Another terrorist bites the dust
Voila' hard sun, that's the entire point of this topic!
The propagandists crap being fed to every traveler in every airport bar, every woman (or man) visiting their local nail salon....it's everywhere; comparable to the propaganda being fed to North Koreans. The Rachel Maddows and the Chris Matthews, with their bullhorns spewing their disgust for this Country, our President, those in this Country that didn't fall in line behind Hillary. They are so full of hate and bitterness, that they are defending Soleimani, a terrorist and Iran, at our (yours and mine) expense. We've all heard them...how can you not?
It's beyond pathetic, it's treasonous!I don't even watch this stuff. But, it's clear where the Trumpsters get their news. From Trump and Faux and friends. Propaganda station. You think much of the MSM would not be a bit biased against a president that calls them the enemy of the people? LOL.
I've just explained why MSM is the enemy of the people.
But, if you want to leave it with an LOL, that's fine.MATH--The media is made up of Americans from all walks of life. It is not our enemy..it is part of us. Even Faux news and the propaganda rags where you get your news.
I assume you are speaking of Fox News? I've yet to see Fox News on the t.v. screens in various airports. They aren't the culprits, but then you know that. You just have too much invested at this stage.
MATH--The "culprits" the enemy, they turned you against America. Not me.
"Turned you against America,".... read my lastest article and then...let's talk about it.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0Kill one terrorist and the world is outraged. Iran shoots down a commercial airliner and kills 179 civilians, crickets.
No, people on the left try to blame President Donald Trump for Iran shooting down a plane and killing 175 people. That is a level of idiocy that is difficult to put into words.
"Those on the left have opted to blame President Trump for the Iranians’ error, searching desperately for any way in which to transform President Trump’s controlled and tactical maneuvers in Iran into a policy quagmire. The crash of Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752 is indeed a tragedy, the culpability for which lies unequivocally with the Iranian regime. To suggest otherwise is to cheapen the deaths of hundreds for the sake of scoring political points against the “bad orange man.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/10/le … ger-plane/"Trump's controlled and tactical maneuvers."
"I know more than the generals."
As far as I know the chain of events started with the killing of an American contractor.
If Sally had pallets of cash: how many missiles could she buy?
I guess it just bugs me that conservatives are so quick to tag a label of traitor or pro terrorist when legitimate questions regarding strategy and tactics regarding profound military acts, like taking out Iran's No. 2 or in invading Iraq back in 2003 are asked.
-----
How dare you question the actions of either Trump or Bush, are you a fifth columnist?
-------
Are intelligent people expected to not ask the questions? What have we really gained as a result of the attack on Iraq as "liberators"? Over 15 years later, what have we really accomplished? We still have troops on the ground based on this so called nation building, still weaning them all on mother's milk?
Whether this guy, Soleimani, deserved to be whacked or not, I would have thought that all the six figure apparatchiks in Washington advising the President use their heads for something other than hat racks. The questions that come from our side are not so different than the questions asked in 2003. People are going to be held accountable for plausible explanations as to military forays of this nature and no one is just going to take the Administration's explanation as adequate, in of itself, without corroborative evidence.
The conservative's mantra may well be America-right or wrong. Well, that is not good enough, if we are not taking the right course, I want to know why.Thank you. This is an excellent summary of what I think so many of us are thinking. Even some R's are getting tired of handing our nation over to one man:
"Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee declared in a heated press conference Wednesday afternoon that national security officials had just delivered the "worst military briefing" he had ever seen on Capitol Hill, even claiming that one official had warned during the "lame" and "insane" meeting that Congress shouldn't debate whether additional military action against Iran would be appropriate." https://www.foxnews/politics/sen-mike-l … -ever-iran
It is un-American to be called un-American for questioning a decision made by the President. This is exactly what these Trumpsters would be saying if liberals were upset over them questioning an Obama decision.True, HS, we cannot afford to be lured into following one man without question on the cadence of a standard drum beat.
It just seems like the Right is annoyed that you even ask any questions at all. And when we can't hold people accountable in our system that will prove dangerous to our way governance.Would you suggest that we conduct military operations on a committee basis? That the House Democrats all vote to see if we should take this road or that one, whether we should respond to a threat or just let it happen?
Should we have paused to take a House vote on whether to take out a terrorist kingpin, knowing the entire world will know what we're planning before the sun sets?
If you want military action of ANY kind it will come down to one man. Our job, as citizens, is to either reward him for what we consider proper action or to fire him, but whatever the hindsight is, that one man must make the decisions.Trump had time to inform specific committees in Congress about the window of opportunity, and NO it does not come to one man to drag us into WWIII based solely on his discretion. An Iraqi official was killed as part of the attack, I supposed that that was authorized as well?
You want WWIII, Wilderness, why not simply attack the number 1 in Iran and get on with it? Because, based on your Rightwinger assessment, there really would be no requirement for Trump to consult with anyone over such an attack, now would it?
The House is circumscribing an option that Trump generally tends to abuse, and I am all for it.
The attack on Soleimani could easily be interpreted as an act of war by Iran and it sure would have been if our Vice President
were attacked in such a way.
I thought that Congress solely had the authority to declare war that is,
of course, neutralized if the President though short sightedness fails to consider the ramifications of what he does.
