User Tag List

Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 303

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

  1. #76
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    I'm a transplant -- from East Tennessee to the High [Mojave] Desert in California.
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by theo_victis
    Surely you dont mean this!!!!! Was Jesus not God when he laid aside his divine attributes in order for servanthood to take place (as phillipians 2:6 tells us) because he no longer possesed "Omniscience" or "Omnipotence" but rather relied on his Father?

    Phi 2:6 Who, being in very nature[1] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
    Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing,
    taking the very nature[2] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
    Phi 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    and became obedient to death--
    even death on a cross!

    To further illustrate my point, Jesus clearly had to learn as a child:
    Luke 2:40 The child Jesus grew. He became strong and wise, and God blessed him.

    Surely Christ being without complete Omniscience, even today is still God:

    Mat 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[6] but only the Father."

    Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

    If you understand God to be God because of his nature rather than his identity and being as God, then you are falsely chaining God to an immutable nature that God has already proven to have broken through in his incarnation of Christ.

    Let me give you this example: I work at a home for people with dementia related disabilites, mainly with alzhiemer related residents. Many of these residents do not know who they are, what they have done, what they liked to do, whom they were married to, how many kids they have, their age, or even the current situation, however, even though they have lost their characteristics, quirks, and even addictions that uniquely made them who they are, their being and identity still, nevertheless, remains. They dont become less of a human or even less of themselves when they discard their previous nature or further change their nature.

    What i mean is I will always be theo_victis no matter what i do unless my "eternal" nature is taken away. So God, being eternal, will always be God no matter what nature he possesses, even to the likeness of a servant (phillipians 2:6)!
    Do you realize -- in your zeal to make a point here -- that you're comparing the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, impassible Creator of All Things to created (or procreated) beings who have been immobilized through Alzheimer's or other mentally-debilitating diseases? Is that what you really mean to say?

    In your post, you quote some verses from the second chapter of Paul's epistle to the Philippians. Allow me to here cite the verses again, along with their fuller context: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

    Using these verses as proof text, you write that "Jesus... laid aside His divine attributes" during His incarnation. I challenge you to pause and consider these words. Because the Son of God voluntarily took on the "likeness of men", with their weaknesses and frailties (but not their sins nor their sin nature) -- and in His humanity, relied solely on the Spirit's power (which was given to Him "without measure") – does it follow that, in His deity, He ceased to possess the attributes that were His before the incarnation? If by the phrase “laid aside,” you understand that the Son of God’s power was eradicated or wiped out during that time, then you’ve missed the whole point of the passage. Note further that Heb. 1:1-3 says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [emphasis mine].” This text tells us that the Son of God (1) created all things and (2) now holds them together (i.e., they continue to exist) by the word of His power. But if you believe the infinite power, which the Son possessed, was wiped out during His incarnation, Who do you imagine held the world together during that time?

    Do you assume -- because the Scriptures inform us that the Second Person of the Trinity, in His incarnation, became truly man -- He thereby ceased to be truly God? Do you suppose Jesus of Nazareth had only one nature (human)? This is a vital point because the death of one finite man can pay for the life of only one other finite man -- but the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to redeem an incalculable number of men because of the infinite majesty and value of His person (i.e., His sacrifice was and is beyond price because of Who He was and is, truly God as well as truly man). If He had NOT been truly God, as well as truly man, would his death have been of infinite value?

    I pass over (1) your warning that I should not understand "God to be God because of His nature," (2) your reference to YOUR OWN “eternal nature,” and (3) your statement that “Surely Christ BEING WITHOUT COMPLETE OMNISCIENCE, EVEN TODAY is still God [emphasis mine]." And with the earnest desire that you will solemnly review your seriously flawed and somewhat incoherent opinions in light of the Scriptures, I close.

    MK

  2. #77
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1037
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    There in lies your fallacy. You think that just because a person is a CVer that man's choice is somehow over ridden. That sir is a lie to justify your own belief. Will you please stop making this false accusation. It is not true, has never been true and will never be true. You seem to have no concept of what a CVer believes except what some jug head has told you.
    I wasn't commenting on what all CVers believe, I was commenting on what Z Man, a hardcore Calvinst, believes.

  3. #78
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,771
    Thanks
    690
    Thanked 7,104 Times in 3,783 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    Sir the only thing greater than your blindness to the facts is your ignorants of them. What makes you think that I will support the OVers relegating God to the order of a mythical Greek God?
    What?

    I'm not relegating God to anything. I am simply using good old fashioned logic and applying it to Calvinist doctrine. How about you tell me which facts that you think I don't already know and haven't responded to a hundred times before. Can you even think of one single point of Calvinist doctrine (or Arminian doctrine for that matter) that I have ignored or glossed over or avoided? I challenge you to present to me even one single point that I have shut my eyes too.

