Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

William Barr: Religion is Under Attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
    Barr who seems quite willing to be Trump's Roy Cohn.
    If so, then he would be expected to be more accommodating to homosexuals, since Cohn was one according to Wikipedia (quoting Jeffrey Toobin quoting Roger Stone: ) "Roy was not gay. He was a man who liked having sex with men. Gays were weak, effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn't discussed. He was interested in power and access."

    Hmmm..."power and access"--everybody's downfall, including Satan's.

    I suppose Barr has had a conversion since he was George H. W. Bush's Roy Cohn in 1991-1993?

    More from Wikipedia (which is not usually so enthralled with conservatives):

    Barr enjoyed a "sterling reputation" among Republican and Democratic politicians alike.[26] His two-day confirmation hearing was "unusually placid", and he was received well by both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.[27] Asked whether he thought a constitutional right to privacy included the right to an abortion, Barr responded that he believed the constitution was not originally intended to create a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade was thus wrongly decided; and that abortion should be a "legitimate issue for state legislators".[27] "Barr also said at the hearings that Roe v. Wade was 'the law of the land' and claimed he did not have 'fixed or settled views' on abortion."[28] Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden, though disagreeing with Barr, responded that it was the "first candid answer" he had heard from a nominee on a question that witnesses would normally evade; Biden hailed Barr as "a throwback to the days when we actually had attorneys general that would talk to you."[29] Barr was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee, was confirmed by voice vote by the full Senate,[30][31] and was sworn in as Attorney General on November 26, 1991.[32]



    The point, of course, is that Barr was considered prime Attorney General material in 1991 by folks like Joe Biden, so the question must be asked: Who changed?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Derf View Post
      Hey Barb, is that comma intentional?

      Seems like with the comma, you are saying that all homosexuals are trying to do better, and I ask in what way do you think all homosexuals are trying to do better--as in trying not to have homosexual relations anymore? I don't see that.

      Without the comma, you would seem to be asking if Jerry's sins are nicer than only the homosexuals who are trying to do better, and I would admit the question is valid. Anyone repenting ("trying to do better") would have equal status with anyone else who is trying to do better ("repenting").
      Good point. And yes, anyone who is trying to deal with his sins, deserves our respect and support, even if they fail every now and then. That's what God's Church is for; sinners who want to do better.

      Anyone who blatantly flaunts his sin is either horribly misled or intentionally evil. One deserves our pity and one deserves our disgust. Neither of them, unless they impose their sins on other people, should lose the rights that are observed in the Bill of Rights.

      But both of these options seem to require that the homosexual be in the process of "trying to do better"/repenting in order to be compared favorably with Jerry and his sins.
      I assume Jerry is trying to do better, so yes. But even if he wasn't, I would defend his rights and argue against any unjust discrimination against him. Assuming he doesn't impose his sins on others, of course.

      Do you believe that with regard to homosexuality? In other words, do you believe that homosexuality is a sin in need of repentance?
      It's no sin to be a homosexual. It's a sin to act on it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Derf View Post
        The point, of course, is that Barr was considered prime Attorney General material in 1991 by folks like Joe Biden, so the question must be asked: Who changed?
        I'd venture to say that most in the GOP have changed in an attempt to justify their support of Trump. Do you remember what Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham used to say about Trump? What the heck happened to the GOP?

        Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

        Comment


        • #19
          "Religion under attack?" More like religion on the attack.

          Inside The Christian Legal Army Weakening the Church-State Divide
          New documents offer a window into the ideology embraced by a Christian-right legal powerhouse that enjoys unprecedented influence throughout the Trump administration.

          Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

          Comment


          • #20
            And this is timely:


            aderson francois ���� 14th Amendment Baby@abfrancois
            The Landing page for the US State Department website as of noon on Monday October 14.




            Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Derf View Post
              \The point, of course, is that Barr was considered prime Attorney General material in 1991 by folks like Joe Biden, so the question must be asked: Who changed?
              William Barr, it seems. Is there any person, who has associated with Donald Trump, who was not damaged by that association?

              Barr has come to the realization that he is expected to be Donald Trump's personal lawyer, and he had submitted to that expectation.

              To the point that he has now argued that Congress cannot even legally begin impeachment hearings if the president under investigation declares it illegal.

              Comment


              • #22
                All this nonsense from those who supported Hillary for President even though she destroyed thousands and thousands of her emails after they were subpoenaed.

                The Democrat party is the party of lawlessness and Friday marks the day when their lawlessness will be exposed to the whole world.

                Can you spell F-I-S-A?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  William Barr, it seems. Is there any person, who has associated with Donald Trump, who was not damaged by that association?

                  Perhaps John Bolton.
                  TRUST
                  is a fragile thing.

                  Easy to break, Easy to lose
                  and one of the hardest things to
                  ever get back.







                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                    I'd venture to say that most in the GOP have changed in an attempt to justify their support of Trump. Do you remember what Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham used to say about Trump? What the heck happened to the GOP?
                    The question was about whether Joe Biden or William Barr had changed. How does that translate into the republican party?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Rusha View Post
                      Perhaps John Bolton.
                      How would you know, since the mere association seems to be the problem?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                        William Barr, it seems. Is there any person, who has associated with Donald Trump, who was not damaged by that association?

                        Barr has come to the realization that he is expected to be Donald Trump's personal lawyer, and he had submitted to that expectation.
                        So you don't think Barr was corrupt when he was attorney general for the elder Bush?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Good point. And yes, anyone who is trying to deal with his sins, deserves our respect and support, even if they fail every now and then. That's what God's Church is for; sinners who want to do better.

                          Anyone who blatantly flaunts his sin is either horribly misled or intentionally evil. One deserves our pity and one deserves our disgust. Neither of them, unless they impose their sins on other people, should lose the rights that are observed in the Bill of Rights.



                          I assume Jerry is trying to do better, so yes. But even if he wasn't, I would defend his rights and argue against any unjust discrimination against him. Assuming he doesn't impose his sins on others, of course.



                          It's no sin to be a homosexual. It's a sin to act on it.
                          How does one impose his sin on others?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            How would you know,
                            He was wise enough to leave with his reputation still intact rather than selling out to the highest bidder ...
                            TRUST
                            is a fragile thing.

                            Easy to break, Easy to lose
                            and one of the hardest things to
                            ever get back.







                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Derf View Post
                              So you don't think Barr was corrupt when he was attorney general for the elder Bush?
                              Don't remember anything in particular. Notice that his corrupt behavior has to do with obstruction of a Constitutionally-provided Congressional impeachment investigation. So he was never in that position, previously.

                              (Barbarian checks)

                              There's a lot of allegations that Barr was involved (during the Reagan administration) in the transfer of weapons to Iran as ransom for the American hostages held by Iran. Reagan ultimately admitted that the ransom was paid, but there has never been any solid proof that Barr had a significant role in that, or in the laundering of money that was later funneled to the Contras.

                              Iran/Contra had many criminals in the Reagan administration who ultimately were exposed and jailed/pardoned/forced out of government, but Barr was not one of them. I'd be open to any evidence that he should have been, but I don't see that anyone has such evidence.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Derf View Post
                                How does one impose his sin on others?
                                Trying to force others to comply with one's prejudices or beliefs, for example. Pressuring others to sexual practices that are sinful. Things like that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X