JoeHackett
| Favorite team: | Iowa State  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 5166 |
| Registered on: | 8/15/2016 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Listening to SCOTUS Birthright argument: WE ARE FRICKED
Posted by JoeHackett on 4/1/26 at 12:24 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
Peeking in this thread, I've read so many arguments regarding the intention of the framers regarding the 14th amendment.
Ironically, those same arguments are used by people who want to abolish or reframe the 2nd amendment.
Proof that no one really has convictions.
Intention does too much heavy lifting in your argument here.
There's a difference between objective intent and implied intent.
The argument for an originalist interpretation of the 14th is to examine the text and determine the intention of the people who wrote the amendment. What words were chosen and why.
The argument for implied intention with regards to the 2nd is to ignore the text and say that the framers obviously wrote one thing but meant a totally different thing.
1
re: Trump's little BFF Levin crashes out over Rogan
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/29/26 at 1:38 pm to tide06
quote:
there was no logical reason to believe he was going to govern as a neocon this go around.
Graham - Trump to talk to Speaker about plan to turn Ukraine aid into a no interest loan
I think there were signs. If you look hard enough.
re: Trump's little BFF Levin crashes out over Rogan
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/29/26 at 1:15 pm to tide06
quote:
You’re comparing shooting 150 missiles at Syria to a month long engagement with Iran involving $200B
I am because it demonstrates a pattern.
The guy who bombed Syria wasn't a dove or an isolationist, no matter how much you want to believe. If he's capable of doing that he was obviously capable of bombing Iran and *gasp* spending lots of money doing so.
This conversation is funny to me though. I'm still having the same arguments about Trump's neocon behavior from 2017-2020 but now with someone who's mad that Trump just now started showing neocon behavior.
re: Trump's little BFF Levin crashes out over Rogan
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/29/26 at 12:23 pm to tide06
quote:
What wars did Trump fight or start during his first term?
I said he bombed countries, the same thing he's doing now.
He bombed Syria when his daughter cried, he dropped one on Soleimani. He's always done this, not to this extent but this isn't really new.
re: Trump's little BFF Levin crashes out over Rogan
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/29/26 at 12:07 pm to tide06
quote:
If you’re arguing he was lying during the campaign about wanting peace I guess there’s an argument to be made it was all a campaign hustle, but there is no objective argument that Trumps actions during his second term are reflective of his rhetoric and promises on the campaign trail from a foreign policy standpoint.
In the primaries me and a few others were trying, in vain, to explain that Trump was way closer to the Lindsey Graham types than anyone else. Some people were fine with that and others pretended that we were bots.
So there's nothing to argue, Trump's entire first term was spent surrounded by Bushies, Graham, bombing countries, spending freely, talking big about border security etc... In between terms he helped get Ukraine money through a Republican controlled congress.
There are way too many Joe Rogan "I didn't vote for this" morons. This is exactly who Trump has always been and campaign rhetoric was obviously Trump lying. He's a pure politician, there's nothing he won't promise for a vote.
re: Trump's little BFF Levin crashes out over Rogan
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/29/26 at 11:21 am to tide06
quote:
but Rogan didn’t change, Trump did.
Trump hasn't changed at all. Low information voters convinced themselves that Trump 2.0 would be different and are now "crashing out".
re: Why aren’t we treating North Korea like we are Iran?
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/26/26 at 4:36 pm to rmnldr
quote:
And cyber attacked us multiple times.
Captured our naval vessels.
Killed our soldiers (after the Korean War).
Even fought us in a conventional war.
If the best you can come up with is a war fought 70 years ago that ended with an armistice, an attack over a tree and a cyber attack to imply that North Korea is just as much of an adversary currently as Iran then you've failed.
North Korea is an irrelevant enemy that loves to sabre rattle. Equating the two is only possible for those with brain rot.
re: Good Riddance to Kent
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/19/26 at 2:40 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Sharon was apparently against it but would follow our lead
So the actual position of Israel was that invading Iraq would be a bad idea that would lead to a power vacuum filled by a larger threat in Iran.
Some of the board might want to issue a few apologies and retractions.
re: Good Riddance to Kent
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/19/26 at 2:25 pm to The Baker
quote:
So now I can disregard everything else this person said?
That video shows Benjamin Netanyahu and says he's the "Former Israeli Prime Minister".