It may well be to late to fire him if the action taken brings us into grave danger, so "my job" is going to be more involved now and throughout his administration and will apply to his successor whoever he or she may be.
Nobody is talking about hating the man, he is just a loose cannon and I don't trust his judgement, regardless of what you may believe.Setting aside the wild claims that killing a single terrorist, regardless of who he is, will bring on a world war, my comment remains the same. Advising congress isn't what you're asking for; you want to have at least the Democrats vote on every action Trump makes.
Total control to the House, in other words, bypassing the constitutional requirements and duties of the presidency.
Of course Congress isn't the only one that can declare war: Iran did so years ago with it's repeated attacks on Americans. Pretending that killing a terrorist is an act of war is silly - we've been doing that for years and years without any congressional declaration of war. Thousands of terrorists have died at our hands, and never that declaration yet.
If you don't trust his judgement (certainly your call) then the answer is to remove him. Of course, that takes more than just the Democrats on Congress to accomplish...
Yes indeed, when the POTUS cannot be trusted to handle a situation a committee would be preferable to starting a war.
A draft dodger isn't exactly the person you want to handle war details. You do though....Same answer as to Credence: we've been killing terrorists for a long time now and there hasn't been a congressional declaration of war yet. We are not at war.
And if you don't trust Trump the answer is to fire him. Of course, that takes more than a few fellow haters in congress to accomplish...Believe me, he deserves firing, Dan. We'll get to that shortly.
Randy, like Rep. Al Green, you thought he deserved to be fired before he was hired, so....that leaves no room for open-mindedness on anything he does.
I didn't believe he was worthy or qualified for the office and he's proved it by his actions. But you apparently love a dishonest con man.
AB, should we remind the left that there are over 63 million people who believed President Donald Trump is qualified to hold office. Shhhhh...that number has grown. Don't tell the left, it would upset them.
Our voices about the positives of President Donald Trump have always caused those on the left to be ignored. They will continue to be ignored. I think the number of people who attend rallies for President Donald Trump would cause them some concern. Especially since the Democrat front-runner struggles to get over 100 people at one of his events.
MATH...Your vision of America is but one. Once again, they turned you against the majority of Americans...that seems un-American. Did he turn you against John McCain too?
The main problem is that Trump cannot even give a reason for the attack that satisfies his own party! I mean, don't we, as Americans or at the very least our elected representatives, deserve a clear answer as to why this was necessary, and at least an idea of what the "imminent" dangers were? According to Trump, and his supporters, we don't deserve any type of explanation at all because we should just trust in our dear leader. We are talking about after the fact here! This is how despots operate, not America.
So, where were all of Obama's explanations for his drone strikes? Interesting how those on the left are upset about an Iranian general who is responsible for killing hundreds of US soldiers, yet there is total silence about the hundreds of civilians killed by obama. I do feel the word hypocrisy does apply in this situation. I think another term that applies is "selective outrage." as in...when it serves your purpose.
"On January 23, 2009, just three days into his presidency, President Obama authorized his first kinetic military action: two drone strikes, three hours apart, in Waziristan, Pakistan, that killed as many as twenty civilians. Two terms and 540 strikes later, Obama leaves the White House after having vastly expanding and normalizing the use of armed drones for counterterrorism and close air support operations in non-battlefield settings—namely Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia...Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians."
https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data*including the execution of two (one child) American Citizens without due process.
Maybe he should have given a better explanation. See...Obama was not perfect. What about Trump though? Is he perfect? Should he be questioned about his decisions? It seems some people think questioning Trump is un-American.
And some appear to think that anything Trump does, good, bad or indifferent, is automatically wrong.
Did you see this?
https://www.facebook.com/11436463862190 … 313938806/Obama made a lot of bad decisions...he's human. However, I had more faith in his ability to get knowledgeable people in the right positions and listen to those knowledgeable people. But, Trump is simply a "stable genius' who is smarter than the generals, and everyone else, so there's no need to question Trump. This is the concern...I know you ALL understand this, no matter how far you've traveled on the Trump train.
Seems like Obama made more bad decisions than President Donald Trump. Wonder how many civilians would have been alive today if the left had questioned obama's actions as they do those of President Donald Trump? Guess we'll never know.
Guess not. But, I see your steering away from the point of a nation being ruled by a group of educated people as opposed to one self-declared genius. I think Trump matters more than Obama right now.
And, I'd prefer not to have one "stable genius" calling all the shots. Being a President is about putting our best in the best positions and making the best decisions based on the input of those best people. Trump has openly declared he's not a fan of this, which is what made America great to begin with. He's even turned our best, most knowledgeable Americans, into "Deep State" enemies in an attempt to convince Americans that he ALONE can help America. That's just not very American.Yes Don, but Trump knows more than the generals, he said so. Mike and Dan believe in him implicitly, and why not? He never lies.
You know what, I still say that was stupid and counterproductive for Trump to step out of the agreement negotiated during Obama's Administration.
It is a stupid thing to assume by the Right to say that Iran would be automatically uncooperative and non-compliant without any consideration.
So, now, we lost what leverage we had and the allies being on board with the initiative to nothing but the inevitability of war and greater conflict. Who is going to stop Iran from getting the bomb?
