RocksInMyHead said:

None of your complaints about bias have anything to do with the subscription service being discussed (analytics tools), aside from the fact that Politico created them (or paid someone to create them, or bought out the person who created them) and hosts them.

Pretty sure that was the NYT. At least, I can't find any references to Politico staff doing it - just NYT staff over an op-ed.

Click to expand...

You are correct. That was Tom Cotton's "Have the NG Shoot the BLM protesters" Op-Ed in the NYT that had the staff of that paper in outrage.

Mitch McConnell also voted against Gabbard's confirmation. He is such an interesting character. I'm not sure whether he is trying to atone for the excesses of his past, or just be himself. It's obviously his last term in office, and it will end in 2026. He's 82 years old now.
I imagine he'll have a book deal in the works, and hopefully he will reveal how Trump caused him to reevaluate his priorities and put integrity over party, because no one, absolutely no one, was more partisan than McConnell.
I feel pretty sure he will vote against RFK, Jr. Why? Because he has lived all his life with polio, and he knows what a blessing the vaccine has been to all the generations who have reaped its benefits.
But despite the challenges he has faced with polio, he is now stronger, and I am grateful for his newfound spine. God bless you, Senator.

KateMae1023 said:

Hello! Yesterday, as I was with the man I am dating, he was frustrated with me.

Click to expand...

His frustration is his responsibility, not yours. any individual's ability to manage or not manage their own frustration becomes a problem when it adversely disrupts the relationship. Blaming you for his emotional conditions is called scapegoating and it's not healthy. Scapegoating that turns into the frustrated one claiming to also be a victim of your otherwise completely permissible behavior is called gaslighting.

I am NOT saying that is what your boyfriend is doing. I am simply telling you what scapegoating and gaslighting are so you recognize them when you see them. If and when they occur walk away. At best they are evidence of serious lack of maturity and at worst they are symptomatic of potentially very serious mental illness.

Here's how you test it: The next time you and your date have a disagreement, and he is visibly frustrated, simply ask him. "How are you feeling right now?" If he's like the average guy he'll say he's fine, okay, or alright. That might be true but that is not an identification of emotion, of his feelings. Guys tend to be in their heads and compartmentalize. Women are more emotionally integrated and relationship oriented. For him the conversation about getting a credit card is a factual matter, a logical matter, and it has nothing to do with feelings. He's wrong.

And you will not be able to tell him that.

So.... after he's said, "I'm fine," you follow that up with. "Thank you, I appreciate knowing that. Can we take a moment and regather the relationship?" If his head doesn't explode then you follow that up with, "How about you summarize your position and tell me why it is I, not anyone else, must get a credit card, and when you're done, I'll repeat what you've said so you know I was listening and understood it. After that I'll summarize my point of view and after that's acknowledged we can move on with the rest of our date."

because when people repeat themselves and/or the volume levels increase then it's time to summarize what's been said and move on.

KateMae1023 said:

He told me that it seemed that everything I said to him was argumentative.

Click to expand...

And what did he say about himself?

Are you always argumentative? Seriously. You know you better than anyone else, except God (and possibly your parents). Do you trust yourself to either 1) know your own behavior and the inner life that drives it, and 2) to accept maybe you are doing something you don't want to do? My wife, for example, had a habit of starting most of her replies with, "No." However, she married a counselor who's trained in behavioral observation. It is a very natural and normal human behavior to begin with "No," especially for those of us who are very analytical and perfectionist. We like to start with what needs improving, rather than observe and affirm that which is already excellent and thereby build goodwill, safety, and connection sufficient for tolerating disagreement and enough trust to listen to one another's differences. You can imagine how frustrating it is being married to me . I, on the other hand, had to learn how not to be so analytical, not start with the problem to be solved and, instead, start with an affirmation of my wife's point of view. Healthy couples move toward each other in occasions of disagreement..... but few couples start out that healthy. It's a skill we learn in the relationship itself. That's what dating is about = the finding of a person with whom I can close the distance even on occasions where we disagree.

Watch what happens when you do not reciprocate but, instead, ask him not to blame you for his frustration and tell you why he finds it frustrating. I don't know you KateMae but I do know women are amazing creatures and if he values every second he's with you then he will lean into that question, even if ridden with anxiety.

KateMae1023 said:

For example, he was trying to explain why I should get a certain credit card and told me the benefits. I immediately told him why I didn’t want it. Also, when he told me about my being argumentative, I immediately started defending myself.

Click to expand...

