Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

I didn't say that your beliefs would. I am saying that someone who
shares your *religous beliefs* 100% might make a great *church* leader
but still be a very horrible choice as the leader of a *country*.

Which brings me back to my original point, people who vote *only* with their religious beliefs can cause a country a lot of problems if/when
they get what they want.

Ah - gotcha. Now I understand your position.

From what it sounds like, you are not one of those people, BTW.

LOL - I would hope not. :-)



... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

MRO wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue Nov 04 2025 04:16 pm

He regretted making man -

Gen 6:6 The LORD was very sad that he had made man on the earth. His

just for further notice, if i see scripture i mash the space bar

Your choice. You brought it up, so I quoted. :-)




... More Sugar!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

Gen 8:21 Their smell was pleasant to the LORD. He said to
himself, "I will never put a curse on the ground again
because of man. I will not do it even though his heart is
always directed toward what is evil. His thoughts are evil
from the time he is young. I will never destroy all living
things again, as I have just done.

In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all
living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.

Exactly! But he didn't say he regretted it. That's the point
I was making. :-)


... Insurance guy to Adam & Eve: I see you're not covered...
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all
living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.

"all" things by "flood", sounds like His attorney wrote in some
loopholes... :)



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.

Exactly! But he didn't say he regretted it. That's the point
I was making. :-)

Understood. Moving to the Religion echo to continue. ;)


* SLMR 2.1a * There are no answers, only cross-references.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-

In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.

"all" things by "flood", sounds like His attorney wrote in some
loopholes... :)

Genesis, and the four books that followed, are considered "The Books of
Law," after all. :D


* SLMR 2.1a * Whips & chains? Sorry, that's a hardware problem!
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Dumas Walker on Fri Oct 31 2025 07:24 pm

Okay - let me be a little more direct. If someone 'supposedly' shares
your belief but you think they would ruin things, do they really
share your beliefs?

In other words, if someone shares your beliefs about transgender,
that there is only two genders, would you support them? Because
if you believe that's not positive for the country as a whole,
then do you really have that belief to begin with?

That is an easy answer. The fact I agree with somebody does not mean he is apt for a position. I might support his ideas but think he is not a good candidate because he is incompetent.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Arelor wrote to jimmylogan <=-

That is an easy answer. The fact I agree with somebody does not mean he
is apt for a position. I might support his ideas but think he is not a good candidate because he is incompetent.

Okay - so if two candidates are both competent and capable, would you
vote for the one that shares your beliefs or not?



... Please hold... All our Taglines are busy at the moment.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Arelor on Wed Nov 19 2025 07:45 am

Okay - so if two candidates are both competent and capable, would you
vote for the one that shares your beliefs or not?

Yeah, if there was such a thing as a competent and capable candidate who shared my ideas, I would endorse him before others.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Okay - so if two candidates are both competent and capable, would you
vote for the one that shares your beliefs or not?

Yeah, if there was such a thing as a competent and capable candidate who share
my ideas, I would endorse him before others.

In the US, we've got real good at nominating persons who are questionable
in both categories for at least the last 3 Presidential elections. There
are many Americans who think it is OK to nominate/elect a real turd so long
as it pisses the "other side" off, or so long as that turd "checks a box."

For at least a few, pissing the other side off is the only qualification necessary. For more than that, checking a box is the only, or most
important, qualification.


* SLMR 2.1a * I'm heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP