🔥 Popular | Latest

Apparently, Dad, and Fashion: 110ROGER ZELAZNY 44 your purpose and you had to die. They left us small rights, we should have killed you--and you know it ng you with your life forfeit for attem it my lip. There were many things I might say. But THE HAND OF OBERON something approximating the truth, he did have a point. And I k Shadow physically in a somewhat similar fashion. He lays his min place he would visit, forms a kind of mental doorway, and simp steps through. For that matter, I believe he can sometimes tell what peopl thinking It is almost as if he has himself become some sort of livin these things because I have seen him do them. Near the enc ahen we had him under surveillance in the palace he had eluded us onc is was the time he traveled to the shadow Earth and ha times We did not yet know that he could summon things through Shadov he became aware that you had escaped your confinemen e summoned a horrid beast which attacked Caine, who was then his bood "Eric," he said, "figured that your eyesight might eventhually be knowing the way we regenerate-given time. It was a vety deet he can travel through Shadow with his mind, tha he seeks in Shadow, and then bring it not understand the power that he possesses," he said, "but it i chair locate what anyone's satisfaction-exce a move to sure his own continued reign beyond the t And I wil tell you frankly that he simply wanted to imprion vor an act of will without moving from the chair, and he ca pt for killing you. That would have been tor are "The whose idea was the blinding?" He as silent again for a long while. Then he spoke very sodil on oubls f Bedlam. After his recapture, one of us remained wit me out, please. It was mine, and it may have saved inst you had to be tantamount to death, ot their bet some future time. They could have used your Trump b thi t in the ibary when we brought him back. I which I do not understand re we could, and I did not see him again you, or they could have used it to free you in order to another move against Eric. Blinded, however, there was and you were of no use for an you by taking you out of the picture for a time, and it saved us from a noNot tota egregious act which might one day be held against us. As we saw t, he e once, wealy t totaly, then.," he said no choice. It was the only thing we could do. There could be no Fiona has similar strengths, and I believe Bleys did also. Between th of them, they could apparently annul most of Brand's power while the a case, I wonder how they managed to confine him at all?" ng e th r a time, have in mind Not totlly," I said. "He got a message to Random. In fact, he reache leniency either, or we might be suspected of having some use for gnke though the deteones The moment you assumed any such semblance of value you would hre heWht do you know of all their byplay with me-con a dead man. The most we could do was look the other way wheneve lil me, saving me." Rein contrived to comfort you. That was all that could be done. know of all their byplay with me-confining me, trying That I do not understand," he said, "except that it was part of the pow trugle within their own group. They had had a falling out amongst ther whe, and one side or the other had some use for you. So, naturally, o had ecover your sight that quickly, nor that you would be able to ou did. How did you manage it?" tleeas tying to kill you while the oth d couse, Bleys got the most mileage out of you, in that attack he launched "Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?" I said. shadow Earth, Well hati wWhat Brand told me, but it jibes with all sorts of secon "I said-never mind. What do you know of Brand's imprisommet He regarded me once more. "All I know is that there was some sort of falling out withoide afraid to let him run loose. When we freed him from their compm And you said you feared him enough to to l y now, after all this time, when all of this is history and the plen at tht a he ted again? He was weak, virtually helpless. Wathamk Tla you countenance Fiona in Amber," 1 said. "In fact, you are mo sosy mles id of us all. Pity Dad was always k the particulars. For some reason, Bleys and Fiona were afad d was apparently more afraid of having prisonment-Fiona Courne, he said, smling, "I have always been very fond of Fior ed. literatureandtrees:🌱

literatureandtrees:🌱

Save
