Thanks, Victor. Like many slightly fevered first drafts, I found I needed to go back and edit just a tad . . . I am frankly aghast that any serious Christian would vote for that rat, who does not merely break the commands of God, he brags about breaking them. Hope people will share.
I find your rant overwrought and simplistic, Joe, and frankly not all that careful with the facts. You seem to think Rubio would be just as bad as Trump, which is nonsense. Rubio appears to be a decent person with reasonable positions, who I expect would do much better than the grotesquely dishonest Hilary Clinton, supporter of the "body parts for sale" organization Planned Parenthood and an enabler of her predatory husband.
And then there's this:
"At a time when every scientist around the world predicts dyer consequences of not reducing carbon emissions, the right wing convinces America it's a lie of big gubern-ment and it's fine to keep polluting. We are talking about our own extinction."
But it's not true that "every scientists" predicts that -- I know many who remain intensely skeptical of the doom-and-gloom predictions. They may be wrong, but you badly overspoke.
Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW.
And the term "gubern-ment" seems to imply that conservatives don't think we should have one - that would be anarchists or perhaps libertarians, you've got your ideologies confused.
Blogger David B Marshall said... I find your rant overwrought and simplistic, Joe, and frankly not all that careful with the facts. You seem to think Rubio would be just as bad as Trump, which is nonsense. Rubio appears to be a decent person with reasonable positions, who I expect would do much better than the grotesquely dishonest Hilary Clinton, supporter of the "body parts for sale" organization Planned Parenthood and an enabler of her predatory husband.
I have heard Rubio say he would abolish the EPA. I heard him say government regs on pollution are dragging down freedom to make profit. now if you think that's just a minor thing your understanding of the social good is less that of Nixon who made theEPS.
And then there's this:
"At a time when every scientist around the world predicts dyer consequences of not reducing carbon emissions, the right wing convinces America it's a lie of big gubern-ment and it's fine to keep polluting. We are talking about our own extinction."
But it's not true that "every scientists" predicts that -- I know many who remain intensely skeptical of the doom-and-gloom predictions. They may be wrong, but you badly overspoke.
I don't know who you mean. I know about 5% of contributing American scientists think Climate change is not man made 99% or scientists in other countries know it is man made. or at least man exacerbated. There are a bunch of people with science related degrees who are not contributing scientist but are right wing talking heads. The right has shaken the public's confidence in the science that's why science types speak of science deniers.
Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW.
Rubio said we need to abolish the EPA. I
And the term "gubern-ment" seems to imply that conservatives don't think we should have one - that would be anarchists or perhaps libertarians, you've got your ideologies confused
Obviously I spoke of a dichotomy between reasonable conservatives and Trump's Lumpin proploteriot. The interviews of Trumpies I've heard indicate a David Duke eleememt and a ,pore uneducated libertarian type who uses the anti-government rhetoric abut is not in command of the facts. that's who I was mocking. Obviously that wou8ld not include McCain whom I respect and those of his ilk.
Official positions and statements by Rubio. look how much ne leaves to the states. If you leave any environmental stuff to Texas, us Texans will be up to our eye balls I pollution.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Marco_Rubio.htm
Click here for 9 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment. Fix environment with free market, not government mandates. (Feb 2014) State-run insurance carriers mean more taxpayer subsidies. (Jun 2012) Partner with private companies for transportation system. (Nov 2006) Hurricane Savings Accounts for homeowners' insurance. (Nov 2006) Utilize toll revenues to widen & improve expressways. (Nov 2006) Increase funding for making homes hurricane-resistant. (Nov 2006) Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013) Rated 20% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012) No EPA permits required for forest road runoff. (Jul 2013)
Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.
Whitehouse Amdt. No. 803 to S.Amdt. 799 to S. 601 (Water Resources Development Act of 2013): To create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote the protection and conservation of United States ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This measure was part of the RESTORE Act, [but] this piece of it fell out of the bargain. If you supported the RESTORE Act, you have already supported this bill. If you believe that deals should be deals in the Senate, then you should support this bill. It is very important that we as a body support this bill. It does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. It works within the existing government, and it adds no funding. MississippiRiverDelta.org Summary of RESTORE Act: The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) dedicates 80% of all Clean Water Act penalties paid by those responsible for the 2010 gulf oil disaster to Gulf Coast restoration. Proponent's press release supporting Yes vote: The National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes Act would provide steady funding that universities, non-profit organizations, and government agencies can count on every year to support research and restoration projects. It would be funded primarily by dedicating 12.5% of revenues from offshore energy development, including oil, gas, and renewable energy. Revenue is generated through offshore lease sales and production based royalty payments. Funds from the Endowment would be distributed through a competitive grant program to fund projects to restore habitat, manage fisheries, plan for sustainable coastal development, enhance ocean monitoring and research activities, acquire coastal properties for preservation, and relocate critical coastal infrastructure. Reference: National Endowment for the Oceans; Bill S.Amdt. 803 ; vote number 13-SV116 on May 8, 2013
No EPA permits required for forest road runoff.
Rubio co-sponsored Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act Congressional Summary:Amends the Clean Water Act to prohibit the EPA from requiring permits for a discharge of stormwater runoff resulting from silviculture activities. Opponent's argument against bill: (Evergreen Magazine and Washington Forest Law Center): In Aug. 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that polluted stormwater generated by logging roads is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. [The ruling meant] that rain runoff from forest roads constituted an industrial (not forestry) activity, which should be considered a "point source" discharge under the CWA. The lawsuit was brought because forest roads have been dumping sediment into rivers that support myriad species of salmon and resident trout, all of which are at risk from the pollution. The ruling will require State agencies to issue permits and ensure that road construction and maintenance practices limit or eliminate such discharges.
"Why no Christian should be Caught Dead Voting for Donald Trump"
At the same time, it has been true for *decades" that no Christian should ever be caught dead voting for any Democrat for any office, whatsoever; yet, somehow, that never seems to concern you "liberals".
Well, I no longer have a dog in this fight, since my own preferred candidate dropped out some time ago. But if one were to wait until someone came along who offended none of the basic principles of even minimally decent behavior, no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election. The last true Christian to run for the presidency was probably Jimmy Carter, and look where that got us!
Oh come on, PL. Even with his faults, Reagan has more claim to having been a true Christian than Carter did. At best, Carter was a churchian.
"Well, I no longer have a dog in this fight ..."
Look on the bright side -- it's almost guaranteed that Obama's reign as "worst president since X" (and Carter's reign as "second worst president since X") will be short-lived, as they'll both get to move up a notch.
"Why no Christian should be Caught Dead Voting for Donald Trump"
At the same time, it has been true for *decades" that no Christian should ever be caught dead voting for any Democrat for any office, whatsoever; yet, somehow, that never seems to concern you "liberals
that's because its nonsense. In the election 2012 I compiled as list of everything the Bible says about the poor. essentially it says god is on the side of the poor those who oppress the poor are past. every single "evangelical" that read it say they Bible says don't be lazy."
they essentially slough the care for the poor verses ad rationalize the murder of the poor by the 1% blood sucking leaches that own America. that'd Godly. life ends at birth. we must protect the unborn and once they are born we need to starve them or work them to death.
caring about the poor and oppressed is evil Godless liberal stuff, and starving them exploiting workers is Godly.
Well, I no longer have a dog in this fight, since my own preferred candidate dropped out some time ago. But if one were to wait until someone came along who offended none of the basic principles of even minimally decent behavior, no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election. The last true Christian to run for the presidency was probably Jimmy Carter, and look where that got us!
what is that quote about good men doing nothing? you are rationalizing abdicating responsibility.1% of population controls 90% wealth and gives 90% of campaign money along with corporations and that's because Christians threw their principles away under
Reagan to feel secure and Godless because they feared the end times.
Hinman, you're a fool and a liar, but I repeat myself. You're a covetous leftist, but I repeat myself.
The Bible does not say the "[G]od is on the side of the poor". The Bible demands that we favor neither the rich nor the poor -- the Bible says that God is on the side of justice.
Hinman, you're a liar. Even if there should happen to be some nugget of truth in your previous post -- and I'm not going to waste a moment of my time trying to determine if there is -- you are saying it in service of the Lie.
Reagan brought down the USSR, and you and your leftist ilk will never forgive him for that.
"Oh come on, PL. Even with his faults, Reagan has more claim to having been a true Christian than Carter did. At best, Carter was a churchian."
That's why he has spent so much time with Habitat for Humanity because he's so unchristian. Let's look at Reagan's Christianity.
Reagan supported the contras and the government of Guatemala, and El Salvador.. He said Reos Mont was a :Godly man." Raos Momnt murdered 50,000 Indians and said they were not human, they were demons. Is that Christian?
In the 80s I was involved with the sanctuary movement and the solidarity movement. I met the Nicaraguan Ambassador and I talked with people who escaped death squads. Some I talked with saw their villages gunned down, both men, women, and children by Reagan funded government in Guatemala.
The contras would indiscriminately murder women and children they cut off little grills heads and put them on poles and said this is what's going to happen to daughter if you support the Sandinistas.
Is that your idea of what Jesus tells us? I talked to the people who saw this.