    Here, I'll tell you what; you don't even have to look for one that I haven't responded too before. Just tell me what you think I'm overlooking and I promise to address it directly. How's that sound?

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. #79
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,771
    Thanks
    690
    Thanked 7,104 Times in 3,783 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK
    Here's my previous post which explains....

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the "defining" traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings?

    And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.

    M. K. Nawojski
    This is a terrific example of the logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Consequentiam fallacy or an "appeal to consequences" fallacy in which the author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

    It is a type of Red Herring and can take either of two forms.

    1.(Belief in) p leads to good consequences.
    (Where the good consequences are irrelevant to the truth of p.)
    Therefore, p is true.

    2. (Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
    (Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
    Therefore, p is false.

    Of course Mawojski's argument has taken the latter form. It is a fallacy of logic because it confuses the consequences of a logical conclusion with evidence for the truth of that conclusion.

    Wouldn't you agree with Bob and I that we would should do (and/or believe) right and risk the consequences?

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  5. #80
    Journeyman theo_victis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MINNY!!!!!!!!!
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    Do you realize -- in your zeal to make a point here -- that you're comparing the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, impassible Creator of All Things to created (or procreated) beings who have been immobilized through Alzheimer's or other mentally-debilitating diseases? Is that what you really mean to say?
    I am dissapointed with you. I thought you would have read through my post more carefully. I clearly stated that it was an example of how one could change their characteristics and still remain the same entity.

    I will repeat my question that i developed out of this. What makes God, God? isnt it his eternal state?

    Using these verses as proof text, you write that "Jesus... laid aside His divine attributes" during His incarnation. I challenge you to pause and consider these words. Because the Son of God voluntarily took on the "likeness of men", with their weaknesses and frailties (but not their sins nor their sin nature) -- and in His humanity, relied solely on the Spirit's power (which was given to Him "without measure") – does it follow that, in His deity, He ceased to possess the attributes that were His before the incarnation? If by the phrase “laid aside,” you understand that the Son of God’s power was eradicated or wiped out during that time, then you’ve missed the whole point of the passage.
    I didnt say eradicated. I did say laid aside. You are putting words into my mouth. Christ clearly cannot be all knowing during the incarnation if he had to learn. Christ clearly is not all knowing to this day since he does not know the day or hour the Father will return him. Is Jesus a liar? You missed the point of the passage in context with the Gospels all together. I used phillipians 2:6 to demonstrate that Christ made a central change, while still being in the very nature of God.

    Then i supported the fact that he was not omniscient because of verses in Luke, Mark, and Matthew. Get yer facts strait!


    Note further that Heb. 1:1-3 says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [emphasis mine].” This text tells us that the Son of God (1) created all things and (2) now holds them together (i.e., they continue to exist) by the word of His power. But if you believe the infinite power, which the Son possessed, was wiped out during His incarnation, Who do you imagine held the world together during that time?
    Did I mention omnipotence? I dont remember doing so but since you brought it up..... I will repost the verse in a clearer translation: NIV

    Heb 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
    Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
    Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
    Heb 1:4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

    I would like to point out two key points concerning this passage. I also took the liberty to extend the verse to verse 4 which you did not share with us (its ok, i dont always display the full context sometimes, but i try to implement it before i post it though). If you notice in verse 2 it says that the universe was made through Jesus by God.

    Secondly, verse 4 says that Jesus became superior to the angels after his ascending to heaven meaning that he once was lower then the angels during the incarnation:

    Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

    Obviously Jesus' divine nature changed but not his eternal status. Jesus died on the Cross but rose from the dead proving him victor over death.. Proving him to be God for he still remains eternal though dying.

    Now, to answer your argument. Since the other members of the Godhead made the world through Christ, i think that they would be suffice to hold it together, less you think they are incapable. Also, the hebrew passage you cited conflicts with your theological implication that Jesus held the world togethar during his human-god life span. This passage clearly places Jesus ruling in Heaven at the right hand of God so he could be holding the world together right now. However, it is my belief that God made the world through Christ before his incarnation (John 1:1-7) then Christ became incarnate, then Christ was raised back to glory.

    Do you assume -- because the Scriptures inform us that the Second Person of the Trinity, in His incarnation, became truly man -- He thereby ceased to be truly God?
    Did i ever assume that? I have never believed that Christ wasnt God at one point. He has always been eternal, making him God. God is God no matter how low of a servant he makes himself. Just read the Bible Jesus proved that to be true!