Pompeo is already complaining about a lukewarm response from European allies as a result of the Soleimani attack. The way Trump just dropped the ball on a negotiated agreement, I would have the same attitude that they do.
The idiocy of conservatives to dismiss bonafide knowledge and experience in favor of the musings of some two bit TV personality continues to astound me.There are so many things wrong with the Iran deal. I'll give you one. obama as president can negotiate treaties, but the Congress has the authority, according to the Consitution, to approve them. This Iran deal was never approved by Congress. It was never presented to Congress. That is just one of many. Can you say dictatorial behavior?
You can say the same about the drone attack on the Iranian general. Trump didn't consult Congress on the strike. Can YOU say "dictatorial behavior"?
How about you, Randy? Do you see military operations being done by committee in Congress, with every plan on worldwide news by sundown? It has taken Pelosi weeks to walk the articles of impeachment across the yard; do you believe that a terrorist is going to sit still in his car for a month or two while congress debates killing him?
Yes, I'd rather the intelligent members of Congress decide rather the moron in WH. And don't worry, Nancy will hand the articles over next week and your side can sweep them beneath the carpet. I'm sure you're hoping for this to happen.
If true then you are as stupid, or as hateful of the US, as they are. Not a single rational person thinks military actions can be done by congressional committee.
Randy, Google "War Powers Act" and you may understand why Congressional approval was not necessary. Bill Clinton didn't have Congressional approval when he bombed Kosovo, Obama didn't have Congressional approval for the hundreds of drone strikes he ordered. So, President Donald Trump is not doing anything that hasn't been done by many other presidents.
I agree 100 percent on Trump's lack of reasoning for pulling out of the Iranian deal. Like you, say just dropping the ball on an agreement is not good for a nation. Who wants to enter into an agreement with anyone when they know they may just change their minds down the line.
Also, the case for Obama's nuclear agreement being weak, is too weak itself. It's mainly based on propoganda and people just saying, "I don't like Obama so I don't like the agreement." Which is exactly what Trumpers accuse everyone of doing ANYTIME they disagree with a Trump decision, no matter how good of a case can be made against that decision.
I guess that's just another way of stating what you already did though: "The idiocy of conservatives to dismiss bonafide knowledge and experience in favor of the musings of some two bit TV personality continues to astound me."Guess what? The Constitution states "The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2"
So, the Iran deal didn't get the approval of the Senate. It's not a legal treaty. I don't think the Constitution says anything about avoiding Senate approval if the president doesn't want to deal with the Senate.
There are some serious problems with the Iran deal. Here are just two of them. There are more.
"When will inspectors get into suspect sites?
According the agreement, Iran has a total of 24 days to delay any set of inspections. While it may take more than 24 days to scrub clean a massive underground enrichment facility, there is a lot of illicit activity that Iran can hide with 24 days notice.
What are the consequences for Iranian violations? According to the agreement, there is only one penalty for any infraction, big or small – taking Iran to the UN Security Council for the "snapback" of international sanctions. That is like saying that for any crime – whether a misdeameanor or a felony – the punishment is the death penalty. In the real world, that means there will be no punishments for anything less than a capital crime."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/ … clear-deal
So, no surprise inspections. They have to "request" for an inspection to take place a month later. Yeah, not a real good plan.
No real punishment except sanctions on nuclear material Not much of a punishment at all. I'm sure the Iranians were laughing all the way to the bank to use the billions sent them by Obama to fund their worldwide terrorist organizations while chanting "Death to America."I see your STILL steering away from the point of a nation being ruled by a group of educated people as opposed to one self-declared genius. Either that, or your answer is, "Yes, I want Trump to to be the Supreme Leader."
I can guarantee that not one person on any of these threads, "wants a supreme leader", here in the United States of America.... I would hope that is the one thing we could agree on!!!
Yet you continue to support, with seemingly undying devotion, a President that continues his attempts at destroying American institutions, such as the State Dept, the media, the courts etc., which serve as checks on executive authority, chums up to dictators, and makes "jokes" about being President for life. These are the actions of a wanna-be dictator. So, no we cannot agree that some don't want a supreme leader here in the US. I think some do, and some of this view was formed while talking to "conservatives" as a writer/editor for a lobbying firm during the Obama administration.
I cannot support a President who even "jokes" about being President for life, let alone actively taking steps to diminish the rest of government.
What educated people are you talking about?
The ones in the Senate ignored by obama when it came to the Iranian deal?
What are you even talking about?Why...Nancy and her woke House, don't you know Mike?
I'm talking about the government, or what you would call the "Deep State." Your confusion kinda proves my point
Well, then, in the situation with the Iran deal "a group of educated people" in the Senate were not permitted to perform their Constitutional duty and vote to approve the treaty. It wasn't even presented to them. Avoiding Constitution protocol is the actions of a dictator.
Okay. Once again, short version: "I cannot support a President who even "jokes" about being President for life, let alone actively takes steps to diminish the rest of government."
Yeah, obama circumvented the Constitution with the Iranian deal as well as when he entered into the Paris accord. He also circumvented the Constitution when he created the Dreamers as it is NOT the job of any president to make immigration law. THAT is done exclusively by the Congress. So, it was difficult to support a president like obama who treated the US Constitution as if it was suggestion rather than law. But the joke was on obama. The Dems are learning anything that is done by Executive Order can be undone by executive order. Should the Paris Accord and the Iranian have been ratified by Congress, it would take passing a law to undo them.