440 observers from 4o nations observed the Nicaraguan elections and they all said they was exemplary. Every major human rights organization cleared the FSLN of any torture or oppression of the masses. I'm not saying they never did anything wrong but we dispersed the lies and rumors for years through our research.
I had a friend who went to El Salvador as part of a human rights commission fact finding tour. He found a human leg on his door the first day and a hand print in white paint (white hand was a death squad in El Salvador).They supported the Reagan backed government. It was well known the Death squads were funded by the Reagan backed government.
The Godly Christians that Reagan backed murdered Priests, nuns and the Archbishop (Romero). The evil Godless commies in Nicaragua printed Bibles and taught people to read out of the Bible. I know that for a fact because a Catholic Priest who was there told me.
In spite of all of this I would bet Reagan would be appalled by Trump
I can document everything I said. write to America's watch and ask them about the Regan backer governments.
Even if there should happen to be some nugget of truth in your previous post -- and I'm not going to waste a moment of my time trying to determine if there is -- you are saying it in service of the Lie
don't confuse me with facts right? you choose to be in the dark because you face truth. Tell me is God the God of self deception? Is God the God of ignorance of truth? who has the Christian attitude brother?.
Reagan brought down the USSR, and you and your leftist ilk will never forgive him for that.
How did he do that? He was only in four years and the trends that brought them down can be traced back to Stalin, That's why Cruschev tried to be a reformer because they were screwed all along.
Ok remember what Jesus said, pretending you know the truth and ignoring the facts will set you free.
I am doing no such thing. Joe, you are always misreading everyone's comments on this site - of believers and non-believers alike. Read what I said carefully: "If one were to wait until someone came along who offended none of the basic principles of even minimally decent behavior, no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election." Emphasis on the "if". In other words, I am not sugesting that Christians sit out elections - quite the reverse. I am suggesting that they might (again, "might" - not "should") need to hold their noses and vote for "the lesser of two evils".
(And I do agree with you that it would appear that Carter was a more "Christian" president than Reagan. Now, as to who was the more competent, well...)
And to Ilion: I usually agree with you on most things, but as to who brought down the Soviet Union, I'd have to give the lion's share of the credit to Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II (and maybe Boris Yeltsin as well). Reagan was a relatively minor player in that drama. He only seems greater than he was when viewed through a myopic American perspective.
NOWHERE is the Bible does it say to "favor the poor" -- it in fact says the *opposite*: favor neither the rich nor the poor
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that merely by being rich "the rich" "oppress" "the poor"; for, after all, the Bible is not an irrational document, and it is concerned with representing the world as it really is.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it praise poverty nor condemn wealth. In fact, quite to the contrary, the Bible presents poverty as a state to be avoided, and wealth as a state to be attained, given moral means to do either. And this, too, aligns with the objective truth about reality: all else being equal, it is better to be rich than to be poor.
NOT LEAST -- having grown up poor (*), and having still the mindset of the poor (**)-- I see right through you and all your ilk and all your crocodile tears over "the poor".
(*) at one point, my father had a *two* part-time jobs on top of his full-time job
(**) though I am now comfortable; and it was not leftists who raised me out of poverty
"And to Ilion: I usually agree with you on most things, but as to who brought down the Soviet Union, I'd have to give the lion's share of the credit to Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II (and maybe Boris Yeltsin as well). Reagan was a relatively minor player in that drama. He only seems greater than he was when viewed through a myopic American perspective."
The humor in that is that we who consider Reagan to be a mercy God extended to America have no need to denigrate the contributions of Margaret Thatcher, nor of Pope John Paul II, nor of Lech Walesa in bringing down the USSR.
Well, at least PL didn't try to give any of the credit to Gorbechev.
Hinman, you're a fool and a liar, but I repeat myself. You're a covetous leftist, but I repeat myself.
The Bible does not say the "[G]od is on the side of the poor". The Bible demands that we favor neither the rich nor the poor -- the Bible says that God is on the side of justice.
March 03, 2016 11:38 AM
>>>so you follow in the foot steps of your savior. That wimp Jesus said turn the other cheek and love your enemies, but the new savior says mock and ridicule those who think differently.
Is it justice that 1% own 90% o0f the wealth and rig the economy so the workers don't have a chance? ] let's what the bible says about the poor
Leviticus 19:9when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.…
if I know taxes are of the devil i would say that's almost like a tax to help the poor.
Deuteronomy 24:19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
O that can't be right! not of the Foreigner. What if they are terrorists? I can also hear people say "that doesn't say the government. That's who was talking! God was their government, and the priests who redacted the text were the government admins, Since they did not have the kind government we have come to have in the modern world it could hardly say "make welfare policies." Yet if you give a damn about the Bible and you read the passages below no way you can belly ache about giving tax money to the poor.
God's Heart for the Poor
Deuteronomy 26:6-9 "But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey."
Job 5:8-16 "But if it were I, I would appeal to God; I would lay my cause before him. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. He bestows rain on the earth; he sends water upon the countryside. The lowly he sets on high, and those who mourn are lifted to safety. He thwarts the plans of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success. He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away. Darkness comes upon them in the daytime; at noon they grope as in the night. He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth."
Let's see: America contains about 1/20 of the land surface of the entire planet; America contains about 1/20 of the population of the entire planet; and, while America's economy is longer about 1/4 of the economy the entire planet, it is still a significant chunk of the total (and much more than 1/20 of it).
It seems to me that there is *nothing* more "myopic" than the person who complains about the myopic American perspective"
Isaiah 10:1-3 " Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?”
Jeremiah 5:28 “‘Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. ‘Should I not punish them for this?’ declares the LORD. ‘Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?’”
Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
Ezekiel 22:29, 31 "The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Amos 5:12 “For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.”
Let's see: America contains about 1/20 of the land surface of the entire planet; America contains about 1/20 of the population of the entire planet; and, while America's economy is longer about 1/4 of the economy the entire planet, it is still a significant chunk of the total (and much more than 1/20 of it).
It seems to me that there is *nothing* more "myopic" than the person who complains about the myopic American perspective"
that what passages for Logic in right wing churches now? I have no idea what you are saying. I just showed you a bunch of verses that say God supports the poor. want more there are a bunch more.
You know it's odd I guess you have to be a real Christian to understand it. The savior, Trump of NY, the new light of the world tells us this satanic evil Pope was wrong to question his faith. but this Christian brother of ours is questioning Carter's. how does that work?
What I was trying to get across by the words "myopic American perspective" is that all too often we Americans just assume that everything that happens in the world is a result of what we here in the USA are doing. But that's simply not the case.
Now even (maybe even especially) Ilion would agree with me that the USSR was brought down by its own internal contradictions. So how on Earth could any American, president or otherwise, be given the "credit" for its collapse? No - the major players in that drama were persons within the Communist orbit. (I include the Pope in that number, seeing as he was Polish, and Poland was the Prime Mover in the downfall of European Communism.)
What I was trying to get across by the words "myopic American perspective" is that all too often we Americans just assume that everything that happens in the world is a result of what we here in the USA are doing. But that's simply not the case.
Now even (maybe even especially) Ilion would agree with me that the USSR was brought down by its own internal contradictions. So how on Earth could any American, president or otherwise, be given the "credit" for its collapse? No - the major players in that drama were persons within the Communist orbit. (I include the Pope in that number, seeing as he was Polish, and Poland was the Prime Mover in the downfall of European Communism.)
land mass in volume doesn't even count. Look how Brittan was and it had colonies all over the world. We have been the top consumers the highest income and the most environmentally destructive country for a long time. now we are surpassed bur still our refusal to support climate change treaty effects the attempts to deal with it.
Planks your tirade about how misunderstand everyth8ng te3ll me you weren't you might sit the election ouit>
"no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election."
because of the policies that the Republicans will destroy if Hilly is not elected and Trump is thousands will die. that is abdicating responsibility.
I don't have the data now but in the Reagan era I had studies showing Regains food stamp cuts killed people. his cuts on disability and neo natal killed people]
Most poor people work more than come job many work three just barely stay afloat. they are not lazy that's a stereotype. poor are generally 5x more likely to suffer all path9ologies including neo natal death,. Not voting Dem means killing poor people.
Just as the first defence of deliberate-and-unrepentant general sinner is to misrepresent Scripture with respect to judging-and-condemning others, so too, the first defence of deliberate-and-unrepentant intellectual hypocrite is to misrepresent Scripture with respect to the word 'fool'.
if Hilly is not elected and Trump is thousands will die
That's an extremely interesting comment, Joe. You claim you want to vote upon Christian principles. So how can you possibly shill for Clinton's election, given her enthusiastic support for Planned Parenthood and the murder of tens of thousands of babies, just to sell their body parts for profit? What about those thousands who will die?
Chad: I didn't "lump Martin Luther King in with Donald Trump." Sharpen your reading skills, sir. No analogy is perfect, and none of mine are intended to be complete.
"I have heard Rubio say he would abolish the EPA. I heard him say government regs on pollution are dragging down freedom to make profit. now if you think that's just a minor thing your understanding of the social good is less that of Nixon who made theEPS."