Ummmmm...... how does expressing your viewpoint mean you're being argumentative and defensive? How is his appraisal not argumentative and defensive (and adversarial)?

Most couples go through this. The healthy ones learn not to continue that pattern. Most healthy couples go through it twice. The first time during their courtship, and the second time 6 to 10 years into their marriage when it comes time to re-sort the territory and terrain of the relationship.

Is it okay if I defend my viewpoint? Am I allowed to explain why I hold the views I do?

In other words, put his cr@p back in his lap and see how he handles it because the guy that says, "No, that's not alright," or escalates when asked that question is the guy you ask to turn the car around and take you home. The guy who says, "Yes, of course," but then does not follow true is a guy who does not keep his word and there is not a man in this forum who will tell you that is acceptable. At best, it is a sign of immaturity, so you have to decide whether or not you believe this guy is valuable enough for you to grow with him as he matures. All men enter marriage without certain relationship skills. All men need to mature that way. All men have a little boy inside them and that's not a bad thing. Some of the best times in an adult relationship are when my little boy comes out to play with my wife's little girl . Adult conversations require the adults to act like adults.

KateMae1023 said:

The problem is, I do not feel like I am being hostile or argumentative. Most of the time, I feel like I am just peacefully sharing my opinion. He pointed out that I am contrary in almost every response I give to him, and as I was thinking over our conversations, I am.

Click to expand...

There's a very simple way to find out. Close your eyes and place you hand over your heart. Feel how fast you're breathing. If your heart is racing and your breathing is fast and shallow then it's likely your anxious and/or in defense mode. That's normal in episode of disagreement. It's not very good for complex problem solving, though. The problem is also fairly simple. Just slow down your breathing. Take long, slow, deep breaths and clear your head. Our brains are connected to respiration, pulse, and the fight-or-flight mechanism. Slowing down helps bring the parasympathetic nervous system back online. Not only is that the part of your wiring that helps you (and him) solve complex problems, it is also the part of your nervous system required to be relational.

If, on the other hand (no pun intended) you find you are calm and collected then he's probably the one being hostile unawares (if he's aware of it and did it intentionally then call your father or best friend to come and get you).

KateMae1023 said:

This is extremely discouraging because I fear that this has become completely second-nature to me. I hadn’t even realized it until he told me. I realize it is true, and I do not want to have such an argumentative nature. I am not only like this with him. I grew up in a family that argued all the time, so I feel like it is deeply ingrained in me. My close friends do not point this out, maybe because they have known me for so long, but I have been told this by another man I dated and my family. After he pointed this out, I tried to be very careful with my words, and intentionally filtering myself, but it is very difficult. Does anyone have any advice on ways I can stop being so disagreeable and argumentative?
Thank you so much!

Click to expand...

I recommend you not be so quick to accept you're the argumentative, defensive, hostile and/or frustrated one. I recommend you pick up a copy of a copy of "Boundaries" by Henry Cloud and John Townsend and read it. Then, when you're done, you read their book, "Boundaries in Dating," and after you've been married two to three years you read their book, "Boundaries in Marriage."

• Boundaries tell us what is right and wrong.
• Boundaries also teach us who we are. (I am not you and you am not me. I can think my own thoughts, have my own feelings, make my own choices and I do not have to think, feel, or choose like you).
• Boundaries must be firm but not rigid, flexible but not porous.
• Boundaries begin with the ability to say, "No."
• The first and biggest obstacle to healthy boundaries is the fear of consequences (he'll break up with me! My boss will fire me! My friend will hate me!).

Get the book and read it.

Tellyontellyon said:

Can you please explain to me exactly what is meant by 'person'.
Thanks

Click to expand...

A rational spiritual being. . .human, angelic or divine.

soldier of light said:

People don't see that the path is peace not contentions and its unity not divisions. They think they can be divided and untied at the same time but to me this is impossible. Divisions mean there is heresy as Paul said. I can't fellowship with heresy

Click to expand...

True. Heresy is a problem, but the larger problem is a lack of love. So, I sympathize with you on those points.

I remember all the old submarine fights and submarines are a no-go for me. I can't imagine what those people felt.

She needs to keep her mouth shut. She sounds like a complete idiot every time she opens it.

The former 'Saturday Night Live' comic has written a book, 'Average Joe: The Memoirs of a Blue-Collar Entertainer'​

Joe Piscopo was an "old Blue Dog Democrat" in 2016 when he received a phone call from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign team.

The "Saturday Night Live" alum, who had been longtime pals with "The Donald," was asked to do a speech at the Tampa fairgrounds. At the time, the celebrity businessman was running for president.