Being Alone, America, and Apparently: Bill Postmus @billpostmus #BREAKING: Sen Marco Rubio Casts Deciding Vote For Obamatrade Without Even Reading It bit.ly/1LkalcV via @BreitbartNews <p><a href="http://proudgayconservative.tumblr.com/post/129611503937/italianguy617-proudgayconservative" class="tumblr_blog">proudgayconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://italianguy617.tumblr.com/post/129608874100">italianguy617</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudgayconservative.tumblr.com/post/129603997847">proudgayconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://italianguy617.tumblr.com/post/122332727470">italianguy617</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thinksquad.tumblr.com/post/122287004631">thinksquad</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/marco-rubio-casts-deciding-vote-for-obamatrade-without-even-reading-it/">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/marco-rubio-casts-deciding-vote-for-obamatrade-without-even-reading-it/</a></p> </blockquote> <p><a class="tumblelog" href="http://tmblr.co/m2cx9JmDPvLRlUf36wKZT7A">pinnuzza</a> Sorry though another hit against Rubio. Sure he is a nice guy, though not a true Conservative. Sadly same story with Dr. Carson. </p> </blockquote> <p>Boy are you and Breitbart dumb.</p> <p>That article was so poorly written and so contrived that it hurts to think people took it seriously. </p> <p>That vote was on TPA (”trade-promotion authority”) not TPP (”trans pacific partnership”). Not only had Rubio’s staff confirmed that he had read BOTH TPP and TPA at the time of the vote, but the vote wasn’t even on the trade agreement as this article tries, poorly, to insinuate. </p> <blockquote> <p>Sometimes you have to simplify congressional procedure, but this is absurd. Breitbart writes, “Breitbart News has given Rubio more than a month—and at least five separate opportunities—to answer whether he read the text of TPP before he voted for it.” This is flat-out inaccurate – Rubio hasn’t voted for TPP; that vote will come at some point in the future and he can vote against it then if he’s so moved. Obviously it is more likely TPP will pass if President Obama gets trade-promotion authority, but the comparisons to “pass the bill so you know what’s in it” are way off base. In fact, it’s widely acknowledged that we have to give the president trade-promotion authority in order to have a deal to vote on at all – a preliminary version of which, again, Rubio has read.<br/></p> <p>- <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420209/yes-marco-rubio-read-tpp-and-thats-not-even-what-he-voted-today-patrick-brennan">National Review</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Don’t get me started on the fact that a self-proclaimed “conservative” is hating on free trade. </p> </blockquote> <p>TPP is fast track, which was sadly passed. It’s correct TPA has not even held a vote. Nobody has read the TPA, which is impossible due to the complexity of the globalists anti-American bill, though the secret deal has been skimmed over.</p> <p>Apparently congress-critters weren’t allowed to read the bill except in a locked room by themselves and cannot share copies with their staff prior to the vote. No notes were allowed to be taken.</p> <p>Why the cloak-and-dagger shadiness? That alone makes me think it’s a bad idea. </p> <p>Plus, if Obama is for it and big businesses are for it (big business has establishment republicans like Ryan in their back pockets) that probably means still more manufacturing jobs going to third-world countries along with increased importation of cheap laborers to this country……both feature prominently in Obama’s&quot;<i>fundamental transformation</i>“ dreams for America.</p> <p> The fact that establishment Republicans are fast-tracking this before anybody can read it makes me suspicious. </p> <p>A lot of publication’s I usually agree with have been wrong, they’ve slightly mislead as The Federalists and the National Review. I’m no fan of Breitbart, though they’ve been more correct then your sources.</p> <p>So just as these publication’s your giving half truths. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. </p> <p>Rubio may looked over it, later at some point. He didn’t previously at time of publication and repeatedly dodged the question. TPP/TPP isn’t free trade, that’s just the leadership/White house pushing global government. I’ll give you ten reasons why TPA is bad news.</p> <p>Bottome Rubio has not truly read the Bill, nor have you and I. It’s sad when WikiLeaks has to leak it to the American people. For an example on January 15, 2014, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Environment Chapter and the corresponding Chairs’ Report. They’ve released a couple others, though just so you get the point.</p> <p><a href="https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pressrelease.html">https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pressrelease.html</a><br/></p> <p><br/></p> <p><b> Sovereignty will be lost</b><br/></p> <p><b> The TPP and TTIP are “living,” “evolving” agreements. </b><br/></p> <p><b> It’s being planned in secret. <br/></b></p> <p><b> The TPP and TTIP are not about “free trade.”</b></p> <p><b> It is an immigration Trojan Horse. <br/></b></p> <p><b> It merges America with China/Russia. <br/></b></p> <p><b> Could the TPP/TTIP be used to foist gun control on Americans? <br/></b></p> <p><b> The TPP and TTIP are corporatist schemes. <br/></b></p> <p><b> The TPP and TTIP are regional transitions in the push toward a world government. </b><br/></p> <p><b><br/></b></p> <p><i>Girl lol you’ve got no idea and are an establish big government/globalist shill. To be honest nobody truly knows about TPP in full. That included you’re Lord and Savior Rubio, yourself and I. It’s just a lot of rhetoric out there. </i></p> <p><i>The Obama Administration needs to do the right thing and make it unclassified. The TPP documents needs to be made available in full to the public.