That begs two questions, who was the Prime Minister of Israel at that time if it wasn't Netanyahu? What did that person say to George W. Bush about invading Iraq?
re: Twink Fuentes Calls for Trump's Impeachment
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/18/26 at 11:42 am to jeff5891
quote:
He’s right. Some conservatives can only bend over so far.
He's wrong. Trump is the same person he always was. Most of the people upset at Trump 2.0 ignored Trump 1.0 while demanding Trump during the primaries.
People crying that they didn't know Lindsey Graham would have his ear aren't serious. Crying that they didn't know Trump would use the military to strike Iran aren't serious. Crying that they didn't know Trump would back Israel aren't serious. Crying that Trump isn't a fiscal hawk aren't serious.
Those were all well known positions Trump has had his entire public life and his entire first term. If people are mad that they voted for Trump and then got Trump instead of their imagined version of Trump, that's on them.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 9:21 pm to METAL
quote:
gathering
The word used is ekklesia. A gathering, assembly, meeting etc...
I will build My ekklesia
The same word is used elsewhere including in Acts to refer to a group of non-believers.
quote:
32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the [a]meeting was in confusion and the majority did not know [b]for what reason they had come together.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 8:49 pm to TigersWin88
quote:
In Aramaic, the word for both (Petra and Petros) is just Kepha, meaing Jesus Christ very well may have said the same word in both instances when speaking to Peter. It would read something like this, "You are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church."
It's all sort of irrelevant though, I know not to you but...
I will build My church.
Church as in gathering of believers.
I will build my gathering of believers, since believers are still being gathered that would indicate an ongoing process.
What does the Bible say it takes to join Christ's church? To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came to this Earth in human form, to die for our sins and was resurrected three days after his death.
So if all believers are welcomed into His church are they then members of the Roman Catholic Church? Obviously not. I'm sure there's some sort of process that involves more.
That would indicate that the church Jesus is referring to isn't a singular denomination or a specific gathering within a city but rather an assembly of all believers for His glory.
Ephesians 2
quote:
18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, is growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
re: Dune 3 Trailer
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 8:47 pm to Lsut81
quote:
I haven't read the books, so obviously don't know, but how does he come back after being killed in 2?
The first book is really great, after that it all starts to get really weird. I think Frank Herbert was getting a little high on spice and went a little nuts.
It's frustrating that they spoiled Duncan's return though. They did the same thing with Gurney. That would have been better for the audience if they didn't know he survived the Harkonnen attack and were surprised in the theater.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 2:38 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Trumps base does deserve better. We deserve not to be dragged into a war our "ally" wants. We deserve better than an "ally's" leader who gets up and tells his people not to worry, he owns us. We deserved DOGE with a congress willing to enact the changes. We deserve SAVE. We deserve to no longer be beholden to the MIC. We deserve so much more, but suddenly, we have GHWB.
Trump's base was told, repeatedly, who Trump was. Trump himself told you, repeatedly, who he is... You got the Trump you voted for. Be mad at yourselves and learn to vote better in the future.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 2:27 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Seems rather belied by the fact that most Catholics don't even know what it is.
Article wants to sort of have it both ways, though. I'd love so see the author take a stab as to what percent of Catholics he believes adhere to the ideas of "Catholic integralism" so as to constitute something more than a fringe movement. I'm pretty sure, I've never met anyone who does.
I don't know if I would characterize it as wanting it both ways since she also admitted that the majority of Catholics are unaware of integralism.
quote:
In fact, I would argue that but for the influencer and opinion shaper class, everyday Catholics don’t even know its happening.
However fringe it might be, it's important to know about and I would argue more important for Catholics so they can combat this idea within their own ranks.
Most Catholics I know aren't interested in open borders even though the Catholic Church is very instrumental in getting illegals into the US
If Integralism is at the heart of this in an effort to get more Central and South Americans, who are largely Catholic, into the country. I would argue that a fringe group is creating a rather large problem.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 2:16 pm to GRTiger
quote:
The article also claims turning the GOP towards Catholicism
Just for the record this is an actual example of a straw man.
You create an argument that wasn't made for the author so that you can easily defeat said straw man.
The author pointing out that there are actual people advocating for Catholic Integralism isn't an example of a straw man. It's just a fact.. You can dismiss it as a minor concern or something that is overblown but to call it a straw man is not accurate and quite silly.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 2:09 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I haven't seen anyone in here make the distinction as they see it. Do you put Catholics in different buckets?