In his new memoir, "Average Joe," the comic and actor wrote that he knew that publicly supporting Trump would be "the forever death knell, the nail in my coffin in Hollywood."

Continued below.

FINALLY, the world is beginning to pay attention to the potential and the RISK
of AI tools.

"Although there were divisions between major nations—the U.S. and the U.K. did not sign a final statement endorsed by 60 nations calling for an “inclusive” and “open” AI sector—the focus of the two-day meeting was markedly different from the last such gathering. Last year, in Seoul, the emphasis was on defining red-lines for the AI industry. The concern: that the technology, although holding great promise, also had the potential for great harm.

But that was then. The final statement made no mention of significant AI risks nor attempts to mitigate them, while in a speech on Tuesday, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said: “I’m not here this morning to talk about AI safety, which was the title of the conference a couple of years ago. I’m here to talk about AI opportunity.” "

Note that AI technology SHOULD trigger the same discussion that was presented
in the movie "Oppenheimer", where both Einstein and Oppenheimer are agonizing
over the power of the theories that they were proving, and wondering what sort of
world the atomic bombs would lead to.

Note that there is no reason to BOTH continue research in AI algorithms, in a
protected environment, AND think about controlling the power of this software
from the use of rogue nations and national criminal gangs. There is no logical
reason to argue that these are XOR options.
---------- ----------

Some very basic observations need to be spoken again (and again)...

1 There is the assertion that the generative AI tools operate on the level
of a "competent graduate student". I would note that
a. a competent gradutate student is able to show references to what he claims
are facts (which these tools regularly don't do)
b. most competent graduate students in STEM, HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MORAL-
ETHICAL MODELS are, as the hard science don't even have the vocabulary
to reason about ME right and ME wrong.

Many competent STEM graduate students, like some prominent politicians,
don't seem to recognize that ME wight and ME wrong even exist, because they
cannot be described with mathematical models.

2 Look practically at how the "popular" model of knowledge works -- Wikipedia.
Writers of entries in this tool are rated (by Wiki algorithms) according to how
many entries they make, not on their competence.

In many Wiki entries, the references are hopelessly recent, ignoring the older
references to the topic. No competent graduate student, would write entries
like this.

3 Graduate students are typically young, and engage in a narrow discipline.
What they often miss, is the bigger horizon of cross-discipline knowledge.

4 Increasingly, younger Americans are dysfunctional in their knowledge of
philosophical primitives, and formal logic. To them (increasingly) a
proposition is TRUE or False based on an Appeal to Authority to someone
who ASSERTS a conclusion, not to a rigorous methodology of reasoning.

---------- ----------

I would repeat AGAIN...

IF the generative AI tools can emulate complex human problem solving,
THEN they ought to be able to be easily employed to do FACT-CHECKING on
on all the major social media sites. Doing fact checking, is not an
infringement on free speech. But it is a check on BullSpeak. And America
greatly needs this check.

Those who throw out fact checking on their social media sites, or try to
equate fact checking with a limitation of American citizens rights, are the
billionaires who want to use social media sites as propaganda outlets.
---------- ----------

Another point about the current AI tools needs to be made...

*** The "machine learning" tools, are (in general) the weakest form of
AI algorithms. That means, the artificial neural nets, that have to be trained
on a specific body of material, in order to put out some answer.

These weak algorithms often use BRUTE FORCE computing, which is why the
billionaires who are developping them, also are interested in owning massive
computing farms, and independent sources of electricity generation.
IF they hook you on this brute force approach, they will create a computational
MONOPOLY in computing farms, and still the answers that the AI tools are fed
from these computational farms, will be unregulated.

Not only will the "computing farm" approach lock Americans into the weakest
form of AI algorithms (this is bad for the development of AI technology), but it
will create a financial monopoly for those who own the computing farms.

American researchers need to be focussing on the much more powerful
categorical reasoning algorithms in AI, although they involve MUCH MORE
development work. This, the billionaires don't want to do.

sacardian said:

But my struggle lies in my surroundings; I desperately need help breaking free from them, yet my heart still longs for them.

Click to expand...

Praying the Lord helps you settle these things. As it was for me too, worldly friends begin to be a drag on us as we grow, and sooner or later, they will pick up on that, without a word. Just be pleasant, God will supply what we need, just stay patient.

L.A. County teen ‘serial swatter’ is sentenced to 4 years in prison​

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and U.S. Secret Service with assistance from law enforcement agencies across the country, include the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It was prosecuted in the Middle District of Florida.

Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Ge 25:26).

