Arch

The word "defund" means to "stop paying for".  If you stop paying for the police ... there WON'T BE ANY POLICE!!!!

How can anyone say that "defund" means to "retrain"?  Retraining costs MORE money, not LESS!!!  "Defunding" is the OPPOSITE of providing more training.  Creating some NEW KIND of police force will ALSO cost MORE money, not less.  That, again, is the OPPOSITE of "defund". 

"Fund" and "Defund" are words that deal with FINANCE.  They are not words that have anything to do with reforming or rethinking.  They have to do with providing the money necessary to do the job.  To "fund" means to provide the money.  To "defund" means to NOT provide the money.

If you really mean something other than, "Stop paying for the police," then WHY THE CRAP are you using the word "Defund".

I was just informed by a very reputable source that Trump and the GOP tried to shut down CNN.  You can see this information in one of the answers at 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200...

But, didn't know about this!!  I don't really have any details.  Can anyone give me specifics?  Preferably with some documentation?  What specific acts or legislation did the GOP propose or pass?  Did Trump declare martial law or send in troops to seize CNN's facilities?  Did he order their reporters assassinated by CIA agents?  It's terrible that Trump and the GOP tried to shut down CNN.  Can anyone give me the proof I need to show other Conservatives?

One of our well known posters on the Left side of the aisle states in her answer to the question at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200... that Trump and the Cons are trying to revive slavery.  I have heard this from Leftists before, but I am afraid I don't understand.  What specific measures have Trump or the GOP taken, or what laws have they proposed or passed, that would somehow repeal or do away with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, thereby reviving slavery?

I humbly request that someone please give specific examples of such actions.  While do not wish to dictate how others answer, please understand that any answer which amounts to claims that I should already know, or that I should do some "research", or that I must be uninformed will simply be taken to mean that person answering don't know either.  In order for an answer to this question to have any weight at all, the answer will need to give specific examples of actions taken by Trump or the GOP in the form of policy platforms adopted, laws proposed, regulations adopted, executive orders issued, etc.  If all an answer does is to insult me or imply that I must be stupid if I don't have the same opinions that the person answering does, then I will know that the beliefs expressed therein are not based on fact, reason, or logic and I will know that they are best ignored.

Evidently, the president of Country A cannot make such a request if the citizen involved might someday run for office against the president of Country A. Since ANYONE in Country A MIGHT one day run for office, it seems like that pretty much ties the hands of Country A's president from EVER looking into ANY corruption, doesn't it?

Seriously?!?! Look, you can't get ME to perform in a lab at your command!! For that matter, you can't get CATS to perform in a lab at your command. You can get DOGS to, but that's why I respect cats more than I respect dogs.

If a being would perform in a lab at your command, how could you respect it, much less worship it? I could NEVER respect a being that would submit to such inquiry. You can't honestly expect the Creator of all that was, is, and ever shall be to perform at your command like that. YOU wouldn't! Or if you would, I think you'll find it harder for most of us to respect you after that.

In case you're thinking of saying, "Then what is prayer about?" Prayer is ASKING a favor of a sentient Being. Not commanding Him to perform. It is up to Him where, when, how, and IF He will answer.

The criteria you expect, "testable, verifiable, repeatable" simply isn't reasonable when you're dealing with the behavior a sentient being. It's an irrational standard that not only will not, but SHOULD NOT ever be met.

When Jesus was asked for precisely that (Matthew 16:1 - 4), He turned them down flat. He basically said, "No," and walked away. (If the account were fiction, you would think some kind of sign would be made up, wouldn't you?) And that's what God says to those who want to test Him in a lab.

He says, "No," and walks (metaphorically speaking) away. As one would expect.

I have learned in this section that asking a foreign country to investigate a crime is ILLEGAL if the crime was possibly committed by your political opponent. Evidently, this constitutes asking a foreign country to "interfere in our elections". I didn't know it was so easy to get away with crimes!

Think of it! As long as you make sure that investigating the crime would require the assistance of a foreign government, all you have to do is run for office against the DA! Who knew it was so EASY?!?!

I keep seeing Leftist posting the notion that Congress doesn't even NEED an actual CRIME to impeach. They just need to show they've lost confidence in him, or that he's not upholding the dignity of the office, or some BS like that. "Impeachment is a political process by definition," says Manny at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20191...