I think most people want government to function as it was designed. 3 separate, but equal, branches of government. Not have one branch attempting to circumvent and ride rough shod over another by using lies, innuendo, and rumor in an attempt to hoodwink the public.
If you want government by committee, of people you deem educated, we've got a problem. Just look at Virginia right now. Politicians thinking the rights and desires of their constituency are of little value. Thinking they know better and willing to shove their jack boots onto the throats of the people who pay their salary.
Already saw this one on FB. You're getting slow on the draw.
Hard Sun, all I know for sure is it's Sunday. I have a nice day planned with by friend as we are going on one of our long hikes.
Hope you have a good day! I hope we can continue disagreeing on Monday.
You beat me to it
The other one I liked said "We better keep President Donald Trump from killing people who are trying to kill us because it's okay to kill us rather than those who are killing us" Liberal logic.
....not under the carpet, out the door, to the curb, with all other garbage!
If we are going to now hear about the virtues of Nancy Pelosi, I may need to grab a glass of wine first...give me a minute...Better get a shot of tequila instead! Nancy is doing exactly what she should. Now Moscow Mitch is another story...
And sure, you don't want to hear anything harmful to your role model, no matter what he's done wrong. Gotcha!You better keep the tequila....you need it much more than I!
Huh. And there I was sure I had seen where what Nancy was supposed to be doing as speaker is to get Trump out of office. To protect the country, you know. And here we wait, week after week, for her to supply the articles of impeachment so important to that job.
Yep, a whole three weeks so far, while Trump keeps screwing up and Republicans show their mettle. Or not.
Yep. Three weeks to do a 15 minute job, a job that was imperative be concluded with the utmost speed possible in order to safeguard the country.
Falling down on the job pretty badly, isn't she?Yeah, yeah, yeah, you got the talking points down pat. Just admit everyone is playing political games and stop pretending only Nancy is. The real goal should be finding the truth and that could be done quite quickly but, for some reason, Mitch is not interested in clearing Trump's name. It's very strange, actually.
But, if no other witnesses come forward beyond the 17 whose testimony, under oarh, incriminated Trump, then Trump's innocence will forever be tarnished. Why not call Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, and Giuliani so these esteemed men can testify, under oath, to the purity of Trump's motives? Wouldn't any innocent man want his day in court to clear his name?
I'm so confused as to why Mitch and Trump are not anxious to have these men testify and clear all of them of these obviously trumped up charges, making the Democrats look like idiots in the process.I would love to hear from all parties, going back to the beginning, prior to Trump taking office, to understand the chain of events. However, no attorney worth the money would recommend more witnesses and a long drawn out process.
The House fumbled, dropped the ball and completely screwed up by not pushing to have the witnesses you suggested appear. The trial is over. Time for the jury to weigh in on the evidence presented.So you don't care to know the truth? No surprise from a Trump supporter. You're apparently afraid of what Bolton and others will say. You obviously detest our constitution.
Read before you respond Randy. Look at the first sentence of my comment. It negates the entire premise for your response.
Right. Of course. The truth could be known in four days, one witness per day. Surely, you would support hearing from the people who would clear Trump's name? I guess not, though. Strange, indeed.
Not in the mind of a Trump enabler, Sandy. They can't handle the truth, as George Castanza once said.
You mean that phrase that also spoke of a 'blanket of freedom'?
The one that most only speak of 'at parties'? It that the truth that a Trump enabler can't handle?
GAOf course not, Gus! You mean to say you've never watched Seinfeld?
I was just noting where the Seinfeld quote came from. You know, context and all that stuff.
GA
He's probably just confused from the heartbreak of the recent loss of liberals bff qasem soleimani.
Only you would make that connection. Wrong as usual, phoe.
Looking at the exchange, where I clearly stated I would love to hear from all parties and you ignored that, complaining that I was saying the opposite, shows me that delusions trump reality for a Trump hater.
I said I would love to hear from all. You and Randy ignore a clearly written comment to pretend something else was said.
It's because you go on to state that the trial is over, and you don't want to hear from any witnesses now. Trump ordered people not to testify and now because the Democrats did not let it languish in the courts for months to see how that would turn out= you blame them for these people not testifying. You know, and I know, that what you typed, in the end, is "No, I don't want to hear from the witnesses, and Trump gave me a way to play mental gymnastics in order to not hear from the witnesses."
Do you want the Senate, or the House, to call witnesses now? Maybe that's the more fitting question.Strange, isn't it? I wonder if it's because you followed that statement with this: "However, no attorney worth the money would recommend more witnesses and a long drawn out process."
Then, you follow that comment about not wanting a "long drawn out process" by blaming the Democrats for not pursuing the subpoena process all the way through the courts, which wouod, of course, have been along, drawn out process.
Perhaps your contradictory statements are the problem, not other people's reading skills.They aren't contradictory. I would have loved for the House to take the time to do it right. I would have loved to hear from all witnesses any in the House felt was pertinent. I would have loved the testimony to encompass everything because this goes back way further than that one phone call. Context matters.
But, they didn't. You can't completely botch the one job you choose to do and then expect others mop up the mess you created.