Jacob was 94 years old when he returned to Canaan.

Isaac was 60 + 94 = 154 years old when Jacob's return.

Isaac died at 180 (Ge 35:28).

Isaac lived 180 - 154 = 26 years after Jacob's return.

Facebook reels

People quote Paul when he said that we shouldn't forsake the assembly of ourselves but they misunderstand the scripture in my opinion. This is not exactly a command. It's there for our good but it's not a command. We are under no obligation to join a church we dont agree with. Paul also said to be careful who we fellowship with. The reason for the assembly is to encourage each other not to sin and to love each other. But politics and divisions are not proper fellowship. Personally I dont need reminded not to sin because I meditate on scripture. People in the first church didn't have Bibles like me.

Why did God give Israel a temple built with human hands if that's not where he lives? Why build a temple if we ourselves are the temple of the Lord? Maybe the temple was given because they were not worthy to learn about the actual temple. Or am I wrong?

I always thought "lead us not into temtation" must mean "let us not be lead into", clarified by "deliver us from evil", so that rather than accusing God of wanting us to be tempted, we are letting Him know we do not desire to be, and need His protection to help us avoid succumbing to it.

In the case of Jesus in the wilderness, He was God Incarnate, therefore not like our sinful selves. The Saviour did not come to save Himself.

People are stubborn about politics and religion. They never change.

1 Samuel 15:3 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.”

I'm happy to see that some on the left have common sense and not all are ideologues.

I can't believe we allow this They are not taking pictures of America the beautiful. I truly hate the greed of corporations, they don't care who's harmed as long as they get paid. Then you have this crap:

"Moscow imported more than $22 billion worth of critical components between January and October 2023, Russian trade data shows. Over the same period, it also imported almost $9 billion worth of “high-priority” battlefield components, which Western authorities have specifically sanctioned."

The “great house” spoken of here appears to be in reference to the gatherings of the church, which include both those of sincere faith in Jesus Christ who have departed from iniquity and those who have swerved from the truth of the gospel who are upsetting the faith of other people. They both name the name of the Lord, but Jesus said that not everyone who says to him, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the ones DOING the will of God the Father who is in heaven (see Matthew 7:21-23).

So, in this “great house,” i.e. in these gatherings of the church we have some vessels (people) which are honorable, and we have some which are dishonorable. And so the encouragement here is that we are to cleanse ourselves of what is dishonorable to God so that we can be vessels of God for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to our Lord and ready for every good work. And to be holy is to be separate (unlike, different) from the world because we are being conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ.


So, the way in which we “cleanse ourselves of what is dishonorable to God, so that we can be vessels of God for honorable use” is if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and walk (in conduct) daily in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power. We must flee ungodly and morally impure passions and desires, and we must pursue (chase after) what is of God and of his righteousness, holiness, and purity of heart, and be devoted to him. And we must surrender all to Jesus so that we can be of pure heart.

And then it says that we should have nothing to do with foolish and ignorant controversies, for they breed quarrels. And we are not to be quarrelsome but kind to everyone. And I will state here that there is a distinct difference between a quarrel and a fair and reasonable discussion over a matter of difference of belief. Jesus definitely had disagreements with the Pharisees and some of the Jews and he refuted the lies of the enemy and he spoke the truth of God’s word to the people. So we can defend the truth of the gospel.

Foolish and ignorant controversies are of a different nature. A lot of those are begun by someone responding to what someone else said by “baiting them” into a meaningless discussion. This happens a lot on internet sites which are designed for people to post their thoughts or beliefs on a subject, with an open door for other people to respond with their thoughts on the same subject. And these discussions are called “threads,” and sometimes those end up going the wrong direction when someone picks a fight.

We need to not “take the bait” in those situations, and resolve not to get into meaningless debates and arguments which produce nothing good and are a waste of time, too. Answer people’s reasonable questions, if you can, but don’t get caught on the hook of someone just fishing for an argument. And sometimes it isn’t that they just want to pick a fight, but they are hoping to bring you down and to get you to say something whereby they feel that they can accuse you of wrong. So refuse to argue, but be reasonable.

For being kind to people never involves lying to them, diluting the truth, or refusing to share the truth to spare their feelings. For the gospel is an offense to those who are perishing in their sins. We should never force our beliefs on anyone, but where we have the opportunity we should be sharing with others the truth of the gospel as taught by Jesus and by his New Testament apostles, but taught in the appropriate context, and not out of context in order to make it less offensive to the ungodly.

