "random"... Neither is approaching day laborers standing out front of a Home Depot that's in a city that's close to the US-Mexico border. A reasonable person (who's being honest) would acknowledge the fact that a group of 15 non-English speakers (who are clearly of Mexican descent) standing out in front of a home improvement store in El Paso with a sign that says "trabajo" is significantly more likely to be undocumented than a group of people speaking fluent English in the parking lot of a restaurant in Des Moines Iowa.

People keep saying it's "Random"... if it was random, I would've seen ICE Agents showing up at the Target that's 5 miles from me here in Northeast Ohio and stopping random people.



To be honest, I think the thing that makes some people mad (the people who want to cling to the notion that you can't infer certain things by evaluating certain superficial aspects), is specifically how un-random it is.

The proof of how un-random it actually is demonstrated in the numbers.

When they do these days-long series of nationwide sweeps and apprehend several thousands of people, and it ends up where the overwhelming majority were, indeed, undocumented, with a small handful of mistaken apprehensions, the news outlets are off to the races going on at length about the 3 guys who were mistakenly picked up (and then later released) and conveniently leave out the fact that the other 14,997 were, indeed, what ICE agents suspected.

Meaning it's not random...if it were random it would be a jump ball in terms of the outcome statistics.

Click to expand...

DHS Condemns Official Who 'Calls for Gang Violence on ICE​

In a video on social media, Cynthia Gonzalez, the vice mayor of Cudahy, a suburb in southeast Los Angeles County, asked why street gangs had not emerged to "help out and organize" against the "biggest gang there is."

In the video, Gonzalez asks where gang members are, and calls on gang leaders to "get your members in order."

ralliann said:

It does not pertain to this......
All persons born or naturalized in the United States

It pertains to this......
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The supreme court will decide on this...

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

I mentioned the last time a 3rd party candidate was able to make a dent was Ross Perot, and that's because he was super rich and could buy access to the kinds of campaign activities and press that most people would need to fundraise or be "connected" in order to get

(Perot bought prime time major network timeslots to do what were, in essence, infomercials for his campaign.)

I could see Elon doing something like that for whichever candidate wanted to run for his new party. Heck, the guy spent $40B to buy a social media platform because he didn't like having his posts blocked...so this kind of endeavor certainly wouldn't be his most impulsive purchase by any means.

As far as the vote splitting, that would depend on who he "anointed" to be the "chosen one" to be the candidate for his new party.

Andrew Yang has already reached out to Elon to collaborate on this "new party" idea.


If, in 2028...

We saw a Gavin Newsom vs. Andrew Yang vs. JD Vance election showdown... I don't know that anyone can accurately speculate who an Andrew Yang type person would steal more votes from.

At the very least, he's got the money to get whoever his candidate is significant airtime and on the debate stage, and that's a sizeable portion of the battle.

Imagine if Ross Perot had been 20 times richer than he already was, and owned something as powerful as his own social media platform

Click to expand...

David Lamb said:

Yet Paul refers to Luke as the "beloved physician" (what we would call a doctor), and the gospel of Luke includes evidence of having been penned by a medical man. He alone includes the words, "Physician heal thyself." Concern healing, he alon describes a fever as "a high fever":

“Now He arose from the synagogue and entered Simon’s house. But Simon’s wife’s mother was sick with a high fever, and they made request of Him concerning her.” (Lu 4:38 NKJV)

I believe the same Luke who penned the gospel of Luke and Acts accompanied Paul.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

If you are not concerned with what DOGE found your concern with defense spending rings hollow.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

The top tax rate was over 90 percent in the 50s and 60s. A much larger percent of new wealth went into the pockets of the people actually making it. That's how it happened.

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

The law is good. But it kills. And it can't give life, even though it promises life to those who obey.

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

Saying these things is not speaking against the law. It is speaking the truth about the law.

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

Why then, do we see so many people speaking the opposite?

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

We can test that theory.

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. (Mt 22:37–38)​

Who would argue that this commandment is not in effect today? Nobody. And who would argue that they stand before God spotless in regard to this commandment? Only those whos sins are separated from him as far as the east is from the west.

Click to expand...