Jump to content

admin

Jeb Bush: New Hampshire 'Reset the Race'

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

admin -
admin -
1
270

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Jeb Bush thanked his supporters for a strong finish in New Hampshire telling them they have "reset the race." He said the Republican party needs someone transparent and tested to beat Hillary Clinton, adding, "I'm that guy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    61,556
    Total Topics
    113,281
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,484
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    César Chávez
    Newest Member
    César Chávez
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Does it really matter who a person on here is ?  Does it matter if a person uses 10 different 'usernames' ? If a person can bring some info' to the table that is surely good ?  Then others can confirm or criticise that info.  But to waffle on about who a person is or is not, what good is that doing any of us ?  I have a theory that this Forum is run by JW Elders. The purpose of the forum being to study the feelings and actions of JW's, Ex-JW's, Apostates, et al.  Then those Elders report their finding to a superior body, and it may even get to the GB.   But this theory does me no good, nor anyone else, so I will keep it to myself  .  Coffee time. 
    • @Arauna  Quote " I think that things LOST are a better topic "  But it isn't the topic. You would want it to be because as I've noticed you don't seem to have any things GAINED'  The GB have lumped great weights onto the shoulders of the congregants and the GB nor Elders lift a finger to help.  Just as the Pharisees did, adding negativity but nothing positive.  What I'm showing is that the GB is not motivated by Holy Spirit, and is not moving the CCJW forward. It is stagnant, but wallowing in immorality. 
    • Look, I like you, and all. I really do. Besides, I owe you for constructive criticism of my books. I share your prioritization of the overall picture and your frustration at some ragged human edges. So should I play this way? Hmm. Ah, well, I have a touch of OCD. Everyone knows it. I’ll ask for forgiveness later: “Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them. Then Jehovah said to Satan: I mean, come on! There! Now, a couple of caveats. Of course, he is not the devil. Nor is it the whistleblower talk that prompts the characterization. It is the atheism in combination with his relentless opposition—he has spurned and opposes EVERYTHING, not just characters of the past that appear squirrelly. And his plain self-worship, as manifest by his need to correct every little detail....who does THAT remind you of? Nor, obviously, are you Jehovah—any more than I am.  https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/11/oh-no-i-would-never-presume-to-compare-myself-with-the-most-high-god.html
    • Every word emanating from my keyboard is laden with value. They positively reek with the stuff. All words from any other source should be disposed of. There is one or two Dilberts from JTR that are pretty good, but other than that.....out to the curb with everything except my posts! My favorite memory with Alan is when he was carrying on about his atheism and evolution, and I came onboard as Dr. Adhominem or someone to discuss learnedly with him the problem of persuading the rank and file about evolutionary psychology, since there really is no evidence and its little more than wishful evolutionist thinking—to see how long I could pull the scam before he knew he was being had. It went for two or three comments. Of course, it was completely unfair on my part, but he has such a blustering manner and a manifest need to prove himself RIGHT on EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, even those having nothing to do with the thread, that I couldn’t resist. Call THAT not contributing anything of value? Now watch him respond that he knew instantly that Dr Adhominem was a fraud, for it is very important to him to NEVER be in the wrong over ANYTHING. I mean, the guy has a personality that smacks  of waving a red flag before a bull. And he has NO sense of humor. A “juggernaut,” Witness called him. It will be very hard for me to refrain from saying much. I will try my best, but it will be hard. It is a huge consumer of time, so I’m not eager to commit that sin again, and besides, I don’t want to get The Librarian (that old hen) mad at me once more.  
    • Per Wikipedia, The Constitution says: "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." When the Constitution was written, the terms "high crime" and "misdemeanor" were both used in senses that are quite different from the way we've come to think of them today. The original sense came from the laws that the framers had themselves been under, the British laws, which had used the term since as far back as 1386. It was originally a phrase to highlight the fact that almost any kind of "maladministration" --even things we might think of as NON-crimes-- could have a magnified effect due to the "high office" of the official, judge, president, etc. Most of the items that were considered "maladministration" would not be considered much of a problem at all if you or I practiced them. But they could become a perverting of justice or subject the populace to the ill effects in a way that only a person in high office had the ability to do. When James Madison discussed the formulation of the "constitution" with Mason, they started out with only Bribery and Treason, but Mason argued that the definition of Treason is too narrowly tied to enemies when at war, and that this would hardly cover situations when a president "attempts to subvert the Constitution." So the British term "maladministration" was suggested and then, after discussion, changed it to the more formal British term "high crimes and misdemeanors." According to the Wikipedia article on "Maladministration"  it means the following in UK law: The definition of maladministration is wide and can include: Delay Incorrect action or failure to take any action Failure to follow procedures or the law Failure to provide information Inadequate record-keeping Failure to investigate Failure to reply Misleading or inaccurate statements Inadequate liaison Inadequate consultation Broken promises That's such a vague definition that Madison said it would be the equivalent of just having a President who served at the pleasure of the Senate. It would "normalize" impeachment, and therefore the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was deemed closer to the idea of "subverting the constitution." The phrase was definitely intended to narrow the reasons that the Senate might try to impeach a President, but was also a way to include things that would not nearly reach up to the definitions of bribery and treason. In Britain the phrase meant abuse of a high office even if the abuse did NOT violate any criminal laws. So this is how legal scholars have also applied it to the US presidency, usually with a focus on any subversion of the Constitution. The Wiki article on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes the following that gives an idea of how the original framers understood it: Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[10] The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[11] The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[12]
    • France is in shambles right now. To this day the Yellow Vest still march, and as even stated before, which turns out to be true, protests everywhere, in and outside of France. The Americans will get quite the treat in a few weeks, this I am sure of due to the ongoing chaos we see now.
    • @Arauna Not all educated people know their Bible. Sadly, you have some Christians and preachers proclaiming positive by means of showing that the Bible supports Homosexuality and exploiting the love and forgiveness that is God and through his Christ. But yes, the majority of the world is intertwined with the false teachings of mainstream Christendom, this includes what you've mentioned False teachings, practices, etc of which this world's Christianity's embraces needs to be refuted. Another thing is, false teachings such as these are the very ones that is actually declining Christendom and putting Islam and Spirituality on the raise, so in this sense, Trinitarians are indirectly harming themselves, but makes the job harder for legitimate preachers of the truth to teach the truth of the Bible. The truth of the Scriptures are interpreted differently by some, but the core conclusion is what is needed to be proclaimed in regards to the Bible in order to push out a professed truth - in short, someone may speak of what happened at Mount Gerizim differently and or what is in Revelations differently, but the core conclusion to said teaching is what remains the same, and said teaching must be taught to the people and or the person in the Bible study itself - helping said reader to not just read, but also to apply, and even meditate on what is learnt. Then you have Apostates who teach and twist and even throw in a bit of hate, I had my far share of such ones who claim to be Christian and defend false teachings and preach that Jesus loves everyone and that homosexuality is okay, or the fact that God has no care for the Earth he has created - they are gravely wrong. That being said, falsehood is everywhere, but there is and always will be a small handful of people who will minister and teach the truth, often times such ones are the very ones who are targets.  
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.