So. My comment about no lawyer worth their salt dismissing the opportunity the House handed them on a silver platter had nothing to do with my druthers. It had to do with the politics. One side botched it. Is it the responsibility of the other side to fix the mess or take advantage of it?
Honestly, I've said it a million times. No one in Washington is ever held accountable. No one ever pays the price of wrongdoing. Certainly we are occasionally witness to the sacrificial lamb, but no real action. So appeasing me by bringing them all in and having clarity throughout wouldn't make anything better. It wouldn't create accountability. It would just give clarity as to how many scumbags got away with how much.So, as was surmised by Randy and others, you don't want to hear from witnesses.
I cannot continue to respond to willful ignorance. You guys are welcome to continue denying reality.
Have a nice day.So, you do want to hear from witnesses, even if, as you say, "appeasing me by bringing them all in and having clarity throughout wouldn't make anything better. It wouldn't create accountability. It would just give clarity as to how many scumbags got away with how much."
A simple "yes" will clear this up. As it stands, you are still not being clear."Scumbags"...has someone FINALLY brought this back to Soleimani and the topic at hand?
Thank you!
(Seriously PP, you all are trying to steer this away from the fact that our President took out a nasty, nasty man and the Iranian people are beginning to show their jubilance...I am PRAYING they can break away from their so-called leaders....in one piece and start a new chapter in their lives, one of peace)Yes, he took out a nasty, nasty man. I have stated at least twice now that I am reserving judgment as to the wisdom of that move. Time will tell. Apparently, you believe the explabations, as they are currently stand (will they change again?), as well as the ensuing consequences, so far, indicate a wise decision. Yes?
You reserve judgement? For a terrorist, but not for our President. This whole impeachment thing is a farce, has been since the get-go. You've glommed onto it and can't see it. Stand back for a minute and take it in, stop with the liberal spin word games and start paying attention. It's not complex. Whether we are talking about President Trump's 'private' telephone discussions with foreign leaders or taking out bad guys, it's ALL about protecting Americans and American interests. Yes?
No, not to Trump. For him, it's all about protecting and benefiting himself.
As for killing Solemani in Iran, it will take awhile for the consequences to be fully known, just as it took awhile for the consequences of invading Iraq to be fully known.
Do you consider Trump's stated intention to steal Syria's oil merely protecting America's interests, as well?
The Government is of the people, the President resides over it. The "deep state" is career politicians (and their cronies) using and abusing the system, at the people's expense!
Who is confused?The Deep State is the government. The President is your hero. I see that very clearly. You would rather give up power to Trump than allow government by the people.
Sorry, the Deep State is not the government. Here is the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary.
"Deep state
noun
A body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy."
This is what is responsible for the bogus FISA warrant and more.Sorry....Trump is stating about every agency in our government is the Deep State..so the Deep State is the rest of the government, other than the executive. This is one way dictators around the world have come to be. You are supporting a wannabe dictator...he's even "jokingly" said so. Once again, I cannot support an American President who even jokes about this. He is testing the waters to see just how far his devoted will go. He disparages every branch/wing of the government in a clear attempt to undermine that wings authority. Add to this, his "enemy of the people" media and you have a clear despot wanna be. I wrote an article about it. Trumpers love to disparage it as I think it hits a nerve that they know is true.
I think obama acted far more like a dictator than President Donald Trump ever has during his presidency. I cited at least two occasions where obama clearly ignored the Constitution.
One with the Dreamers Act (Presidents are not permitted to make immigration law. That is the job of Congress). The other is the Iran deal as well as the Paris accord. (Presidents need to get approval from Congress before a treaty is ratified.)
There are others, but I'll let this be a huge example of a wanna be dictator president. Why these things didn't upset the left I don't know. Again, hypocrisy is my theory.Mike, I would add to the list, Obama's mandated health insurance; you will buy this or you will pay a fine or do some time.... Sounds autocratic and dictatorial to me!
Obama was a DICTATOR, especially with the fiasco known as Obama"care". What a total CROCK...…..
YES, he the President, he who works for and answers to...the people, dictated that we purchase insurance or else!!! I have a BIG problem with that. Every citizen of the U.S. should have been outraged by it.
Do you see how this comes off? You don't care how authoritarian he is, as long as you agree with his policies.
Huh? Did you read a single word of this? You have completely missed my point, nipping at the bit, to come back at me.
The ball is in your court. No explanation as to why you support someone who tears down our institutions. In fact, you ended that discussion as being off topic, lol American institutions will outlast Trump.
Edit: And, yes, I read every bit of your reply, which completely ignored Trump's anti-American behavior that I brought up. I think you missed my point.I must have missed seeing you at 25-30 different Tea Party rallies, when an "American Institution", our Constitution was being "torn down" by Barack Obama. That wasn't all that was being torn down, parts and pieces of our history (Would you agree that OUR HISTORY; good, bad, indifferent, is a part of our American institution?)
Historic statues and memorials, crosses, etc.....were being torn down and destroyed, under his watch, as if a great purging was taking place!
Were you in Washington D.C. when millions of us "peaceably assembled and petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances", because we actually care about American institutions, we don't just talk smack, we take positive action, because that's what we as citizens, have been entrusted to do, in order to "keep this Republic"? Do you understand that what we have here in the United States of America, is a Republic and that is a very good thing?
I'll stay for the match hard sun.
The matters of just how far executive authority goes, in terms of the specifics of law, has been debated for decades, and every President is accused of taking his authority too far on certain matters. Trump's dealings, and behavior, are way beyond this, and welcomed by his supporters. I think the truth hurts.
Name one incident where President Donald Trump ignored the Constitution like obama.
Once again hard sun, the ball is in your court....and the balls are piling up!
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog … -coverage.
Here's just a starter course. Go ahead and enlighten us all how none of these actions violate the Constitution as I know you are qualified to do such.
No one can answer the question you are qualified to answer. Why support a President who even jokes about being leader for life and who openly tries to tear down the very government he runs....who declares political opponents to be Deep State enemies, etc. He is anti-American and his supporters cheer him on while he tears our government apart. Anyone in his way is Deep State enemy.
As the left always does they make a false statement then use it to defend their argument or argue against it - it’s called a straw man and almost all their comments use it like this (don’t fall for this tactic):
“Trump is stating about every agency in our government is the Deep State..so the Deep State is the rest of the government, other than the executive.“
That statement is a lie, Trump hasn’t done that and so Hard’s logic is lame!
Don’t fall for it!It's a lie? I think you understand very well it's not a lie. No one here can defend his Trump's authoritarian behaviors. I think it's because they don't mind it. The Deep State is made up of the people and the institutions that represent the people. But, some want to turn it all over to Trump. He's a genius you see.
Explain to me how the Deep State is not simply the government, which is made up of Americans. In fact, the Deep State is now whatever, and whoever, Trump says it is.
Ok deep state explained
https://hubpages.com/politics/Deep-StateThanks for sharing this T. I’ve read part of it, need to finish. Very long.... because it is very thorough.
Yet, you just did. Or, was it someone else? Who createdthis? Where did you find it?
He goes to the Right wing nut job meme directory, where else?
All of it...
Sure the Right wing nut jobs claim this, but then I don't pay any attention to them.
Now if they could get started on the ones running loose in Kansas City!
Okay, but would you support a change to the Constitution so that Trump could run for a third term? (assuming he wins a second)
Crank, who are you asking?
If you are asking me; absolutely not.I, myself, would not support ANY change to the Constitution. I think a two term president is exactly what needs to happen.
Once again, but Obama is all you have. But, did Obama joke about being a dictator? Did Obama chum up to dictators while alienating allies of the free world? Did Obama order underlings to not testify against him? Did Obama disparage EVERY branch of the government every chance he got and label the media, and his political opponents "the enemy of the people?" No he didn't.
The matters of just how far executive authority goes, in terms of the specifics of law, has been debated for decades, and every President is accused of taking his authority too far on certain matters.
Trump's consistent attempts to tear at our institutions and test the waters of how his supporters will respond to things like "Trump 2024" is unprecedented and a clear attempt at authoritarianism. This is very clear.
I think many of his supporters secretly want an authoritarian leader to save them from the ever-changing and scary world. Some of them not so secretly...I will add....hard sun thinks that Trump "joking" about a third term makes him a dictator...Government-mandated health care, which came packaged with threats, gets a pass though?!?
AB,
I can tell when President Donald Trump is joking. The left doesn't have it together enough to realize what is and is not a joke. I doubt they realize President Donald Trump does things like this so we can all sit back and enjoy them going crazy over absolutely nothing.
This is an accurate portrayal of the underhanded, below the belt chiseler, Donald Trump, that we all know and love......
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ret … anian-flagYou are right Mike, that he does!
There’s a lot the left doesn’t realize. It is difficult to find any common ground, not sure why I keep searching for it.So no one can even attempt to offer an explanation for supporting a President who works so hard at tearing down us apart and destroying our national institutions. Got it
But he's loading the courts with right-wing judges who will protect the unborn while repealing health care for the already born. And he's protecting them from scary immigrants.
These things are most important to them.That's it. They would make Trump king if it got these things done.
What was he king of, AB? The Jews? They didn't believe he was the Messiah, and still don't.
Your usual non answer, AB. What was he king of?
I should clarify; I only recognize one King, Jesus Christ.
The lobbying company i worked for originated half the Tea Party phrases. I'm very familiar with the movement and why it was supported by corporate interests of all sorts.
What for example, "Don't tread on me"?
Do you have a clue about small business or what small business owners were up against with "you didn't build that" Obama? I'm thinking not.Interesting, HS, why did the corporate types so adamantly support the Tea Party?
Hi Cred. Corporations supported the Tea Party so much, in part, because of the anti-regulation environment that the policies they supposedly cared so much about would bring. They would use phrases like "free-market" etc. in order to fight any bill that would result in better consumer protection, lower drug prices, etc. We would have to use phrases like "Obamacare" even when Obamacare really didn't have anything to do with the subject. All our caller reps would have to do is state that Obama is for or against something and it would get the support of these "Tea Partiers" even if meant taxing one industry into the ground in order to help another industry...the very opposite of what the Tea Party was supposed to be about. Really, they were easy targets. And, if anyone had any doubt that racism played a role in the anti-Obama sentiment, all they had to do was spend a day listening to calls with those labeled as likely Tea Party supporters.
It is very shady business that plays on fears and makes them worse. I would be on a call with a pharmaceutical, or energy company rep, where a new Tea Party slogan was made up and a few weeks later it would be on posters during marches.
One odd thing is that we used the "very real threat" of Russia's new supersonic missiles to scare people into supporting funds specifically earmarked for patriot missiles. Now, these same people seems to think Russia is our friend. I wrote letters for issues ranging from gambling and spy balloons, to healthcare, energy, and department of defense funding.
Edit: Before anyone says I'm saying every Tea Party advocate was racist, I'm not. But, there were a decent percentage of calls that started with "I'm not a racist, but..." and ended with worse.
You are right PP, little babies in the womb, don't have a voice, but they DO have a right to life and I am all about protecting that right. We aren't entitled to health care, we aren't entitled to most things. There isn't a section on 'Entitlement' in the Constitution, but "right to life" sure as heck is.
I love immigrants, they just need to come in the right way.....(that means legally) If they are here strictly to take advantage of us or do us harm, then yes, that makes them scary.
We agree, these things are important to me.Yes, I believe I have a fairly good understanding of the priorities of the average Trump supporter.
Make that a supporter of the priorities required to keep this great Republic of OURS great and we are good to go, can move on.
Like taking children from legal asylum seekers and unlawfully keeping them in cages? Priorities like that?
Whatever lie helps you sleep at night. Zero deaths of children at the border in the ten years prior to Trump taking office. What are we up to now? Six,?Seven? I'm afraid to Google.
I think you are afraid of the truth about our former President and your party. But...rest assured, Google is on your side, so you will probably find what you want (or need) to find, without much effort.
You're saying that Google invented those deaths? Wow.
Are you talking about really sick children that traveled here with or without their parents and died? Those that died along the way? Sadly there have been a a lot of them, over time? Some probably wish they were dead, those that have gotten caught up in the sex trafficking industry? Can you be more specific?
I'm talking about kids who died while in U.S. custody at the border.
You must have missed this story. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4109234I’ve seen the stories too PP. Parents/surrogates travel through the desert, sometimes with very sick or dying children. Because they may happen to die, once U.S. soil is reached, you are trying to say that is Donald Trump’s fault. I get it, I know how leftists think.
AB, isn't is fascinating how liberals are obsessed at bad parents who drag their children across the desert to try and illegally enter the United States? TRUE asylum seekers have many ways to avoid this and enter the United States safely. Most of these people want to cross the border and get the many free things provided them by the US taxpayer.
I'm always amazed how they will get emotional about these children BUT the children shot in Chicago and Baltimore are never mentioned by those on the left.
Maybe if you live in a Democrat controlled city an American child's life isn't as valuable as a child who has horrible parents and drags them across the desert to illegally enter the United States.
Nobody forced these people to come here. Many are asked to leave.
I think we should really focus on helping the homeless American children as well as those living in battle ridden Democrats cities before we worry about the children of terrible parents who want to enter our country illegally.
I've posted how Democrats can go to the border and sponsor someone trying to cross the border. For some reason, nobody has taken me up on it. Guess it's just easier to come onto HP and yell about President Donald Trump rather than actually do something about the children at the border. I think it's the liberal way.Great points all Mike.
I’ve mentioned before that some on the left, seem to have some intelligence, but due to their hate and obsession with Trump, they’re losing it.....literally!So many lies.
These children don't need sponsors, they need to be returned to their parents in accordance with the law. Of course, we already know you and other Trumpeters are fine with Trump breaking the law and harming children as long as they are immigrants.
https://time.com/5678313/trump-administ … -lawsuits/
They traveled through the desert, sometimes with sick or dying children, during Obama's presidency, too. You even claim Obama caged them.in the same manner as Trump. If so, why do many deaths now but not then?
By the way, your Christian values really shine through in that post.Do you think the age demographic of illegal border crossers has shifted in the past few years? Seems to me we're seeing a lot more children, whether in the company of purported "parents" or alone.
I don't know. Have they? Are the six deaths in three years proportionally ally equivalent to zero in ten?
They are probably even lower, given that the numbers for the preceeding 10 years are most certainly "massaged" to give the result wanted. Normal death rates for even healthy children are higher than that, and a great many of those children are NOT entering the country in a state of health. If nothing else they are coming from countries rampant with diseases that we have virtually wiped out in our country.
How could they "massage" the numbers? By not counting children that died in a hospital, or those that died in the care of surrogate parents scattered through the country. It's pretty easy to do, if you wish "statistics" that don't truly match reality. When those statistics are to be used to blame the president for following the law, for instance.Pretty sure you've seen the reports of the caravans of "families" that want in. Pretty sure you've seen the reports of children that are not related to the adults they are with.
But proof of illegal alien children dying in our hands? You've made the claim that there were zero - can you back that up? Perhaps with a death toll of the total that died in the first year they were here rather than just those in the internment camps? To be fair, of course, you'll want to provide figures for the total number of children entering in the two time periods you mention.Why the hell would I want to compare apples to oranges?