That part seemed fairly clear. The distinction being between Political Catholic Integralism and "regular" Catholics or simply Catholics who don't want to change the foundation of our country..
quote:
Catholic integralism is not a fringe movement. Its leading figures include Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard constitutional law professor; Sohrab Ahmari, the former New York Post op-ed editor; Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political theorist; and Gladden Pappin, editor of American Affairs. These are among the most credentialed conservatives in America.
Integralism holds that Catholic moral theology should guide government, and it explicitly rejects the Protestant liberal settlement that built American constitutionalism: individual rights, religious liberty, separation of church and state. The founding documents of America are, in the integralist reading, a Protestant error.
...Vermeule has advocated for open immigration of baptized Catholics to overwhelm the Protestant demographic majority.
Integralism would explain the desire of the Catholic Church to get as many Central and South Americans into the country as possible.
quote:
The article also claims turning the GOP towards Catholicism
The article never mentions the GOP turning towards Catholicism but towards Integralism.
quote:
Integralism wraps itself in the language of faith, but it is not primarily a theology — it is a political program for the seizure of state power. Christ is not its center. The Church as a governing institution with coercive temporal authority is its center. There is a profound difference between those two things, and serious Christians of every denomination should recognize it immediately.
What integralism ultimately demands is not that more people come to know Jesus. It demands that a specific ecclesiastical hierarchy sit above elected governments, that civil law bend to Church authority, and that the democratic consent of the governed be subordinated to the doctrinal pronouncements of an unelected clerical class. That is not Christianity.
That is theocratic monarchy with a cross on the flag. It is the same basic power structure that the American founders explicitly rejected when they built a constitutional republic — they had seen what state churches did to human freedom in Europe for a thousand years, and they designed this country specifically to prevent it from taking root here.
When integralists attack the Constitution as a Protestant error, they are not defending Christ. They are attacking self-governance. And every conservative — Catholic, Protestant, evangelical, or secular — who believes that human liberty under constitutional law is worth defending should understand that integralism is not their ally. It is their opponent.
re: Ted Cruz Shares Anti-Catholic Conspiracy
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/16/26 at 10:57 am to Champagne
quote:
This op and thread is complete falsehood.
After reading the article I thought the same thing. Calling this "Anti-Catholic" is meant to end any meaningful discussion. Especially considering the author went out of her way to avoid this specific criticism.
quote:
A Necessary Distinction: This Is Not About Catholicism or Regular Catholics but about Political Catholic Integralism
Before mapping this operation in full, one clarification is essential — because without it, the analysis will be misread, and misreading it serves the operation’s interests.
This is not about Catholics.
The 70 million American Catholics who go to Mass on Sunday, vote their conscience, pay their taxes, coach Little League, and have been reliable partners in the pro-life movement for fifty years are not the subject of this investigation. They are, in a real sense, among its victims. The political integralist Catholicism being deployed in this operation bears no relationship to the ordinary American Catholic faith — it uses the vocabulary and symbols of a faith tradition as a vehicle for a power project that most practitioners of that faith would find alien and alarming. In fact, I would argue that but for the influencer and opinion shaper class, everyday Catholics don’t even know its happening.
What is actually being deployed is a specific ideological cocktail with three distinct ingredients, none of which represent mainstream American Catholic life.
re: Crash course on how to be a Jew hater.
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/14/26 at 4:43 pm to Geekboy
It is the way conspiracy theorists think. Everything is evidence of the conspiracy even a lack of evidence and anything that disproves the conspiracy is simply a part of the conspiracy. Most of the people who hate Jews do so because they are convinced Jews are at the center of most of their pet conspiracies.
re: Tucker & Candace: Israel is required to mass murder children
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/12/26 at 7:51 pm to tide06
quote:
Multiple sources are reporting it as a direct quote from Netanyahu.
Any reputable sources though? Because it's impossible to find outside of some random people on Facebook and Twitter. You'd think that quote would have made it into a major news story at some point.
The only story I can find is from Yahoo where they say they're unaware of any public comment by Netanyahu.
LINK
quote:
Additionally, it wasn't possible to determine whether the burnings played a role in the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. However, neither government has mentioned the Baal burnings as a grievance,
re: Tucker & Candace: Israel is required to mass murder children
Posted by JoeHackett on 3/12/26 at 11:58 am to tide06
quote:
Bibi immediately saying that it meant total war with Iran was weird though, right?
As far as I can tell Bibi never said anything regarding the burning of a statue. It appears to be something made up but maybe you have a better source than Buzztatler?
Popular
13