The goal of our teaching or our sharing of the teachings of the Scriptures, and of the gospel of Jesus Christ, should be for the benefit of those who listen, either that they would turn their hearts and lives over to the Lord Jesus, repent of their sins, and now obey him, or if they are believers in Jesus, that we would be able to encourage (includes exhorting) them in their walks of faith in obedience to the Lord in holy living. It should be to help one another to grow to maturity in our walks of faith in obedience to our Lord.

So we must share with them that Jesus Christ gave his life up for us on that cross to deliver us out of our slavery (addiction) to sin so that we will now serve him with our lives in walks of obedience to his commands. So, if we want to be followers of Jesus Christ, we must deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and walk (in conduct) in obedience to his commands, in his power. For if sin is what we practice, and not obedience to God, we will not have salvation from sin, and heaven will not be our eternal destiny.

[Matt 7:13-14,21-23; Lu 9:23-26; Jn 10:27-30; Ac 26:18; Rom 2:6-8; Rom 6:1-23; Rom 8:1-14; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Co 6:9-10,19-20; 1 Co 10:1-22; 2 Co 5:10,15,21; Gal 5:16-24; Gal 6:7-8; Eph 2:8-10; Eph 4:17-32; Eph 5:3-6; Col 1:21-23; Col 3:1-17; Tit 2:11-14; Heb 3:1-19; Heb 4:1-13; Heb 10:23-31; Heb 12:1-2; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 Jn 1:5-10; 1 Jn 2:3-6,15-17; 1 Jn 3:4-10]

For Our Nation

An Original Work / September 11, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Bombs are bursting. Night is falling.
Jesus Christ is gently calling
You to follow Him in all ways.
Trust Him with your life today.
Make Him your Lord and your Savior.
Turn from your sin. Follow Jesus.
He will forgive you of your sin;
Cleanse your heart, made new within.

Men betraying: Our trust fraying.
On our knees to God we’re praying,
Seeking God to give us answers
That are only found in Him.
God is sovereign over all things.
Nothing from His mind escaping.
He has all things under His command,
And will work all for good.

Jesus Christ is gently calling
You to follow Him in all ways.

Men deceiving: We’re believing
In our Lord, and interceding
For our nation and its people
To obey their God today.
He is our hope for our future.
For our wounds He offers suture.
He is all we need for this life.
Trust Him with your life today.

Login to view embedded media
Avoid Ignorant Controversies
An Original Work / February 12, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

BPPLEE said:

Much ado about nothing

Click to expand...

Sure, but that's what all his followers say.

Yarddog said:

Jesse Owens didn't raise a fist on the podium. He stood at attention and saluted.
You are thinking of Tommy Smith and John Carlos, who raised their fists, in 1968.

Click to expand...

Yes someone else pointed that out and I double checked and found I mistook the two as you said. Still both iconic symbols in our history.

Diamond72 said:

Don't we do the same thing with the Bible? At least with theistic evolution even though we do not accept the theory of evolution we still believe that some of the evidence science presents is valid and should have a impact on our understanding of God's word. Then we have another group of people who do not listen to Jesus when he tells them to beware of the traditions. When we are told in matthew 15 9
"they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’”

Click to expand...

As your alluding to there are several aspects going on at the same time. Science works within a certain parameter and we prove that everyday like with medicine and tech or going to Mars.

But theres a limit and we have found that with QM and even in evolution and how we are finding agency has a big influence of how creatures adapt and survive. But materialism or naturalism is automatically assumed. All causes fall within the causal closure of the physical.

So in that sense science is breaching its own parameters in assuming everything is materially caused and thus is bringing in metapgysics and philosophical belief about how the world is and how we should know it (epistemics). Which rget have no science for.

But Christains primarily have faith that God has done these things. I agree that people may reject the science or change interpretations to fit the science. Your right that is the same as materialists.

But many don't. If the science supports the bible then great. This is to be expected. But depending on this is another view and not really faith.

The problem is theres so many variables. Fir one the evidence presented by science may be biased. Because they only see the material they are going to make the explanations accordingly. Or they may omit some evidence so it conforms. So using the evidence is not always the best way. They said there was no evidence for the Isrealites in Egypt during the Exodus and yet now we have evidence.

In other words Christains should not need the evidence but in the end if God word is truth then we should expect to find the evidence. But material science needs the evidence. They are desperate for it and they whole worldview is dependent on it. So if there was evidence for God or something beyond the material that would be earth shattering and, a complete paradigm shift.

Vambram said:

Are you disagreeing with the analysis from James Carville?

Click to expand...

That’s always been allowed.