This is not reasoning, it is a political rant. No direct quote of Rubio. No consideration of his goals. No +/- analysis of the benefits and costs of his exact proposal -- whatever it is. No analysis of the good or bad the EPA has accomplished, or even the ghost of a possibility that it might do harm as well as good, or that the goods could still be achieved if the bureaucracies reshuffled. All rant, no reason.
"I don't know who you mean. I know about 5% of contributing American scientists think Climate change is not man made 99% or scientists in other countries know it is man made. or at least man exacerbated."
But you SAID that NO scientist on Earth denies that AGW will cause a disaster. Now you admit that some don't even admit the second tenet of AGW, that humans are causing the warming, let alone the third tenet, that the warming is disastrous. So your own mouth shows that you knew that what you were saying was not true.
Speak more carefully, next time. It's a good habit to get into.
And "man exacerbated" is not the same as your original claim, which was not about the cause, but about the effect, of AGW. Very, very sloppy.
"There are a bunch of people with science related degrees who are not contributing scientist but are right wing talking heads. The right has shaken the public's confidence in the science that's why science types speak of science deniers."
The scientists I referred to are cutting-edge scientists in closely related fields who have as much of a right to an opinion as just about anyone on Earth. So let's not go the Ad Hominem path, either -- another form of shoddy reasoning.
DM: "Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW."
JH: "Rubio said we need to abolish the EPA."
Now I understand why Ilion accuses you of lying. Again, those are two completely different claims. Learn honesty. It may not win you the presidency, but it may help save your soul, and Jesus said that was more important.
Donald Trump is an inveterate liar and would be a disaster as president, I think we agree about that. Don't be seduced into sinking to his level by your contempt for political foes. It's not worth it. Some of Trump's opponents are a lot better than he is.
I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you might imagine. Were Trump to somehow win the presidency, he would be able to accomplish nothing, because he would not have a single ally in either party in Congress. If fact, I can actually see him resigning within a year or two (a la Sarah Palin), because he would be so frustrated at finding he has no real power, and wasn't having any "fun".
Knowing Jesus is not about being a Republican. No passage in the Bible says "thou shall not be a leftist." The point of belief in God. You said no passage in Bible says God is on the side of the poor I shoed you 50 of them. you have not commented on a single come. I can only conclude that to you knowing God is an excuse for your politics. My politics is forged with an understanding that one's politics should be consistent with one's faith,
My faith is about understanding the gospel of Christ not seeking wealth and rationalizing that with religious excuses.
You make me suspect Feuerbach was right. Yet I know he was not right en toto since I also know there is a reality of God. I believe that that reality includes a personal relationship with God, who entered history as a man, Jesus, not Trump. Trump is not the savior even though he has created a bandwagon around that lie.
This relation ship with Jesus means communion with God. That means being open to God's love and allowing God's love to use us as a vehicle to touch humanity, you can't do that insulting beating up everyone who disagrees with you. You can't allow God's love to be poured through you *Romans 5:1 and at the same time rationalized policies that allow people to starve.
I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you might imagine. Were Trump to somehow win the presidency, he would be able to accomplish nothing, because he would not have a single ally in either party in Congress. If fact, I can actually see him resigning within a year or two (a la Sarah Palin), because he would be so frustrated at finding he has no real power, and wasn't having any "fun".
He is a strong arm guy. You don't encourage your followers to beat up the opposition then resign gracefully. Once he gets in people will start jumping on the band wagon. You will be amazed at how many people do a Christie.
The '86 election. Our Central America group went to protest the Republicans having a rally. I think it was Quale. Bunch of Dems who were going inside to protest. We told them "you will be sorry." they said were just a bunch of extremists we don't understand real politics. They went in. They were carried out, some to the hospital. One came up his eye blackening, said "I want to join your group you know what you are doing."
"I have heard Rubio say he would abolish the EPA. I heard him say government regs on pollution are dragging down freedom to make profit. now if you think that's just a minor thing your understanding of the social good is less that of Nixon who made theEPS."
This is not reasoning,
No it's not reasoning genius it's documenting. you don't get debate do you? you don't understand inferences and you think in fallacies.
it is a political rant. No direct quote of Rubio.
first of all Einstein I did hear him say that, learn what evidence is. So that was a quote from him. I am the source. l just because I can'[t find in priest doesn't mean I didn't year it. Since I can[t find it in print I have to do the next best thing, find other statememts. You sasy I'm not quoting there were two quotes from him. ge nius.
you are an atheist right, how do I know? because you don't read. Moreover THAT WAS CAMPAIGN LITERATURE I WAS QUOTING, SHERLOCK. DO YOU UNDSTAND THE CONCEPT OF CAMPAIGN LKITERATURE???
No consideration of his goals. No +/- analysis of the benefits and costs of his exact proposal -- whatever it is. No analysis of the good or bad the EPA has accomplished, or even the ghost of a possibility that it might do harm as well as good, or that the goods could still be achieved if the bureaucracies reshuffled. All rant, no reason.
That is just foolishness. you are expecting me to bog down splitting hairs when the official campaign lit says he will do x and I know the consequence of X. I don'[t have to study it out now because I've been following it for years. I debated in college for four years. I looked up studies and argued bout the methodology every day for four years.; I have been studying that stuff all my life. physics hasn't changed.In their study Lave and Suskin prove the epidemiological rate per PPM.
I don't have to know that off hand, it's proved. It's part of public policy. we know that taking away the EPA will kill milliohms. It was proven long ago (L/S 1971). If you doubt that you can go look up the senate hearings like I did at one time.
"I don't know who you mean. I know about 5% of contributing American scientists think Climate change is not man made 99% or scientists in other countries know it is man made. or at least man exacerbated."
But you SAID that NO scientist on Earth denies that AGW will cause a disaster.
If I said that it was obviously hyoerballie. 5%, really? that's your defense. that's the 5% that knows everything. As laymen we must take preponderance of the evidence, the perpomderemce of expert opinion is overwhelmingly in favor. you want to take great solace in that 5%. That's so silly.
Now you admit that some don't even admit the second tenet of AGW, that humans are causing the warming, let alone the third tenet, that the warming is disastrous. So your own mouth shows that you knew that what you were saying was not true.
You argue like an atheist. You really want to parley 5% into a meaningful discrepancy. You really want me to waster my time belaboring the point about the consequences when obviously the dangers have been accepted by science overall. There are some antiquated fools who resist the obvious but it's been established for decades. In the Reagan America the land of make believe you've been brain washed to poo poo the issue and act like it's just a leftist pipe dream all over the rest of the world 99.999% of scientists agree it is bad we are headed for disaster ect ects. that is common knowledge.
totally ridiculous. Notice Lurkers he's not arguing, he's not proving, he's just questioning what I say. that's not argument.
Speak more carefully, next time. It's a good habit to get into.
Learn to think, read more carefully , stop arguing like a bad highschool debater who has not file box.
And "man exacerbated" is not the same as your original claim, which was not about the cause, but about the effect, of AGW. Very, very sloppy.
It is not a big sloppy it[s amateurish naiveté that leads you to think that., I assumed I was talking to intelligent people who understood the issues but I wont make that mistake again..
"There are a bunch of people with science related degrees who are not contributing scientist but are right wing talking heads. The right has shaken the public's confidence in the science that's why science types speak of science deniers."
The scientists I referred to are cutting-edge scientists in closely related fields who have as much of a right to an opinion as just about anyone on Earth. So let's not go the Ad Hominem path, either -- another form of shoddy reasoning.
I notice their names are conspicuous by their absence. O that's right you don't understand documentation. That is not argument. I at least tried to prove Rubio's position by documenting his official campaign positions and I quoted him twice,. you said I didn't so you didn't read the material..
DM: "Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW."
JH: "Rubio said we need to abolish the EPA."
Now I understand why Ilion accuses you of lying. Again, those are two completely different claims. Learn honesty. It may not win you the presidency, but it may help save your soul, and Jesus said that was more important.
You have just demonstrated poor reasoning and lack of reading comprehension. Of cause they are two different claims Sherlock because I didn't[t say the first one. I never said Rubio said it's fine to keep polluting,. That's the implication of removing the EPA but ZI didn't[t not attribute that as a direct quote . you should have understood that.
Donald Trump is an inveterate liar and would be a disaster as president, I think we agree about that. Don't be seduced into sinking to his level by your contempt for political foes. It's not worth it. Some of Trump's opponents are a lot better than he is.
learn to read, learn to quote people honestly, stop name calling, and grow up andargue issues not personalities..
Bottom line: I do not have to prove that pollution is bad for you or that removing regs would increase pollution. those are givens because the science was done decades ago.
Since I only heard Rubio say that about EPA I got campaign lit showing his official positions. They show he would reduce regs without reduce fossil fuel we don't need a scientific seminar to understand that would be bad.
You are ideologues. you are ranting. you are not reading or thinking.
PL: "I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you might imagine. Were Trump to somehow win the presidency, he would be able to accomplish nothing, because he would not have a single ally in either party in Congress."
That's been my opinion all along, too. And that's why, even despising the man as I do, he's the only "Republican" (*) I might consider voting for. Of course, if he runs Cruz or Rubio as his VP, there is no way.
