dyecaster

@IcyVert They have no idea what to do. No identity.

I’m so confused I feel like the falcons announce the same exact jerseys every year

@MrWills96 Doesn’t matter who watches. Just do enough to qualify.

🚨🇮🇹 Gattuso: “Italy lost just two matches in the group, earned 18 points and still didn’t qualify for the World Cup. But 10 African teams qualified? Who is going to watch them? Are you going to sit in front of the TV for Cape Verde or Curaçao? These qualifying rules are absurd and unfair.”

@ASFleischman How do you screen for that?

The United States could pass a law tomorrow forbidding entry to any pregnant foreign national. Wouldn't require a constitutional amendment either.

@thesaltypapi @APostOfPositive @ferupity Outside of France, A has got to be the worst in the world, right?

@APostOfPositive @ferupity You missed Peruvian, southern Spain and Portugal, North Africa/Morroco, Venezuelan, and Southern California. Yeah, G is it

I’m taking D all day every day

@thesaltypapi @APostOfPositive @ferupity Yeah, that’s a sneaky little sliver of N Africa and Europe in there too!

@APostOfPositive @ferupity You can get all world cuisine in some of the big cities in G too. Don’t have to leave your current region.

@ferupity I cannot resist G as someone from Florida because I can get most American BBQ, Cajun, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Jamaican, Mexican and Southern, California (don't really find it special but just showing its can option), and some forms of Latin

@ebound @Noremac_Ma_i @thattradgal You too, brother!

@dyecaster @Noremac_Ma_i @thattradgal If that was the only verse, you might have a point. Consider that this was how it was interpreted from the beginning of Christianity. Have a Happy Easter!

He didn’t say; “This represents my body.” He didn’t say; “This symbolizes my body.” He said; “This IS my body.”

@ebound @Noremac_Ma_i @thattradgal But my point was those who left didn’t deny that it was his flesh as you implied, they thought he was literally talking about flesh and just were disgusted by it.

@dyecaster @Noremac_Ma_i @thattradgal He was talking about it and that's why they left... Why wouldn't he correct it then? 🤔

@bobda @thattradgal You have sent me over the edge with this one sir. 😂

@thattradgal In that case, he’s also literally a sheep. 🐑 “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29 I guess that makes eating him more tasty at least.

@ebound @Noremac_Ma_i @thattradgal Those who left him did literally believe he was talking about actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He clearly was not.

@Noremac_Ma_i @thattradgal So are you denying it's his flesh, like those who left Jesus in John chapter 6?

@thattradgal So he lied, or he was using a metaphor or an implied simile? Because obviously it wasn’t his body, his body was holding bread.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron I thought I was clear minded on how this should be interpreted having not given it a lot of thought until the last couple years, but you’ve given me good pushback that might change my mind on what the text is saying.

@dyecaster @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron All good. Fwiw I wouldn't mind if we got rid of BRC but I feel that the constitution and the rule of law are important. If we want to change it we'll need an amendment. We don't want the next Democrat president altering the 2nd amendment by executive order. Have a nice day.

A little history on the 14th Amendment and the "birthright citizenship" clause. I'm reminded that a lot of people do not know the process involved in bringing an amendment from concept to to ratification and law, or why that process matters. Jacob Howard (Senate) and John Bingham (House) were the two guys that drafted and presented the proposed amendment to Congress. Once submitted, there is debate. Members of Congress express concerns, propose changes, and so on. These debates are recorded for posterity to look back upon to better understand what the legislation is intended to do. Then, once Congress passes it and presents it to the States, there is the Ratification Process in which each State can debate and present their concerns. This leaves us with a tremendous record of why specific words and phrases were chosen and what the intent was. It informs the voters on exactly what the law means, straight from the framers of it, so that there is no confusion. This is why originalism is preferred to textualism. The law can only mean what it meant when it was adopted. Altering the meaning and intent of the law is altering the law itself and subverts the legislative process. Courts do not have that power. Sadly, that hasn't stopped courts from usurping that power. In the Ratification process, the very questions being argued before SCOTUS today, were addressed unequivocally. When asked if the amendment applies to foreigners, the framers themselves had this to say, explicitly: Howard said: “This amendment… declares that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” Then he immediately defines the limitation: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…” That is the understanding of the law as it was ratified. That is what We The People voted to enact. Furthermore, they went even deeper on what "subject to the jurisdiction" explicitly meant: Howard described jurisdiction as: “Full and complete jurisdiction… not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Allegiance. That was the crux of the debate and understanding. For those born here from citizens of another Nation: “They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in a certain sense, but not in the full and complete sense.” - Howard Full and complete. That's what makes someone subject to the jurisdiction. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” - Senator Lyman Trumbull at the ratification debates They explicitly rejected absolute jus soli (citizenship by soil alone). In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the court applied the English Common law standard of jus soli, flagarently against Congress's explicit rejection of it during ratification. The court rejected originalism in favor of textualism. As a result, this Nation ended up with a very different legal structure than the Constitution created. The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment did not establish birthright citizenship. It ensured that due process and the rights and privileges in the States are preserved. If you listen to the oral arguments before the court today, I expect that you'll see this argument put forth. Allegiance, not presence, determines citizenship.

@TheStaad The Passion of the Christ might have been a Catholic film, but the passion of the Christ was a Christian event.

The Passion of the Christ is a Catholic film When it came out, I was a Protestant. I did not fully appreciate what was seeing, although it did impact me As a Catholic, I see it much more clearly: it is a film version of the Stations of the Cross Everything is so much more clear, beautiful and profound when seen with Catholic eyes

@ComeHometoRome Scripture talks about the Roman Catholic Church?

I was lied to my whole life about what the Catholic Church taught and believed. I never got a truthful answer from any Protestant pastor. Once I finally researched it, I was brought to tears at the deepness of beauty, goodness, thoughtfulness, and above all, the eternal pillar of Truth that Scripture tells us the Catholic Church is. Thank you Jesus Christ.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron See my other tweet. I misremembered a word that changed the grammar that wasn’t there. I reread and realized. You are correct.

@dyecaster @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron A list of what? There's only one group of people. The sentence contains a noun, an appositive, a prepositional phrase, and a qualifier just like Howard's sentence. It's grammaticality analogous.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron Nope, I may have misread the text and you might be right. My mistake.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron That’s a different sentence construction. “,who earn an A” is not a noun, it is a parenthetical clause. The one-to-one would be “students, pupils, those who earn an A on the exam will receive a special reward.” Now the reward has been broadened bc it’s a list.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron It’s obviously dumb because only students and pupils receive exams. So why include A earners if they are included in students? This makes sense if you’re clarifying that A-earners are amongst students. That’s what was done with foreigners -> ambassadors.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron The implication is that a foreigner is someone who does not reside in country. It seems clear that it excludes visitors, tourists, and invaders from war.

@1ReganTaylor @Christo58699156 @Mark_McEathron That would imply then that ambassadors are the only people that fit the definition of foreigners then. Which doesn’t make sense. Ambassadors are mentioned to clarify that they are indeed foreigners even though they reside in the US much of the time.