So … is this The Left basically admitting that there are no crimes over which to impeach, but insisting that they can impeach ANYWAY? Are they finally admitting that they don't CARE about WHY they impeach Trump as long as they impeach him?

Article 2 Section 4 reads:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of The United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS".

In other words, the U.S. Constitution states beyond any shadow of a doubt that there must be a CRIME, and he must be CONVICTED. So you have to PROVE the crime, not just assert it. It's as plain as day!

But, The Left just considers the Constitution to be an obstacle to their goals. They don't mind violating it any chance they get.

So, how can The Leftists here claim you don't need a crime to impeach a sitting President.

Surely, it is.

If I'm the current DA, and I'm running for reelection, and the cops bring me evidence that shows my opponent in that election just might be involved in the murder … I assume it's ILLEGAL for me to launch any sort of investigation into that … right? I mean, I guess, from the way the Democrats are acting about Trump's phone call, that it's illegal … just outright illegal … for me to even ASK THE QUESTION, "Did my opponent do this?" Is that right?

I guess my opponent, if he IS the guilty party, is just going to get away with it. Is that how the law works, folks? Because from The Left's reaction to Trump's phone call, one would assume that it is.

Don't tell me that Hunter Biden didn't do anything wrong. Heck, he probably didn't. That's not the point. Most people investigated for murder are also innocent. But … if it's my political rival, then even if I have probable cause, I still can't investigate him … right?

And NOT THE STATE?!?!?!

If one truly understands what Christ command, one must see that the government caring for the poor is a grave abomination. It is just as evil, and just as effective, for the government to care for the poor as it would be for the Church to patrol the streets with guns attempting to maintain order.  

By advocating that the government care for the poor, you are abdicating Christ's command to do so yourself. It can never be the government's job to care for the poor.  When you let the government do it, you're saying, "Let's force OTHER people to do it so we don't HAVE to". How is that what Jesus commanded? 

Leftism and Christianity are inherently incompatible. Only through ignorance of one or the other can a person be both. It is in direct disobedience to Christ's command to foist the responsibility of caring for the poor on the shoulders of the state. The fact is, Christ told His Church to do it. Allowing the state to do it is sin. 

Would you want the state teaching spiritual truth? Then why is it okay for the state to care for the poor? 

The state's job is clearly outlined in Romans 13. Use force to maintain order. Nothing more. The desire to have the state take care of the poor is a violation of message of the Words of Christ. 

It is NOT the government's job to take care of the poor. So, how can an educated, informed Christian can be an educated, informed Leftist?

Countries occasionally buy territory from each other. It's not done every day, but it happens from time to time.

When the U.S. purchased the Louisiana territory from France, it basically doubled the size of the country. And after that, we bought Alaska from Russia. Both of those purchases turned out pretty well for us.

Granted, Russia probably regrets selling us Alaska. But Napoleon managed to dump territory he couldn't defend and raised cash to wage his wars of conquest. I'm sure he was glad he sold that territory … right up until they locked him on Elba.

So, I just don't see the big deal. We ask the Danes if they want to sell Greenland. If they don't want to, they can just say, "No."

We used to be able to send emails to other Y!A users. Now we can't. When did that change and why?

If we and all other forms of life arose as the product of purely naturalistic forces, with no intervention from any sort of Higher Being, then WHY should life be viewed as having any value whatsoever? If you are just the product of chemical reactions which happened without any sort of intelligent input, then why is it any more "wrong" to kill you than it is to snuff out a candle flame?

In fact, if we are just the result of naturalistic process, then how can ANYTHING be said to be "right" or "wrong". How would the extermination of the entire human race be "wrong" if said race is just the product of purely naturalistic occurrences? If we are just the product of a chain of chemical reactions going back to a bunch of amino acids combining for the first time, then how are we different than a cock-roach? Or the fizz from baking soda and vinegar mixing?

You cannot argue for "morality" unless you argue that human beings MATTER for some reason. With naturalistic evolution, you cannot assume that we do. All atheistic arguments for the existence of morality presuppose that human beings still MATTER, that human life is still valuable. But they never answer WHY human life should have value if said human life evolved without God.

This is not an argument for or against Evolution. This is just show that IF you accept naturalistic evolution, you must accept that there is no reason to assign human life, or any other life, any particular value. Nor to believe in any sort of morality.

The answers at https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20190... and frankly going all the way back to https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100... nine years ago, show that Atheists seem absolutely DESPERATE to think that if aliens show up, everyone would just give up their faith.