I'll go further, PL. A Trump presidency *might* be what it takes to turn the country around with respect to the "imperial presidency" (which, oddly enough, Democrats seem to notice only when there is a Republican in the White House resisting the temptation to behave like Obama has done from Day One)
(*) When I first turned 18, callow youth that I was, and having been raised to be "independent", I voted for two Democrats (senator and representative). In my defense, this was a long time ago and before the Democrats had made it clear that they are the Party of Abortion and Treason.
I can't see myself ever voting for any Democrat for any office at any time every again.
"Now I understand why Ilion accuses you of lying. Again, those are two completely different claims. Learn honesty."
Ilíon understands that "reasoning" illogically is almost always a decision (*). Anyone, except Ilíon (**) , may make a mistake at reasoning; charity, and reason itself, compels one to account it an honest mistake. However, when someone persists in illogical "reasoning", reason itself compels one to admit that it is his decision to do so.
And, deliberately reasoning illogically -- intellectual dishonesty -- is lying; it is, in fact, worse than lying. For a mere liar is lying about some fact or other, but the intellectually dishonest person is lying about the very nature of truth and of reason.
(*) There are three, and only three, general categories of explanation for why a man asserts what is not true --
1) bluntly, he's too stupid to understand the truth of the matter -- that is, he incorrectly believes that he is stating the truth because he is incapable of understanding the pertinent facts and/or logic;
2) bluntly, he's currently too ignorant to understand the truth of the matter -- that is, he incorrectly believes he is stating the truth because he currently lacks understanding the pertinent facts and/or logic;
3) bluntly, he's dishonest in some way -- this covers a great deal of territory, from those who do understand the truth of the matter, but lie about it, to those who, à laGeorge Costanza, carefully keep themselves ignorant of the truth of the matter.
Since most people are *not* incapable of understanding the truth of the matter of the sorts of things discussed here, that leaves options 2) and 3) and the only viable categories of explanation for why people here assert things that are not true. Charity, and reason itself, compels one to hold to option 2) for as long as possible.
(**) That's a joke, of course, mocking some of the things some of the people around here like to say about me
That's been my opinion all along, too. And that's why, even despising the man as I do, he's the only "Republican" (*) I might consider voting for. Of course, if he runs Cruz or Rubio as his VP, there is no way.
I'll go further, PL. A Trump presidency *might* be what it takes to turn the country around with respect to the "imperial presidency" (which, oddly enough, Democrats seem to notice only when there is a Republican in the White House resisting the temptation to behave like Obama has done from Day One)
so your principles are discardable when they get in the way of the ideology, that's a political rant, what else is new?
Since most people are *not* incapable of understanding the truth of the matter of the sorts of things discussed here,
that leaves options 2) and 3) and the only viable categories of explanation for why people here assert things that are not true. Charity, and reason itself, compels one to hold to option 2) for as long as possible.
you are liar you are a fascost a d you are ra tkng.L
I can't see myself ever voting for any Democrat for any office at any time ever again.
I myself am an inveterate ticket splitter. Over the years, I've pretty much voted an equal number of times for the 2 major parties (and once for a 3rd party candidate). If I like the person (or, more often, dislike him less), I'll vote for him.
The way things are going, this year is setting itself up to be the 2nd time I vote 3rd party.
PL, there is no such thing as "voting for the man, not the party". When you "vote for the man", you are *always* voting for the party.
Since the Democrats are the party of, non-exhaustively: 1) murdering babies; 2) disarming law-abiding citizens; 3) protecting violent criminals from justice; 4) destroying all organic social counters to the Leviathan State; 5) undermining paternal authority; 6) promoting short-sighted female revolt against paternal authority; 7) knee-capping our allies while propping up our foes; 8) ultimately, destroying not only our polity but our very civilization; to vote for *any* Democrat is to vote for all of that and more.
Now, of course, a lot of Republican politician are also on board with all that. But, the Republican "base" is not (which is why the term 'RINO' exists) for that, whereas the Democratic "base" is.
VR: "I have one question. Can any of the Republican candidates behave like adults other than Kasich?"
I have another question. Why have I never noticed you calling out the childish petulance, much less the dictatorial anti-Constitutionalism, of one BHO?
Most of the Republican dropouts were quite adult. I think that tells us more about our nominating process than it does about the remaining candidates.
If only there were some way of shortening the campaign season. Maybe have all 50 primaries on the same day? But I can immediately see one downside to that solution. The candidate with the biggest going-in war chest would almost inevitably win (since you'd have to blanket the entire country with TV ads, instead of two or three relatively small markets, and one-on-one personal campaigning would vanish).
Another solution (and one I like better) would be to do away with primaries altogether, and go back to the old "smoke filled rooms". They arguably gave us much better results than our contemporary system.
PL: "Another solution (and one I like better) would be to do away with primaries altogether, and go back to the old "smoke filled rooms". They arguably gave us much better results than our contemporary system."
I think that this is true. In any event, it would be more honest -- just consider the Democrats and their "Super Delegate" system.
Like *all* the "democracy" initiatives ultimately rooted in the Progressive Era, the party primaries are a sham, and always were, and always were intended to be shams; it's just that we were not supposed to notice the sham.
Actually, I found the White House Rainbow demonstration after Obergfell to be certainly lacking in maturity. I probably should have blogged about it when it happened.
Since the Democrats are the party of, non-exhaustively: 1) murdering babies;
you are a liar, this a political rant. you didn't prove anythi8ng,
the republican party kills babies. 2 million people died as result Reagan's social cuts. that was findings two independent studies,
children born in poverty are five times more likely to die I the first year study from Kent state. capitalism by the numbers.
life ends at birth for the brain washed evangelicals.
2) disarming law-abiding citizens;
ah yes the evangelical worship of guns, some trust in chariots but we trust in Smith and Wesson. making someone wait to buy a gun while we determine if they are lunatics that's disarming everyone?.
3) protecting violent criminals from justice;
O yes that commie inspired bill of rights. you want to put a gun in the hand any lunatic but God forbid we should have basic civil rights
4) destroying all organic social counters to the Leviathan State;
that was an argument in Mine Komph. It was really blood and soil see Marcuse's essay in Negations. what does that mean? is that code for you identify with the confederacy?
5) undermining paternal authority;
where?
6) promoting short-sighted female revolt against paternal authority;
hahahahahahaha!!!! O God ahahahaha you are really hahahahahahaahahaj
are you looking for a quiver full? you want to tell your wife what to do!
7) knee-capping our allies while propping up our foes;
drivel. you want to charge in like a cowboy and bomb everything that moves right/
8) ultimately, destroying not only our polity but our very civilization;
ahahahahahah you don't know shit about civilization. you would find every advancement since the middle ages Godless liberal destruction of civilization.
to vote for *any* Democrat is to vote for all of that and more.
Horse shit and drivel irrational brain washed stupidity. little fascist. you say I'm making a politcalramt you only that because I'm not defending little antiquated agenda.
shining colored lights on the white house is a big catastrophe but allowing children born into poverty to die because they can[t get neo natal care is Christian? murdering 80,000 innocent Salvadorians in a decade is Christian righyt.l life ends at birth.
btw I'm still waiting for you to answer the 50 verses I put up saying backing my statement about God being on the side of the poor.
Being a Christian is not about being afraid of foreigners, it's not about making money or being rich or succeeding in business. It's not about hunting or shooting guns or wearing down jackets or condemning people who are different than you. I am seriously if I led someone to the Lord, what am I asking them to do: To become rabid right wing nut cases?
Do you have a concept of "knowing god" in way that does not involve political ideology: Do you believe that salvation depends upon being a Republican?
Living in California with a conservative temperament, I'm partial toward Midwestern pragmatic Republicans--Scott Walker, John Kasich.
I sometimes like to listen to our President when something important is happening to our Country. Bush and Obama aren't half bad at that address. I would prefer if the person who speaks to us about something important is not Hillary Clinton.
Here is an article about several studies in political science showing that trump has tapped into a vain of authoritarianism; the average Trumpie is of a psychological character to submit to dictatorship under the right conditions. They see the Strong man for protection, and will submit at any cost. My casting him in the image of a Nazi i8s not that far o9ff the mark. I wasn't trying to say he's an actual Nazi but that his supporters have a sort of brown shirt mentality.
69 comments:
here is a reflection I wrote last night, about Super Tuesday and about Trump. This will answer it. Is the Richstag Burning?
Thanks, Victor. Like many slightly fevered first drafts, I found I needed to go back and edit just a tad . . . I am frankly aghast that any serious Christian would vote for that rat, who does not merely break the commands of God, he brags about breaking them. Hope people will share.
I find your rant overwrought and simplistic, Joe, and frankly not all that careful with the facts. You seem to think Rubio would be just as bad as Trump, which is nonsense. Rubio appears to be a decent person with reasonable positions, who I expect would do much better than the grotesquely dishonest Hilary Clinton, supporter of the "body parts for sale" organization Planned Parenthood and an enabler of her predatory husband.
And then there's this:
"At a time when every scientist around the world predicts dyer consequences of not reducing carbon emissions, the right wing convinces America it's a lie of big gubern-ment and it's fine to keep polluting. We are talking about our own extinction."
But it's not true that "every scientists" predicts that -- I know many who remain intensely skeptical of the doom-and-gloom predictions. They may be wrong, but you badly overspoke.
Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW.
And the term "gubern-ment" seems to imply that conservatives don't think we should have one - that would be anarchists or perhaps libertarians, you've got your ideologies confused.
March 03, 2016 1:13 AM
Blogger David B Marshall said...
I find your rant overwrought and simplistic, Joe, and frankly not all that careful with the facts. You seem to think Rubio would be just as bad as Trump, which is nonsense. Rubio appears to be a decent person with reasonable positions, who I expect would do much better than the grotesquely dishonest Hilary Clinton, supporter of the "body parts for sale" organization Planned Parenthood and an enabler of her predatory husband.
I have heard Rubio say he would abolish the EPA. I heard him say government regs on pollution are dragging down freedom to make profit. now if you think that's just a minor thing your understanding of the social good is less that of Nixon who made theEPS.
And then there's this:
"At a time when every scientist around the world predicts dyer consequences of not reducing carbon emissions, the right wing convinces America it's a lie of big gubern-ment and it's fine to keep polluting. We are talking about our own extinction."
But it's not true that "every scientists" predicts that -- I know many who remain intensely skeptical of the doom-and-gloom predictions. They may be wrong, but you badly overspoke.
I don't know who you mean. I know about 5% of contributing American scientists think Climate change is not man made 99% or scientists in other countries know it is man made. or at least man exacerbated. There are a bunch of people with science related degrees who are not contributing scientist but are right wing talking heads. The right has shaken the public's confidence in the science that's why science types speak of science deniers.
Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW.
Rubio said we need to abolish the EPA. I
And the term "gubern-ment" seems to imply that conservatives don't think we should have one - that would be anarchists or perhaps libertarians, you've got your ideologies confused
Obviously I spoke of a dichotomy between reasonable conservatives and Trump's Lumpin proploteriot. The interviews of Trumpies I've heard indicate a David Duke eleememt and a ,pore uneducated libertarian type who uses the anti-government rhetoric abut is not in command of the facts. that's who I was mocking. Obviously that wou8ld not include McCain whom I respect and those of his ilk.
I stopped reading when he lumped Martin Luther King in with Donald Trump.
who did?
Official positions and statements by Rubio. look how much ne leaves to the states. If you leave any environmental stuff to Texas, us Texans will be up to our eye balls I pollution.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Marco_Rubio.htm
Click here for 9 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
Fix environment with free market, not government mandates. (Feb 2014)
State-run insurance carriers mean more taxpayer subsidies. (Jun 2012)
Partner with private companies for transportation system. (Nov 2006)
Hurricane Savings Accounts for homeowners' insurance. (Nov 2006)
Utilize toll revenues to widen & improve expressways. (Nov 2006)
Increase funding for making homes hurricane-resistant. (Nov 2006)
Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
Rated 20% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)
No EPA permits required for forest road runoff. (Jul 2013)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Marco_Rubio_Environment.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Marco_Rubio_Environment.htm
Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.
Whitehouse Amdt. No. 803 to S.Amdt. 799 to S. 601 (Water Resources Development Act of 2013): To create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote the protection and conservation of United States ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This measure was part of the RESTORE Act, [but] this piece of it fell out of the bargain. If you supported the RESTORE Act, you have already supported this bill. If you believe that deals should be deals in the Senate, then you should support this bill. It is very important that we as a body support this bill. It does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. It works within the existing government, and it adds no funding.
MississippiRiverDelta.org Summary of RESTORE Act: The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) dedicates 80% of all Clean Water Act penalties paid by those responsible for the 2010 gulf oil disaster to Gulf Coast restoration.
Proponent's press release supporting Yes vote: The National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes Act would provide steady funding that universities, non-profit organizations, and government agencies can count on every year to support research and restoration projects. It would be funded primarily by dedicating 12.5% of revenues from offshore energy development, including oil, gas, and renewable energy. Revenue is generated through offshore lease sales and production based royalty payments. Funds from the Endowment would be distributed through a competitive grant program to fund projects to restore habitat, manage fisheries, plan for sustainable coastal development, enhance ocean monitoring and research activities, acquire coastal properties for preservation, and relocate critical coastal infrastructure.
Reference: National Endowment for the Oceans; Bill S.Amdt. 803 ; vote number 13-SV116 on May 8, 2013
No EPA permits required for forest road runoff.
Rubio co-sponsored Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act
Congressional Summary:Amends the Clean Water Act to prohibit the EPA from requiring permits for a discharge of stormwater runoff resulting from silviculture activities.
Opponent's argument against bill: (Evergreen Magazine and Washington Forest Law Center): In Aug. 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that polluted stormwater generated by logging roads is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. [The ruling meant] that rain runoff from forest roads constituted an industrial (not forestry) activity, which should be considered a "point source" discharge under the CWA. The lawsuit was brought because forest roads have been dumping sediment into rivers that support myriad species of salmon and resident trout, all of which are at risk from the pollution. The ruling will require State agencies to issue permits and ensure that road construction and maintenance practices limit or eliminate such discharges.
"Why no Christian should be Caught Dead Voting for Donald Trump"
At the same time, it has been true for *decades" that no Christian should ever be caught dead voting for any Democrat for any office, whatsoever; yet, somehow, that never seems to concern you "liberals".
Well, I no longer have a dog in this fight, since my own preferred candidate dropped out some time ago. But if one were to wait until someone came along who offended none of the basic principles of even minimally decent behavior, no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election. The last true Christian to run for the presidency was probably Jimmy Carter, and look where that got us!
Oh come on, PL. Even with his faults, Reagan has more claim to having been a true Christian than Carter did. At best, Carter was a churchian.
"Well, I no longer have a dog in this fight ..."
Look on the bright side -- it's almost guaranteed that Obama's reign as "worst president since X" (and Carter's reign as "second worst president since X") will be short-lived, as they'll both get to move up a notch.
"Why no Christian should be Caught Dead Voting for Donald Trump"
At the same time, it has been true for *decades" that no Christian should ever be caught dead voting for any Democrat for any office, whatsoever; yet, somehow, that never seems to concern you "liberals
that's because its nonsense. In the election 2012 I compiled as list of everything the Bible says about the poor. essentially it says god is on the side of the poor those who oppress the poor are past. every single "evangelical" that read it say they Bible says don't be lazy."
they essentially slough the care for the poor verses ad rationalize the murder of the poor by the 1% blood sucking leaches that own America. that'd Godly. life ends at birth. we must protect the unborn and once they are born we need to starve them or work them to death.
caring about the poor and oppressed is evil Godless liberal stuff, and starving them exploiting workers is Godly.
Well, I no longer have a dog in this fight, since my own preferred candidate dropped out some time ago. But if one were to wait until someone came along who offended none of the basic principles of even minimally decent behavior, no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election. The last true Christian to run for the presidency was probably Jimmy Carter, and look where that got us!
what is that quote about good men doing nothing? you are rationalizing abdicating responsibility.1% of population controls 90% wealth and gives 90% of campaign money along with corporations and that's because Christians threw their principles away under
Reagan to feel secure and Godless because they feared the end times.
Hinman, you're a fool and a liar, but I repeat myself. You're a covetous leftist, but I repeat myself.
The Bible does not say the "[G]od is on the side of the poor". The Bible demands that we favor neither the rich nor the poor -- the Bible says that God is on the side of justice.
Hinman, you're a liar. Even if there should happen to be some nugget of truth in your previous post -- and I'm not going to waste a moment of my time trying to determine if there is -- you are saying it in service of the Lie.
Reagan brought down the USSR, and you and your leftist ilk will never forgive him for that.
"Oh come on, PL. Even with his faults, Reagan has more claim to having been a true Christian than Carter did. At best, Carter was a churchian."
That's why he has spent so much time with Habitat for Humanity because he's so unchristian. Let's look at Reagan's Christianity.
Reagan supported the contras and the government of Guatemala, and El Salvador.. He said Reos Mont was a :Godly man." Raos Momnt murdered 50,000 Indians and said they were not human, they were demons. Is that Christian?
In the 80s I was involved with the sanctuary movement and the solidarity movement. I met the Nicaraguan Ambassador and I talked with people who escaped death squads. Some I talked with saw their villages gunned down, both men, women, and children by Reagan funded government in Guatemala.
The contras would indiscriminately murder women and children they cut off little grills heads and put them on poles and said this is what's going to happen to daughter if you support the Sandinistas.
Is that your idea of what Jesus tells us? I talked to the people who saw this.
440 observers from 4o nations observed the Nicaraguan elections and they all said they was exemplary. Every major human rights organization cleared the FSLN of any torture or oppression of the masses. I'm not saying they never did anything wrong but we dispersed the lies and rumors for years through our research.
I had a friend who went to El Salvador as part of a human rights commission fact finding tour. He found a human leg on his door the first day and a hand print in white paint (white hand was a death squad in El Salvador).They supported the Reagan backed government. It was well known the Death squads were funded by the Reagan backed government.
The Godly Christians that Reagan backed murdered Priests, nuns and the Archbishop (Romero). The evil Godless commies in Nicaragua printed Bibles and taught people to read out of the Bible. I know that for a fact because a Catholic Priest who was there told me.