    Do you suppose Jesus of Nazareth had only one nature (human)? This is a vital point because the death of one finite man can pay for the life of only one other finite man -- but the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to redeem an incalculable number of men because of the infinite majesty and value of His person (i.e., His sacrifice was and is beyond price because of Who He was and is, truly God as well as truly man). If He had NOT been truly God, as well as truly man, would his death have been of infinite value?
    I believe that Jesus was truly God, truly Man. I never stated otherwise. I believe that Jesus is God today even though he is not omniscient (see Mark and Matthew Passages where he DOES not know his return time). And because Jesus does not know his return time, it is evident that he does not know the future, duh!

    To answer your quesiton: I believe that if Christ was just a mere man, according to anthanasuis' explotation of the arian controversy, Christ's sacrfice would not be sufficent. Since, however, Christ is God, his sacrifice is atoning for all who believe in him and repent of their sins.

    I pass over (1) your warning that I should not understand "God to be God because of His nature," (2) your reference to YOUR OWN “eternal nature,” and (3) your statement that “Surely Christ BEING WITHOUT COMPLETE OMNISCIENCE, EVEN TODAY is still God [emphasis mine]."
    What do you mean you pass over all of this? This was my main argument. Way to pick and choose evidence.

    And with the earnest desire that you will solemnly review your seriously flawed and somewhat incoherent opinions in light of the Scriptures, I close.
    I am missing where i am seriously flawed, and how can i be somewhat incoherent with Scripture? Either i hit the target or i miss it altogethar! Why dont you consider my arguments and claim to just pass over them?

    In my closing argument against your theological implications, i would ask you where did Christ gain his earthly power? from himself? or from the Father?

  6. #81
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,407
    Thanks
    1,926
    Thanked 1,859 Times in 1,373 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530131
    Quote Originally Posted by deardelmar
    Could it be that Bob believes there is more at steak than his pride?
    Mmmm... steak! With A1 sauce?

  7. #82
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    Thank you for your response. I had no idea that you lumpted all CVer's into the Calvanist camp and basicly you are debateing Calvanism Vs OV. I am a CVer but the things you were accusing me off were untrue and I found myself defending Calvanism; which is an imposability to defind. Now that I am aware of what you are doing maybe I wont get cought up as easyly.
    E4E, I do not lump all Settled Viewers into the Calvinist camp. Millions of the strongly oppose Calvinism. However, it is Calvinist immutabilty (from neo-platonism through Augustine) that brought about Arminian simple foreknowledge in the first place.

    So there's overlap. -Bob
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  8. #83
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377

    M K N's Oops

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    I am referring to all answers to my first post in this forum (the post which asked two questions but made no "claims" at all): i.e., "Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in 'discarding' what he calls the 'Settled View' listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the 'defining' traits of deity..."MK
    Oops.
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  9. #84
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    As for as I am concerned Dr. Lamerson need not answer any of Mr. Enyart's questions until Mr Enyart returns to the first post and addresses it effectively. He has not done so to this point.
    E4E: Now, after round four, will you agree that I have fully responded to Dr. Lamerson's arguments in his first post (along with answering everything else he's officially asked), so that we can have your nod for the Doc to proceed? -Bob
    Last edited by Bob Enyart; August 18th, 2005 at 02:38 PM.
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  10. #85
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    E4E: Now, after round four, will you agree that I have fully responded to Dr. Lamerson's arguments in his first post (along with answering everything else he's officially asked), so that we can have your nod for the Doc to proceed? -Bob
    He proceeds at his own risk as do you and the rest of us.

    PS That is what makes it fun
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  11. #86
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    E4E, I do not lump all Settled Viewers into the Calvinist camp. Millions of the strongly oppose Calvinism. However, it is Calvinist immutabilty (from neo-platonism through Augustine) that brought about Arminian simple foreknowledge in the first place.

    So there's overlap. -Bob
    You would not have your view if not for Darby. That does not make it right or wrong. Just a point of view.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  12. #87
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    You would not have your view if not for Darby. That does not make it right or wrong. Just a point of view.
    Wow, that's a nice ipse dixit. Care to try again?

    If our view is biblical, then we got it from scripture. What's stopping us from saying, "You would not have your view if not for Calvin (or Arminius or whoever)?"
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  13. #88
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,996
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 3,324 Times in 2,110 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623765
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    You would not have your view if not for Darby. That does not make it right or wrong. Just a point of view.
    Was Darby even an Open Thiest? That has to be the funniest post I've ever seen. Totally off topic and unrelated to a hill of beans.
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  14. #89
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley
    Darby Was an Open Thiest? That has to be the funniest post I've ever seen. Totally off topic and related Bob hill of beans.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  15. #90
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by RightIdea
    Wow, that's a nice ipse dixit. Care to try again?

    If our view is biblical, then we got it from scripture. What's stopping us from saying, "You would not have your view if not for Calvin (or Arminius or whoever)?"
    Nothing except I wasn't alive when these folks were. They didn't tell me anything. Except maybe you are a paranormal or something.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us