I do place CNN and Fox in the same category.
That is how low CNN has sunk and how much better Fox has become in my experiences watching what amounts to garbage reporting on a whole.
Trump did this today blah blah blah but yes he still lusts after his daughter.
He is actually saying she is just a really hot looking young woman as he works in that business but lets go there anyway.
Fox is not pure propaganda.
You don't watch it enough to see the right people to know of what of you speak.
I don't simply watch what appeals to me or justifies my point of view which too many people like you are doing with the rise of the internet.
Relying on late night comedy shows who never show Fox News or Trump saying anything good is useless too.
Shep Smith, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace are pretty decent at giving you the news.
Yes Fox is a joke at times and seems to be in Trumps pocket but there is good reporting on there and some good reporters.
You just have to skip the garbage like Hannity a lot of the time and the judge jeannie idiot all of the time.
Laura Ingram seems to be there just to act the asshole.
Tucker can be good sometimes looking at the current insane trends.
I watch several sources everyday to get an overall view on how things get reported and it is eye opening.
I never liked what the Republicans and Fox did to Obama but 2 wrongs don't make a right and after all Fox News is just entertainment right?
CNN has been around how long?
It was once very respected.
You don't seem to be grasping my point.
I don't like most of how Trump does things.
Even when he is doing something good he ruins it sometimes by the way he words it.
I think he is being led by people and could have been a lot more palpable to the left but they have pulled the strings and yanked him back most everytime.
The birther thing showed how low class he will always be despite his money and gross looking home with all the ugly so called appointments.
I am saying he is playing the media and it is suffering as a result and the media by acting unprofessionally is playing along.

I feel that he probably won't make it. Sadly once you are accused of sexual anything with a female, you are pretty much fucked. There is no more innocent until proven guilty. Were I him, even though it has been scientifically proven that lie detector tests are inherently flawed, I would have volunteered to take one just to push past this.

On the flip side, the possible next nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett and there is precedent for them to completely skip the committee vote, so there is a good possibility that we can still get a conservative judge on the court. She has not been as harsh towards abortion rights either, so there is a silver lining.

Journey to the Line by Hans Zimmer makes a powerful soundtrack for this video. If you want to give it a try click the link below and (Skip Ad) then play both videos together. Music starts automatically at 55 sec.

https://youtu.be/TG9-j3eevL4?t=55s

Well, the video mentioned about this topic and then kind of went off-topic and then back. I think you could skip that filler part.

Why skip? Go to the beginning!

Sadly, in many parts of the world thanks to unexploded mines, this is no joke but more of a daily threat.
Either the clip is cut too short and the punchline is missing, or this just falls flat for me. I think I'll skip Four Lions.

Hoping they skip the real-world bits this time.

No such thing as skipping upper body day.

Reminds me of dancing spiderman:



(Not sure why the start time isn't working, but skip to 5:40)

Hmmmm....could you buy a $3 ticket to Paris....and use it? This seems like an amazing travel deal if you just skip the whopper.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

There are a few problems they skipped.
First, that bigger pie is still finite, but we act as if it's infinite, pretending that one person having billions doesn't adversely effect others, but that's simply not true.
Second, it overlooked the fact that those countries going through industrial revolution often do so by using other non industrial countries resources, making it impossible to industrialize everywhere....we would need at least one more planet to harvest.
Third, it never pointed out that the GDP increases caused by industrial revolutions were met with massive increases in population, which decreases the per capita net worth significantly. Doubling GDP while tripling population makes the average person have less, not more.

I'm disappointed they didn't mention the French revolution, caused largely by the wealth disparity they're discussing.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.

This video seems to be a long winded version of 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.

Unveiling of new $10 bank note
(skip to around 14:30)

I hear you brother. I have already earmarked an emergency "flights, tickets etc for Slayers last tour" fund. My wife is kinda annoyed that we might have to skip our 10th wedding anniversary, but she'll get over it