</i></p> <p><i>Go support Amnesty and the great plan to bring in ISIS. Real Conservative’s support free trade, though this is a Big Government globalism plot. </i></p> <p><i>Personally i’d just unilaterally reduce tariffs and let other countries tax themselves all they wanted. Though nope it’s all politics.</i></p> <p>  <a href="http://tmblr.co/mgU09FKcOayAZdlfD6PnFLA">lothlosthepalewarlock</a>  Rubio is the establishment, that’s Jeb Bush’s boy.</p> </blockquote> <p>There are so many things wrong with everything you just said. I apologize to my followers, because this will be quite long. </p><p><br/></p><blockquote><p>TPP is fast track, which was sadly passed. It’s correct TPA has not even held a vote. Nobody has read the TPA, which is impossible due to the complexity of the globalists anti-American bill, though the secret deal has been skimmed over.</p></blockquote><p>TPP is the Trans Pacific Partnership. It is NOT fast track.</p><p>TPA is the Trade Promotion Authority. Right off the bat you’ve proven you can’t read. </p><p>ANYONE can read the TPA. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1314">Here’s a link</a>. You could read it then, you can read it now. </p><blockquote><p>Apparently congress-critters weren’t allowed to read the bill except in a locked room by themselves and cannot share copies with their staff prior to the vote. No notes were allowed to be taken.</p></blockquote><p>Okay, but the trade deal hasn’t even been voted on yet. The reason they can’t take copies out is because it’s still in negotiation. Trade deals and negotiations are conducted that way normally. </p><blockquote><p>Why the cloak-and-dagger shadiness? That alone makes me think it’s a bad idea. </p></blockquote><p>Then I guess all trade deals are a bad idea, because that’s how we negotiate them. </p><blockquote><p>The fact that establishment Republicans are fast-tracking this before anybody can read it makes me suspicious.</p></blockquote><p>That’s not how TPA works idiot. When the trade deal is completed (it has not been completed or voted on to my knowledge) it will be sent to congress for them to review, it will also be viewable by the public. If congress has issues with it, the deal goes back to the negotiation table, then comes back to congress and is again viewable by the public. </p><p>The reason you can’t read it now is because it isn’t completed. The reason you couldn’t read it when that dumbass article was written was that it WASN’T COMPLETED. </p><blockquote><p>A lot of publication’s I usually agree with have been wrong, they’ve slightly mislead as The Federalists and the National Review. I’m no fan of Breitbart, though they’ve been more correct then your sources.</p><p>So just as these publication’s your giving half truths. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.<br/></p></blockquote><p>Your source is not correct in the least and neither are you. You don’t even know what TPP or TPA even is!</p><blockquote><p>Bottome Rubio has not truly read the Bill, nor have you and I. It’s sad when WikiLeaks has to leak it to the American people. For an example on January 15, 2014, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Environment Chapter and the corresponding Chairs’ Report. They’ve released a couple others, though just so you get the point.</p></blockquote><p>They released an uncompleted draft of an uncompleted negotiation. If the negotiation is not complete you can’t know what the end result will look like, so wikileaks is causing excitement over literally nothing. </p><blockquote><p><b>Sovereignty will be lost</b><br/></p></blockquote><p>TPP is aiming to actually protect the copyright and intellectual property of Americans.</p><blockquote><p><b>The TPP and TTIP are “living,” “evolving” agreements. </b></p></blockquote><p>They are currrently evolving because they are in negotiation. There’s no reason to believe that once they have passed they will continue to “evolve” or change. </p><blockquote><p><b>It’s being planned in secret. </b><br/></p></blockquote><p>Like EVERY trade agreement. </p><blockquote><p><b>The TPP and TTIP are not about “free trade.”</b></p></blockquote><p>Yes, yes they are. </p><blockquote><p><b>It is an immigration Trojan Horse. </b></p></blockquote><p>That’s TTIP, not TPP, and even that’s questionable scare mongering. </p><blockquote><p><b>It merges America with China/Russia. <br/></b></p></blockquote><p>It most definitely does not. </p><blockquote><p><b>Could the TPP/TTIP be used to foist gun control on Americans? <br/></b></p></blockquote><p>No. You’re using a blatantly stupid question as a “reason” that TPP is bad? Really? Wow.</p><blockquote><p><b>The TPP and TTIP are corporatist schemes. <br/></b></p></blockquote><p>Oh right, damn those evil corporations. You sound like you’d do just great in Bernie Sanders camp, you fucking populist. </p><blockquote><p><b>The TPP and TTIP are regional transitions in the push toward a world government. </b><br/></p></blockquote><p>You’re proof for this is what?</p><blockquote><p><i>Girl lol you’ve got no idea and are an establish big government/globalist shill. To be honest nobody truly knows about TPP in full. That included you’re Lord and Savior Rubio, yourself and I. It’s just a lot of rhetoric out there. </i></p></blockquote><p>Big government shill? That’s the best you can do? </p><p>At least my rhetoric isn’t formed by conspiracy theories buddy. </p><p>No, no one does know about TPP in full, because it’s NOT. COMPLETED. YET.</p><blockquote><p><i>The Obama Administration needs to do the right thing and make it unclassified. The TPP documents needs to be made available in full to the public.</i></p></blockquote><p>They will be. When the deal is fully negotiated, when it goes to congress. You are a really special kind of stupid. </p><blockquote><p><i>Go support Amnesty and the great plan to bring in ISIS. Real Conservative’s support free trade, though this is a Big Government globalism plot. </i></p></blockquote><p>I don’t support amnesty, neither does Rubio. I do support immigration reform and using common sense and fiscal responsibility when creating a plan to deal with those here illegally already. </p><p>In short, you have actually less than two brain cells floating around in that head of yours. I’m sorry I overestimated you. </p><p>Also the person who posted that link on twitter, you might want to look up a little background on him before you start agreeing with him on anything. <a href="http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20090115/the-rise-and-fall-of-bill-postmus-unraveled">Meth addicts are bit unstable. </a></p></blockquote>
Save
Animals, Bad, and Blessed: Your core values tell you "thou shalt not kill" but your killing machine says "Shut up God, this is 'Merica!" Pew pew <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://moofles.tumblr.com/post/41734084815/gop-tea-pub-proudgayconservative-well">moofles</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com/post/41733882076/proudgayconservative-well-actually-it-says">gop-tea-pub</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudgayconservative.tumblr.com/post/41731987426/well-actually-it-says-thou-shalt-not-murder-the">proudgayconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Well actually it says “thou shalt not murder”, the hebrew word does not translate as kill.</p> <p>There is a distinct difference between “kill” and “murder” even in our modern day legal system.</p> <p>If I kill a man who is attempting to murder or rape or rob me, that is not murder. That is self-defense. Which is exactly why (along with hunting and sports) that most gun owners own weapons.</p> <p>Congratulations for showing your stupidity again!</p> </blockquote> <h2>Exodus 22:2-3</h2> <p class="MsoQuote"><strong>Exodus 22:2-3</strong>  <sup>2</sup> “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.   <sup>3</sup> “<u>If the sun has risen on him</u>, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal jewelry and tools. In the dark, you have no way of knowing if someone is coming to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in that situation. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft <em>or worse</em> (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to prevent the commission of the crime).  </p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the second case, it says “if the sun has risen on him”, and you kill the intruder, you are guilty of his bloodshed.  The understanding is that in daytime, there is light, and you can discern the intentions of the home invader. The crime in question here is theft (“if the <strong>thief</strong>”). It is not legitimate to kill someone who is merely stealing your property. In creating civil laws, we see here that not all crimes are worthy of death.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the daytime, it is assumed that the intention of the intruder can be discerned. If he is a thief, he may not be killed by the defendant. However, if the intruder is there to commit a different crime—assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.—different laws/rules would apply. Though the crime of theft is not worthy of death, kidnapping was worthy of death (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) as was murder.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Matthew Henry writes: “…if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it, unless it was in the necessary defense of his own life. … We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves.” <br/><br/></p> <h1>Possession of weapons and skills with weapons a good and useful thing</h1> <p class="MsoNormal">Having looked at a number of passages that deal with weapons and self-defense, let’s spend a little time discussing Scripture’s view of owning weapons and being skilled in their use. The imagery of weapon use and skill at weapons use is often employed in Scripture, and it is often portrayed as a positive or desirable thing. The Lord’s might is something good, and it is often depicted using martial terms (Zec. 9:14, Psa. 7:13, 18:14, 21:12, 64:7, Hab. 3:11, Deu 32:42, 2 Sam 22:15). The Scriptures are a sword (Eph. 6:17; Heb 4:12). A sword comes out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 1:16, 2:16, 19:15).</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Possession of weapons is never discouraged in Scripture. In fact, in 1Sam 13:19ff, it is negatively reported that no spears or swords were found in Israel because of the Philistines:</p> <p class="MsoQuote"><strong>1 Samuel 13:19-22 </strong> <sup>9</sup> Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears.”…  <sup>22</sup> So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan. But they were found with Saul and Jonathan his son.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let’s look at two verses from the Psalms:</p> <p class="MsoQuote"><strong>Psalm 144:1</strong> Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:</p> <p class="MsoQuote"><strong>Psalm 18:34 </strong>He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Skill and ability to use weapons here, whether literal and/or metaphorical, is positively portrayed in these verses.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Further, we have accounts of David, not a soldier, not a law enforcement officer, but a youth, employing ranged weapons skillfully (with God’s help) against bears and lions. This is domestic use of lethal weaponry, non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by young David are not “kiddie” slingshots. They are powerful enough to kill a bear and lion—in today’s market, we’re talking about a .44 magnum, not a .22, in the hands of someone too young to be in the army.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We might be tempted to think that was just for dealing with animals that could threaten sheep. But aren’t <em>humans</em> worth even <em>more</em> protection than sheep?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We understand that according to Scripture, in matters not of worship or church government, whatever is not forbidden is permitted. I’m not making a claim that ownership of weaponry for the purpose of self-defense is <em>required </em>of the believer. It is not required, but it is <em>permitted</em> by Scripture.</p> <h2>Perspective</h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Fourthly and finally, keep the right perspective on this. Though we see sanction and even a qualified directive from Christ to possess personal weapons, we must remember three points. First, in the remainder of the New Testament, we have no further examples of believers taking up the sword. Secondly, the emphasis in the remainder of the New Testament is decidedly <em>not</em> geared toward the issues of physical self-defense or righteous use of lethal force. Rather, we see more emphasis on Godly living, suffering affliction and persecution for Christ, and grasping the precious doctrines of Christ and the Gospel.  Thirdly, possession of weapons and acquiring the skill to use them in self-defense is permitted but not <em>required</em> by Scripture.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Believers should be conscious that personal self-defense is legitimatized by the Scriptures, just as the use of construction tools, cooking tools, transportation tools are legitimized by Scripture. And these matters of self-defense should hold in our minds and in our affections the same position as those other legitimate, but transitory, matters.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The tendency in some circles is to make the topic of self-defense of <em>primary importance</em>. Though heavenly beings do battle and render judgments with the sword, in the perfection pictured in both the garden of Eden and in the Heavenly city, the <em>primary</em> activities are fellowship with God, fellowship with His people, singing in worship, and living in peace.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em>That</em> is our destination.<br/><br/>And there ya go. The Biblical explanation in short. The Bible also states that we are to obey the laws of man.</p> <h3><a class="bibleref" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A1-5&amp;version=ESV">Romans 13:1-5</a><span class="note"> </span></h3> <p>Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. <br/><br/><br/>You asked for it with your little contrived picture. You got an answer I am sure you will try and construe. Try being the key word.<br/><br/>Check mate. Try again with a new game.</p> </blockquote> <p>oh <em>snap</em></p> </blockquote>

moofles: gop-tea-pub: proudgayconservative: Well actually it says “thou shalt not murder”, the hebrew word does not translate as kill. Th...

Save