In spite of all of this I would bet Reagan would be appalled by
Trump
Hinman, you're a liar.
I can document everything I said. write to America's watch and ask them about the Regan backer governments.
Even if there should happen to be some nugget of truth in your previous post -- and I'm not going to waste a moment of my time trying to determine if there is -- you are saying it in service of the Lie
don't confuse me with facts right? you choose to be in the dark because you face truth. Tell me is God the God of self deception? Is God the God of ignorance of truth? who has the Christian attitude brother?.
Reagan brought down the USSR, and you and your leftist ilk will never forgive him for that.
How did he do that? He was only in four years and the trends that brought them down can be traced back to Stalin, That's why Cruschev tried to be a reformer because they were screwed all along.
Ok remember what Jesus said, pretending you know the truth and ignoring the facts will set you free.
You are rationalizing abdicating responsibility.
I am doing no such thing. Joe, you are always misreading everyone's comments on this site - of believers and non-believers alike. Read what I said carefully: "If one were to wait until someone came along who offended none of the basic principles of even minimally decent behavior, no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election." Emphasis on the "if". In other words, I am not sugesting that Christians sit out elections - quite the reverse. I am suggesting that they might (again, "might" - not "should") need to hold their noses and vote for "the lesser of two evils".
(And I do agree with you that it would appear that Carter was a more "Christian" president than Reagan. Now, as to who was the more competent, well...)
And to Ilion: I usually agree with you on most things, but as to who brought down the Soviet Union, I'd have to give the lion's share of the credit to Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II (and maybe Boris Yeltsin as well). Reagan was a relatively minor player in that drama. He only seems greater than he was when viewed through a myopic American perspective.
NOWHERE is the Bible does it say to "favor the poor" -- it in fact says the *opposite*: favor neither the rich nor the poor
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that merely by being rich "the rich" "oppress" "the poor"; for, after all, the Bible is not an irrational document, and it is concerned with representing the world as it really is.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it praise poverty nor condemn wealth. In fact, quite to the contrary, the Bible presents poverty as a state to be avoided, and wealth as a state to be attained, given moral means to do either. And this, too, aligns with the objective truth about reality: all else being equal, it is better to be rich than to be poor.
NOT LEAST -- having grown up poor (*), and having still the mindset of the poor (**)-- I see right through you and all your ilk and all your crocodile tears over "the poor".
(*) at one point, my father had a *two* part-time jobs on top of his full-time job
(**) though I am now comfortable; and it was not leftists who raised me out of poverty
"And to Ilion: I usually agree with you on most things, but as to who brought down the Soviet Union, I'd have to give the lion's share of the credit to Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II (and maybe Boris Yeltsin as well). Reagan was a relatively minor player in that drama. He only seems greater than he was when viewed through a myopic American perspective."
The humor in that is that we who consider Reagan to be a mercy God extended to America have no need to denigrate the contributions of Margaret Thatcher, nor of Pope John Paul II, nor of Lech Walesa in bringing down the USSR.
Well, at least PL didn't try to give any of the credit to Gorbechev.
Hinman, you're a fool and a liar, but I repeat myself. You're a covetous leftist, but I repeat myself.
The Bible does not say the "[G]od is on the side of the poor". The Bible demands that we favor neither the rich nor the poor -- the Bible says that God is on the side of justice.
March 03, 2016 11:38 AM
>>>so you follow in the foot steps of your savior. That wimp Jesus said turn the other cheek and love your enemies, but the new savior says mock and ridicule those who think differently.
Is it justice that 1% own 90% o0f the wealth and rig the economy so the workers don't have a chance?
]
let's what the bible says about the poor
Leviticus 19:9when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10'Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.…
if I know taxes are of the devil i would say that's almost like a tax to help the poor.
Deuteronomy 24:19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
O that can't be right! not of the Foreigner. What if they are terrorists? I can also hear people say "that doesn't say the government. That's who was talking! God was their government, and the priests who redacted the text were the government admins, Since they did not have the kind government we have come to have in the modern world it could hardly say "make welfare policies." Yet if you give a damn about the Bible and you read the passages below no way you can belly ache about giving tax money to the poor.
God's Heart for the Poor
Deuteronomy 26:6-9 "But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey."
Job 5:8-16 "But if it were I, I would appeal to God; I would lay my cause before him. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. He bestows rain on the earth; he sends water upon the countryside. The lowly he sets on high, and those who mourn are lifted to safety. He thwarts the plans of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success. He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away. Darkness comes upon them in the daytime; at noon they grope as in the night. He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth."
"myopic American perspective"
Let's see: America contains about 1/20 of the land surface of the entire planet; America contains about 1/20 of the population of the entire planet; and, while America's economy is longer about 1/4 of the economy the entire planet, it is still a significant chunk of the total (and much more than 1/20 of it).
It seems to me that there is *nothing* more "myopic" than the person who complains about the myopic American perspective"
Isaiah 10:1-3 " Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?”
Jeremiah 5:28 “‘Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor. ‘Should I not punish them for this?’ declares the LORD. ‘Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?’”
Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”
Ezekiel 22:29, 31 "The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Amos 5:12 “For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.”
myopic American perspective"
Let's see: America contains about 1/20 of the land surface of the entire planet; America contains about 1/20 of the population of the entire planet; and, while America's economy is longer about 1/4 of the economy the entire planet, it is still a significant chunk of the total (and much more than 1/20 of it).
It seems to me that there is *nothing* more "myopic" than the person who complains about the myopic American perspective"
that what passages for Logic in right wing churches now? I have no idea what you are saying. I just showed you a bunch of verses that say God supports the poor. want more there are a bunch more.
here for list
See the whole list
You know it's odd I guess you have to be a real Christian to understand it. The savior, Trump of NY, the new light of the world tells us this satanic evil Pope was wrong to question his faith. but this Christian brother of ours is questioning Carter's. how does that work?
What I was trying to get across by the words "myopic American perspective" is that all too often we Americans just assume that everything that happens in the world is a result of what we here in the USA are doing. But that's simply not the case.
Now even (maybe even especially) Ilion would agree with me that the USSR was brought down by its own internal contradictions. So how on Earth could any American, president or otherwise, be given the "credit" for its collapse? No - the major players in that drama were persons within the Communist orbit. (I include the Pope in that number, seeing as he was Polish, and Poland was the Prime Mover in the downfall of European Communism.)
"Hinman, you're a fool"
Matthew 5:22 in KJV
What I was trying to get across by the words "myopic American perspective" is that all too often we Americans just assume that everything that happens in the world is a result of what we here in the USA are doing. But that's simply not the case.
Now even (maybe even especially) Ilion would agree with me that the USSR was brought down by its own internal contradictions. So how on Earth could any American, president or otherwise, be given the "credit" for its collapse? No - the major players in that drama were persons within the Communist orbit. (I include the Pope in that number, seeing as he was Polish, and Poland was the Prime Mover in the downfall of European Communism.)
land mass in volume doesn't even count. Look how Brittan was and it had colonies all over the world. We have been the top consumers the highest income and the most environmentally destructive country for a long time. now we are surpassed bur still our refusal to support climate change treaty effects the attempts to deal with it.
Planks your tirade about how misunderstand everyth8ng te3ll me you weren't you might sit the election ouit>
"no self-respecting Christian would ever cast a vote in any election."
because of the policies that the Republicans will destroy if Hilly is not elected and Trump is thousands will die. that is abdicating responsibility.
I don't have the data now but in the Reagan era I had studies showing Regains food stamp cuts killed people. his cuts on disability and neo natal killed people]
Most poor people work more than come job many work three just barely stay afloat. they are not lazy that's a stereotype. poor are generally 5x more likely to suffer all path9ologies including neo natal death,. Not voting Dem means killing poor people.
me; "Hinman, you're a fool"
the fool: "Matthew 5:22 in KJV"
Just as the first defence of deliberate-and-unrepentant general sinner is to misrepresent Scripture with respect to judging-and-condemning others, so too, the first defence of deliberate-and-unrepentant intellectual hypocrite is to misrepresent Scripture with respect to the word 'fool'.
if Hilly is not elected and Trump is thousands will die
That's an extremely interesting comment, Joe. You claim you want to vote upon Christian principles. So how can you possibly shill for Clinton's election, given her enthusiastic support for Planned Parenthood and the murder of tens of thousands of babies, just to sell their body parts for profit? What about those thousands who will die?
^ As I said, he's a leftist and a liar.
Chad: I didn't "lump Martin Luther King in with Donald Trump." Sharpen your reading skills, sir. No analogy is perfect, and none of mine are intended to be complete.
"I have heard Rubio say he would abolish the EPA. I heard him say government regs on pollution are dragging down freedom to make profit. now if you think that's just a minor thing your understanding of the social good is less that of Nixon who made theEPS."
This is not reasoning, it is a political rant. No direct quote of Rubio. No consideration of his goals. No +/- analysis of the benefits and costs of his exact proposal -- whatever it is. No analysis of the good or bad the EPA has accomplished, or even the ghost of a possibility that it might do harm as well as good, or that the goods could still be achieved if the bureaucracies reshuffled. All rant, no reason.
"I don't know who you mean. I know about 5% of contributing American scientists think Climate change is not man made 99% or scientists in other countries know it is man made. or at least man exacerbated."