WHY?!? Why is that belief so important to you? Christians tell you over and over that our faith allows for, even EXPECTS, the existence of extraterrestrial life. In the face of that indisputable evidence that the existence of aliens would not weaken our faith in the slightest, you inexplicably cling to, "No, no! If aliens show up, you'll all abandon your faith! You HAVE TO!!!"

Why is that belief so important to you? WHY can you not stand the thought that we'd still be Christians even if we aliens landed at our church picnics?

Let's say I'm running for some office. It matters not which one. POTUS or Local Secretary of the Landfill Commission. Take your pick.

And one day I get an envelope or an email or whatever. Contained within it, I find about 150 pages worth of verifiable information on my opponent proving he/she has engaged in all manner of disreputable behavior. Not just rumors, but stuff that can be proven with the help of the documents themselves.

What am I supposed to do? Just NOT use it?!?! How does that make any sense at all?

I know, it's illegal for foreign agencies to interfere in elections. But that mostly applies to FINANCIAL contributions, vote suppression ... stuff like that. Giving someone TRUE, VERIFIABLE information is NOT "INTERFERENCE". If anything, NOT sharing that information would be "interference".

Look, if you have TRUE information which could reveal unseemly behavior on the part of a candidate, then "interference" is NOT making that information public. WITHHOLDING that information is INTERFERENCE!! Not SHARING it with the other candidate.

As a corollary, suppose I'm not the recipient of the information, but the News Media and the Media reports on it. Or maybe the data just gets posted on the web for all the world to see.

What am I supposed to do? Drop out of the race?

How do people not see that accepting certain forms of help, even from a foreign source, is NOT illegal or improper?

https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blu...

Read that, and THEN tell me how they can ever expect the other side to have any respect for them or take them seriously. If everyone read this piece, it would pretty much hand the next election to the other side.

The question that spawned this is here:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20190...

Notice the responses to my own answer: Flat out accusations that I'm lying.

Fellow Christians, why should we bother to discuss matters any further with those who simply accuse us of lying for telling them of what we know ... what we have seen and heard. When you try to share the truth with others, and they tell you that you're lying, and they refuse to consider that any idea which they find hard to believe could possibly be anything other than a lie ... is there any point in trying to discuss things further?

Do these people assume that EVERYONE who expresses a different point of view is LYING? Is this what our society has become? Anyone who disagrees with us must be LYING now?

If this is where we are, there is truly no hope for our society.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-vote-ag...

An amendment to a voting bill, which states that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote, was REJECTED by Democrats in The House of Representatives!!! How is that even SANE???

Haven't Democrats, by rejecting this measure, basically stated that YES! They DO in fact want ILLEGAL ALIENS to be able to VOTE in elections?? Haven't they just made that quite clear?

It's no longer kooky conspiracy theory! The Democrats are on RECORD with it now!! How can they be considered anything BUT traitors at this point?

Oh ... before you start ... saying, "Well Trump blah blah blah blah " doesn't answer the question. If you have Trump on film committing dastardly acts, it does not answer the question of whether DEMOCRATS want non-citizens and even illegals to be able to vote.

I was on a river boat cruise down in Louisiana on the Mississippi river. It was a fascinating cruise, and we went through a stretch where you could appreciate the wilder portions of Mississippi. We saw all sorts of wildlife, and more than a few alligators.

In addition, there was a little cat that had been hanging around the docks for a few days, even stowing away on boats from time to time. And that day, he had decided to take a ride on our boat. He was the friendliest little cat, and I just love cats anyway. So we made friends pretty quick. (He didn't mind a few bites of my chicken sandwich either.)

There was also a local politician on the boat; loud-mouthed and waaaay too over-the-top friendly, as if he expected any of us to buy that crap. Plus, you could just smell the corruption and graft.

Well, he and the cat were both near the railing when another boat somehow made some sort of dreadful error and smacked into us from the other side. The politician and the cat were both knocked overboard.

The politician panicked and screamed that he couldn't swim. The cat could swim, but I could see that there were a number of alligator of all different sizes headed right for them.

Look ... I know it's awful, but I felt I only had time to save one of them.

So here's my dilemma ....

Here goes ... I want to know if you think I did the right thing.

Should I have just KEPT the cat, or put up some fliers to see if I could find his original family?