William Barr: Religion is Under Attack

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
\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.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
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?
 

Derf

Well-known member
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?
 

Derf

Well-known member
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?
 

Derf

Well-known member
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?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
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.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
How would you know, since the mere association seems to be the problem?

Bolton seems to have refused to sell out his personal beliefs and ethics. So he didn't last long. Jeff Sessions made it out of the administration without Trump sliming him to any significant extent.

Those are exceptions that prove the rule.
 

Derf

Well-known member
He was wise enough to leave with his reputation still intact rather than selling out to the highest bidder ... :)

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.

My point, Rusha, is that if you read further down in the Wiki article (or other sources), which Barbarian seems to have done, he doesn't seem to have been so angelic as you seem to think he was--according to the same Wiki article I quoted from.

If he was somehow culpable during the Reagan years, it hardly seems like Joe Biden and friends would have approved him so heartily the first time.

Something HAS changed between 1991 and 2019. Homosexual groups have insisted on teaching our children about homosexuality, and trying to paint it in a good light. That's what Mr. Barr was complaining about. The New Jersey law "requires that middle and high school students learn about the social, political and economic contributions of LBGT individuals, but leaves it up to local districts to determine how to teach those lessons." (from northjersey.com)

Personally, I don't think this law does anything at all except try to appease a group that Barbarian admits is in sin, and the push for the law is the greater one in his opinion, since it tries to introduce the sin of homosexuality to children in a positive light.

The reason it doesn't do anything useful is that the accomplishments of homosexuals have always been taught. Who doesn't know about Alexander the Great or Nero Caesar or King James I? The part that was missing is not their accomplishments, but their sexual preferences. So the law's only addition to real history or politics, etc., is to bring to the mind of children the idea of homosexuality.

Do you think that is healthy? Do you think it is a good idea to focus on the deviant sexual preferences of historical and political figures? Would it be ok, in your mind, if the New Jersey school teachers made much of Nero's homosexuality as they described his penchant for lighting people on fire and hanging them in the streets for torches?

As long as it goes like this, I'm not really opposed to the law:

Teacher: "Class, today I want to tell you about Nero. He was a homosexual, and he was so very cruel to people he disagreed with, that refused to acknowledge him as a god. No doubt, he was deranged, which may very well be part and parcel with homosexuality."

Students: "Wow, Teacher! I'd sure like to be like Nero!! Do you know any Christians I can torch?"
 

Rusha

Silence Is The Best Reply To A Fool ...
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My point, Rusha, is that if you read further down in the Wiki article (or other sources), which Barbarian seems to have done, he doesn't seem to have been so angelic as you seem to think he was--according to the same Wiki article I quoted from.

If he was somehow culpable during the Reagan years, it hardly seems like Joe Biden and friends would have approved him so heartily the first time.

Something HAS changed between 1991 and 2019. Homosexual groups have insisted on teaching our children about homosexuality, and trying to paint it in a good light. That's what Mr. Barr was complaining about. The New Jersey law "requires that middle and high school students learn about the social, political and economic contributions of LBGT individuals, but leaves it up to local districts to determine how to teach those lessons." (from northjersey.com)

Personally, I don't think this law does anything at all except try to appease a group that Barbarian admits is in sin, and the push for the law is the greater one in his opinion, since it tries to introduce the sin of homosexuality to children in a positive light.

The reason it doesn't do anything useful is that the accomplishments of homosexuals have always been taught. Who doesn't know about Alexander the Great or Nero Caesar or King James I? The part that was missing is not their accomplishments, but their sexual preferences. So the law's only addition to real history or politics, etc., is to bring to the mind of children the idea of homosexuality.

Do you think that is healthy? Do you think it is a good idea to focus on the deviant sexual preferences of historical and political figures? Would it be ok, in your mind, if the New Jersey school teachers made much of Nero's homosexuality as they described his penchant for lighting people on fire and hanging them in the streets for torches?

As long as it goes like this, I'm not really opposed to the law:

Teacher: "Class, today I want to tell you about Nero. He was a homosexual, and he was so very cruel to people he disagreed with, that refused to acknowledge him as a god. No doubt, he was deranged, which may very well be part and parcel with homosexuality."

Students: "Wow, Teacher! I'd sure like to be like Nero!! Do you know any Christians I can torch?"

How very interesting... and irrelevant. IF Barr wishes to advocate for religious values, he needs to find a different messenger to relay the message. He has confused his own character with Christian values. He is known by the company he keeps.
 

Derf

Well-known member
How very interesting... and irrelevant. IF Barr wishes to advocate for religious values, he needs to find a different messenger to relay the message. He has confused his own character with Christian values. He is known by the company he keeps.

I guess I'm misunderstanding your complaint. Who is Mr. Barr's "messenger" in advocating for religious values? Jerry's post talked about Mr. Barr delivering a message to some people at Notre Dame. A message is usually delivered by the "messenger". Are you saying that Mr. Barr is not allowed to be his own messenger? That he must get someone else to "relay the message"?

Or are you saying that Mr. Barr is not allowed to have a message at all, whether delivered by himself or someone else? Such would be an odd requirement, given the statement above your avatar: "Censorship is the height of vanity".
 

Derf

Well-known member
Bolton seems to have refused to sell out his personal beliefs and ethics. So he didn't last long. Jeff Sessions made it out of the administration without Trump sliming him to any significant extent.

Those are exceptions that prove the rule.

Which of Bolton's or Session's beliefs/ethics would they have had to sell out if they stayed?
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
So homosexuals who flaunt their sin, and work at forcing Christian people to bow to their sin and accept it, are "doing their best". Doing their best to what? Entrench their sin into society as a whole? They certainly aren't showing any repentance for their sin and reformation, i.e. stopping their sinful behavior. To even suggest that they are "doing their best" to overcome is what I would call a gigantic whopper of a lie.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Which of Bolton's or Session's beliefs/ethics would they have had to sell out if they stayed?

Bolton would likely have dragged Trump across his desk, if he had told Bolton to betray the Kurds.

And Sessions would have had to withdraw his recusal in the Mueller investigation.

Neither of them are necessarily shining examples of government ethics, but they did have limits.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yeah, I would. Although transvestites are usually heterosexuals.

How many public school districts have you found that have "drag queen story hour?"

Me neither.

From a quick google search:
Bring DQSH to Your School – Drag Queen Story Hour
https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org › nyc › school
Looking for a fun and dynamic way to teach your class about gender diversity? Drag queens trained by children's librarians read picture books, sing songs, and ...


and from the Brooklyn Public Library's web site:

What do drag queens and children have in common? They love dressing up and all things sparkly and fancy!
Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. Drag Queen Story Hour captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity in childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.




Apparently you didn't look too hard. But notice the purpose: to give kids a positive view of queer role models. Isn't this what you called "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." Isn't that what Barr was trying to speak out against--Homosexuals forcing others to comply with their own prejudices and beliefs?

If Barr spoke out against something you think is bad, why do you oppose his message?
 
Top