But you SAID that NO scientist on Earth denies that AGW will cause a disaster. Now you admit that some don't even admit the second tenet of AGW, that humans are causing the warming, let alone the third tenet, that the warming is disastrous. So your own mouth shows that you knew that what you were saying was not true.
Speak more carefully, next time. It's a good habit to get into.
And "man exacerbated" is not the same as your original claim, which was not about the cause, but about the effect, of AGW. Very, very sloppy.
"There are a bunch of people with science related degrees who are not contributing scientist but are right wing talking heads. The right has shaken the public's confidence in the science that's why science types speak of science deniers."
The scientists I referred to are cutting-edge scientists in closely related fields who have as much of a right to an opinion as just about anyone on Earth. So let's not go the Ad Hominem path, either -- another form of shoddy reasoning.
DM: "Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW."
JH: "Rubio said we need to abolish the EPA."
Now I understand why Ilion accuses you of lying. Again, those are two completely different claims. Learn honesty. It may not win you the presidency, but it may help save your soul, and Jesus said that was more important.
Donald Trump is an inveterate liar and would be a disaster as president, I think we agree about that. Don't be seduced into sinking to his level by your contempt for political foes. It's not worth it. Some of Trump's opponents are a lot better than he is.
Trump ... would be a disaster as president
I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you might imagine. Were Trump to somehow win the presidency, he would be able to accomplish nothing, because he would not have a single ally in either party in Congress. If fact, I can actually see him resigning within a year or two (a la Sarah Palin), because he would be so frustrated at finding he has no real power, and wasn't having any "fun".
"As I said, he's a leftist and a liar."
Knowing Jesus is not about being a Republican. No passage in the Bible says "thou shall not be a leftist." The point of belief in God. You said no passage in Bible says God is on the side of the poor I shoed you 50 of them. you have not commented on a single come. I can only conclude that to you knowing God is an excuse for your politics. My politics is forged with an understanding that one's politics should be consistent with one's faith,
My faith is about understanding the gospel of Christ not seeking wealth and rationalizing that with religious excuses.
You make me suspect Feuerbach was right. Yet I know he was not right en toto since I also know there is a reality of God. I believe that that reality includes a personal relationship with God, who entered history as a man, Jesus, not Trump. Trump is not the savior even though he has created a bandwagon around that lie.
This relation ship with Jesus means communion with God. That means being open to God's love and allowing God's love to use us as a vehicle to touch humanity, you can't do that insulting beating up everyone who disagrees with you. You can't allow God's love to be poured through you *Romans 5:1 and at the same time rationalized policies that allow people to starve.
I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you might imagine. Were Trump to somehow win the presidency, he would be able to accomplish nothing, because he would not have a single ally in either party in Congress. If fact, I can actually see him resigning within a year or two (a la Sarah Palin), because he would be so frustrated at finding he has no real power, and wasn't having any "fun".
He is a strong arm guy. You don't encourage your followers to beat up the opposition then resign gracefully. Once he gets in people will start jumping on the band wagon. You will be amazed at how many people do a Christie.
The '86 election. Our Central America group went to protest the Republicans having a rally. I think it was Quale. Bunch of Dems who were going inside to protest. We told them "you will be sorry." they said were just a bunch of extremists we don't understand real politics. They went in. They were carried out, some to the hospital. One came up his eye blackening, said "I want to join your group you know what you are doing."
"I have heard Rubio say he would abolish the EPA. I heard him say government regs on pollution are dragging down freedom to make profit. now if you think that's just a minor thing your understanding of the social good is less that of Nixon who made theEPS."
This is not reasoning,
No it's not reasoning genius it's documenting. you don't get debate do you? you don't understand inferences and you think in fallacies.
it is a political rant. No direct quote of Rubio.
first of all Einstein I did hear him say that, learn what evidence is. So that was a quote from him. I am the source. l just because I can'[t find in priest doesn't mean I didn't year it. Since I can[t find it in print I have to do the next best thing, find other statememts. You sasy I'm not quoting there were two quotes from him. ge nius.
you are an atheist right, how do I know? because you don't read. Moreover THAT WAS CAMPAIGN LITERATURE I WAS QUOTING, SHERLOCK. DO YOU UNDSTAND THE CONCEPT OF CAMPAIGN LKITERATURE???
No consideration of his goals. No +/- analysis of the benefits and costs of his exact proposal -- whatever it is. No analysis of the good or bad the EPA has accomplished, or even the ghost of a possibility that it might do harm as well as good, or that the goods could still be achieved if the bureaucracies reshuffled. All rant, no reason.
That is just foolishness. you are expecting me to bog down splitting hairs when the official campaign lit says he will do x and I know the consequence of X. I don'[t have to study it out now because I've been following it for years. I debated in college for four years. I looked up studies and argued bout the methodology every day for four years.; I have been studying that stuff all my life. physics hasn't changed.In their study Lave and Suskin prove the epidemiological rate per PPM.
I don't have to know that off hand, it's proved. It's part of public policy.
we know that taking away the EPA will kill milliohms. It was proven long ago (L/S 1971). If you doubt that you can go look up the senate hearings like I did at one time.
"I don't know who you mean. I know about 5% of contributing American scientists think Climate change is not man made 99% or scientists in other countries know it is man made. or at least man exacerbated."
But you SAID that NO scientist on Earth denies that AGW will cause a disaster.
If I said that it was obviously hyoerballie. 5%, really? that's your defense. that's the 5% that knows everything. As laymen we must take preponderance of the evidence, the perpomderemce of expert opinion is overwhelmingly in favor. you want to take great solace in that 5%. That's so silly.
Now you admit that some don't even admit the second tenet of AGW, that humans are causing the warming, let alone the third tenet, that the warming is disastrous. So your own mouth shows that you knew that what you were saying was not true.
You argue like an atheist. You really want to parley 5% into a meaningful discrepancy. You really want me to waster my time belaboring the point about the consequences when obviously the dangers have been accepted by science overall. There are some antiquated fools who resist the obvious but it's been established for decades. In the Reagan America the land of make believe you've been brain washed to poo poo the issue and act like it's just a leftist pipe dream all over the rest of the world 99.999% of scientists agree it is bad we are headed for disaster ect ects. that is common knowledge.
totally ridiculous. Notice Lurkers he's not arguing, he's not proving, he's just questioning what I say. that's not argument.
Speak more carefully, next time. It's a good habit to get into.
Learn to think, read more carefully , stop arguing like a bad highschool debater who has not file box.
And "man exacerbated" is not the same as your original claim, which was not about the cause, but about the effect, of AGW. Very, very sloppy.
It is not a big sloppy it[s amateurish naiveté that leads you to think that., I assumed I was talking to intelligent people who understood the issues but I wont make that mistake again..
"There are a bunch of people with science related degrees who are not contributing scientist but are right wing talking heads. The right has shaken the public's confidence in the science that's why science types speak of science deniers."
The scientists I referred to are cutting-edge scientists in closely related fields who have as much of a right to an opinion as just about anyone on Earth. So let's not go the Ad Hominem path, either -- another form of shoddy reasoning.
I notice their names are conspicuous by their absence. O that's right you don't understand documentation. That is not argument. I at least tried to prove Rubio's position by documenting his official campaign positions and I quoted him twice,. you said I didn't so you didn't read the material..
DM: "Nor have I heard any Republican candidate say "It's fine to keep polluting, "which is a completely separate issue from AGW."
JH: "Rubio said we need to abolish the EPA."
Now I understand why Ilion accuses you of lying. Again, those are two completely different claims. Learn honesty. It may not win you the presidency, but it may help save your soul, and Jesus said that was more important.
You have just demonstrated poor reasoning and lack of reading comprehension. Of cause they are two different claims Sherlock because I didn't[t say the first one. I never said Rubio said it's fine to keep polluting,. That's the implication of removing the EPA but ZI didn't[t not attribute that as a direct quote . you should have understood that.
Donald Trump is an inveterate liar and would be a disaster as president, I think we agree about that. Don't be seduced into sinking to his level by your contempt for political foes. It's not worth it. Some of Trump's opponents are a lot better than he is.
learn to read, learn to quote people honestly, stop name calling, and grow up andargue issues not personalities..
Bottom line: I do not have to prove that pollution is bad for you or that removing regs would increase pollution. those are givens because the science was done decades ago.
Since I only heard Rubio say that about EPA I got campaign lit showing his official positions. They show he would reduce regs without reduce fossil fuel we don't need a scientific seminar to understand that would be bad.
You are ideologues. you are ranting. you are not reading or thinking.
"Trump ... would be a disaster as president"
PL: "I disagree, but probably not for the reasons you might imagine. Were Trump to somehow win the presidency, he would be able to accomplish nothing, because he would not have a single ally in either party in Congress."
That's been my opinion all along, too. And that's why, even despising the man as I do, he's the only "Republican" (*) I might consider voting for. Of course, if he runs Cruz or Rubio as his VP, there is no way.
I'll go further, PL. A Trump presidency *might* be what it takes to turn the country around with respect to the "imperial presidency" (which, oddly enough, Democrats seem to notice only when there is a Republican in the White House resisting the temptation to behave like Obama has done from Day One)
(*) When I first turned 18, callow youth that I was, and having been raised to be "independent", I voted for two Democrats (senator and representative). In my defense, this was a long time ago and before the Democrats had made it clear that they are the Party of Abortion and Treason.
I can't see myself ever voting for any Democrat for any office at any time every again.
Bottom line -- Joe Hinman is a leftist, so he doesn't have to provide any argument, much less reason, for any wild thing he wants to assert.
"Now I understand why Ilion accuses you of lying. Again, those are two completely different claims. Learn honesty."
Ilíon understands that "reasoning" illogically is almost always a decision (*). Anyone, except Ilíon (**) , may make a mistake at reasoning; charity, and reason itself, compels one to account it an honest mistake. However, when someone persists in illogical "reasoning", reason itself compels one to admit that it is his decision to do so.
And, deliberately reasoning illogically -- intellectual dishonesty -- is lying; it is, in fact, worse than lying. For a mere liar is lying about some fact or other, but the intellectually dishonest person is lying about the very nature of truth and of reason.
(*) There are three, and only three, general categories of explanation for why a man asserts what is not true --
1) bluntly, he's too stupid to understand the truth of the matter -- that is, he incorrectly believes that he is stating the truth because he is incapable of understanding the pertinent facts and/or logic;
2) bluntly, he's currently too ignorant to understand the truth of the matter -- that is, he incorrectly believes he is stating the truth because he currently lacks understanding the pertinent facts and/or logic;
3) bluntly, he's dishonest in some way -- this covers a great deal of territory, from those who do understand the truth of the matter, but lie about it, to those who, à la George Costanza, carefully keep themselves ignorant of the truth of the matter.
Since most people are *not* incapable of understanding the truth of the matter of the sorts of things discussed here, that leaves options 2) and 3) and the only viable categories of explanation for why people here assert things that are not true. Charity, and reason itself, compels one to hold to option 2) for as long as possible.
(**) That's a joke, of course, mocking some of the things some of the people around here like to say about me
That's been my opinion all along, too. And that's why, even despising the man as I do, he's the only "Republican" (*) I might consider voting for. Of course, if he runs Cruz or Rubio as his VP, there is no way.
I'll go further, PL. A Trump presidency *might* be what it takes to turn the country around with respect to the "imperial presidency" (which, oddly enough, Democrats seem to notice only when there is a Republican in the White House resisting the temptation to behave like Obama has done from Day One)
so your principles are discardable when they get in the way of the ideology, that's a political rant, what else is new?
Since most people are *not* incapable of understanding the truth of the matter of the sorts of things discussed here,
that leaves options 2) and 3) and the only viable categories of explanation for why people here assert things that are not true. Charity, and reason itself, compels one to hold to option 2) for as long as possible.
you are liar you are a fascost a d you are ra tkng.L
you can rant but you on't know how to rave
I can't see myself ever voting for any Democrat for any office at any time ever again.
I myself am an inveterate ticket splitter. Over the years, I've pretty much voted an equal number of times for the 2 major parties (and once for a 3rd party candidate). If I like the person (or, more often, dislike him less), I'll vote for him.
The way things are going, this year is setting itself up to be the 2nd time I vote 3rd party.
['I can't see myself ever voting for any Democrat for any office at any time ever again."
I will never vote republican, course I always vote in the Community primary,
I have one question. Can any of the Republican candidates behave like adults other than Kasich?
PL, there is no such thing as "voting for the man, not the party". When you "vote for the man", you are *always* voting for the party.
Since the Democrats are the party of, non-exhaustively:
1) murdering babies;
2) disarming law-abiding citizens;
3) protecting violent criminals from justice;
4) destroying all organic social counters to the Leviathan State;
5) undermining paternal authority;
6) promoting short-sighted female revolt against paternal authority;
7) knee-capping our allies while propping up our foes;
8) ultimately, destroying not only our polity but our very civilization;
to vote for *any* Democrat is to vote for all of that and more.
Now, of course, a lot of Republican politician are also on board with all that. But, the Republican "base" is not (which is why the term 'RINO' exists) for that, whereas the Democratic "base" is.
VR: "I have one question. Can any of the Republican candidates behave like adults other than Kasich?"
I have another question. Why have I never noticed you calling out the childish petulance, much less the dictatorial anti-Constitutionalism, of one BHO?
Most of the Republican dropouts were quite adult. I think that tells us more about our nominating process than it does about the remaining candidates.
If only there were some way of shortening the campaign season. Maybe have all 50 primaries on the same day? But I can immediately see one downside to that solution. The candidate with the biggest going-in war chest would almost inevitably win (since you'd have to blanket the entire country with TV ads, instead of two or three relatively small markets, and one-on-one personal campaigning would vanish).
Another solution (and one I like better) would be to do away with primaries altogether, and go back to the old "smoke filled rooms". They arguably gave us much better results than our contemporary system.
PL: "Another solution (and one I like better) would be to do away with primaries altogether, and go back to the old "smoke filled rooms". They arguably gave us much better results than our contemporary system."
I think that this is true. In any event, it would be more honest -- just consider the Democrats and their "Super Delegate" system.
Like *all* the "democracy" initiatives ultimately rooted in the Progressive Era, the party primaries are a sham, and always were, and always were intended to be shams; it's just that we were not supposed to notice the sham.
Actually, I found the White House Rainbow demonstration after Obergfell to be certainly lacking in maturity. I probably should have blogged about it when it happened.
Yes, that's a good example. But, it's only one example of a continuous stream of "immaturity".
I found it appalling and divisive.
An unseemly display of "Nyah, nyah, nyah!"
Since the Democrats are the party of, non-exhaustively:
1) murdering babies;
you are a liar, this a political rant. you didn't prove anythi8ng,
the republican party kills babies. 2 million people died as result Reagan's social cuts. that was findings two independent studies,
children born in poverty are five times more likely to die I the first year study from Kent state. capitalism by the numbers.
life ends at birth for the brain washed evangelicals.
2) disarming law-abiding citizens;
ah yes the evangelical worship of guns, some trust in chariots but we trust in Smith and Wesson. making someone wait to buy a gun while we determine if they are lunatics that's disarming everyone?.
3) protecting violent criminals from justice;
O yes that commie inspired bill of rights. you want to put a gun in the hand any lunatic but God forbid we should have basic civil rights
4) destroying all organic social counters to the Leviathan State;
that was an argument in Mine Komph. It was really blood and soil see Marcuse's essay in Negations. what does that mean? is that code for you identify with the confederacy?
5) undermining paternal authority;
where?
6) promoting short-sighted female revolt against paternal authority;
hahahahahahaha!!!! O God ahahahaha you are really hahahahahahaahahaj
are you looking for a quiver full? you want to tell your wife what to do!
7) knee-capping our allies while propping up our foes;
drivel. you want to charge in like a cowboy and bomb everything that moves right/
8) ultimately, destroying not only our polity but our very civilization;
ahahahahahah you don't know shit about civilization. you would find every advancement since the middle ages Godless liberal destruction of civilization.
to vote for *any* Democrat is to vote for all of that and more.
Horse shit and drivel irrational brain washed stupidity. little fascist. you say I'm making a politcalramt you only that because I'm not defending little antiquated agenda.
shining colored lights on the white house is a big catastrophe but allowing children born into poverty to die because they can[t get neo natal care is Christian? murdering 80,000 innocent Salvadorians in a decade is Christian righyt.l life ends at birth.
btw I'm still waiting for you to answer the 50 verses I put up saying backing my statement about God being on the side of the poor.
Being a Christian is not about being afraid of foreigners, it's not about making money or being rich or succeeding in business. It's not about hunting or shooting guns or wearing down jackets or condemning people who are different than you. I am seriously if I led someone to the Lord, what am I asking them to do: To become rabid right wing nut cases?
Do you have a concept of "knowing god" in way that does not involve political ideology: Do you believe that salvation depends upon being a
Republican?
You guys nbeed to read Keirkegaard.
Living in California with a conservative temperament, I'm partial toward Midwestern pragmatic Republicans--Scott Walker, John Kasich.
I sometimes like to listen to our President when something important is happening to our Country. Bush and Obama aren't half bad at that address. I would prefer if the person who speaks to us about something important is not Hillary Clinton.
Here is an article about several studies in political science showing that trump has tapped into a vain of authoritarianism; the average Trumpie is of a psychological character to submit to dictatorship under the right conditions. They see the Strong man for protection, and will submit at any cost. My casting him in the image of a Nazi i8s not that far o9ff the mark. I wasn't trying to say he's an actual Nazi but that his supporters have a sort of brown shirt mentality.
^ Commies *always* assert that pointless shit, and useful idiot always lap it up
"My casting him in the image of a Nazi i8s not that far o9ff the mark."
Good Grief. What is the average number of comments it takes to compare someone to Hitler?
Maybe there is an article citing several studies to give us an exact number.
Isn't there an law which says that the first person to bring up Hitler in an internet debate loses?
I think that rule applies only if the person is making a logically/factually valid point.
... which is to say, if the first person to bring up Hitler is a leftist simply making a smear, then the law doesn't apply.
Post a Comment