What happened to you, wilderness? You used to care (mostly) about the truth. Increasingly, you waste massive amounts of time and energy on irrelevant, diversionary nitpicks. If you want to prove that those six deaths of children in U.S. custody at the border are proportionally equivalent to the zero deaths in ten years of children in U.S. custody at the border then do it. I'm not going off on some irrelevant goose chase just because you don't like the truth.Except that this is a "truth" that you cannot support. The "truth" is that we do a very good job of keeping these children, sick or not, physically exhausted or not, starving or not, dehydrated or not, alive and healthy.
That some will die (or become very, very ill) is a foregone conclusion considering where they are from and what they've gone through. You're trying to insinuate that Trump is the cause of their death, and he simply isn't. Their experiences and the adults that brought them through those experiences are.
You are using numbers that are grossly skewed from reality, and ignoring very pertinent and important facts, to show this, and it just isn't reasonable. We all know how easy it is to find (or produce) statistics that show whatever we want them to show, and this is one such case.
That children (and adults) have died while in our care is irrefutable. That we can, or should, expect 100% to survive what they have gone through, though, is ridiculous no matter how hard we try. It's like trying to demand 100% survival of 3 month preemie crack babies; it isn't going to happen.Again, lots of inference without any effort to support it.
Perhaps. Do you think that all of these kids enter the US in glowing health? Do you truly need it proven that they do not? Do you really need it proven that there are more kids entering than during Obama's reign? Why, when you know better?
You have to know, if you've followed it at all, that illegal border crossings were way down the first few years of Obama's term, during and immediately after the recession. You have to know that those kids were not kept in detention centers - that we were able to disperse them to relatives or others - and that that process is now decried as inhumane because it wasn't perfect, with the inevitable result that severe illness is now more prevalent while in our immediate care rather than with a grandparent or cousin somewhere.
I said it already, but I'll repeat it: deaths happened on our watch, and in numbers greater than in the past. And that there are reasons for that; reasons that thinking people don't simply ascribe to Trump in an effort to demonize him. Simply looking at tweaked statistics in order to find wrongdoing by Trump is a wasted effort; if you want to improve something that will get nowhere.I have only stated the known facts. You have offered nothing except inference to mitigate them and ask me to participate in your game. Why should I help you unearth data that you yourself will not?
I finally joined your WMD nitpick game on another thread and you seem to have left the game. Why?
By the way, I would not have blamed Obama any more than I would Trump...for the bad parenting skills of others.
Obama used makeshift cages during his administration, out of necessity. The pictures surfaced and so began the blame Trump for kids in cages campaign.
You know nothing of my values, don't pretend you do.
PP,
Reuniting children has been done. Here is from your article
"However, the ACLU confirmed parents of 12 of the 27 remaining children waived reunification because they had been deported and did not wish to have the child return to a dangerous environment. In eight cases, the government determined the parent was unfit for reunification and posed a threat to the child, and in four cases, it was determined that family separation hadn’t actually occurred.
2. What laws were broken? The article talks about a civil lawsuit being filed by the ACLU and nothing else.
Again, why is there no concern for American children suffering in Democrat controlled cities like Chicago and Los Angeles? Just wondering.I like how you cherry pick. And it's really stupid to say if a person expresses concern about one thing they don't care about another.
I'm not going any further down into the weeds. My.original question was in response to AB stating that she is "a supporter of the priorities required to keep this great Republic of OURS great."
I just wondered if the illegal detainment and separation of asylum-seeking families at the border was one of the priorities she supports. I got my answer."illegal detainment and separation of asylum-seeking families at the border"
Again, you are off the mark. There is no illegal detainment. The United States, like every country in the world, has the right to detain anyone who crosses into our borders illegally.
In the realm of reality that is known as lawful detainment.
Asylum-seeking families? You should consider reading up on immigration law. Should you seek legal asylum in the United States, there are ways to do it without crossing our borders illegally and being detained.
These parents have made a bad decision and it reflects on them as parents. It does NOT reflect on the United States in a negative way. At these detention centers they get fed, children are provided clean diapers, fresh water, a place to sleep at taxpayer expense all for breaking our immigration laws. It is a pretty good deal.
Again, nobody asked them to come here and break our immigration laws by illegally entering the United States. That was their decision and all decisions come with consequences.
You cannot be a good Christian and a Trump supporter. That's not even remotely possible.
When you say such a thing, I have to question your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. You can't know much about the life of Jesus. Making such a statement makes that not even remotely possible.
My “usual non-answer”? I don’t know Randy, I’ve been answering quite a bit here over some time. You might not like them, but I wouldn’t call them non answers.
My life. You aren’t familiar with King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ? I’ve gone through an inquisition...do you want a sermon now too?Yes, I'm familiar with the Xtian cult, ab. Which kings was he king of? Some weren't aware of being subservient to another 'king".
I understand your superstition though as I live in the Deep South, surrounded by so many Xtians you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. Most are Trump enablers as well.Okay, Christianity is a cult in your mind....I was wondering where you were going with this line of questioning.
I am sorry for you Randy, this explains a lot.Randy, most Christians probably don't care what you think or believe. Please list me among them. You believe what you believe. I just think it says many bad things about you and the type of person you are when you criticize a person's faith. Maybe, you should leave it alone.
Stick to making snarky comments on political threads. I consider it your superpower.Lol, Mike you never fail to Tell it like it is!
Even his superpower is fading....earlier he gave up and challenged me to arm wrestling.
It must be draining all of his power, attempting to keep up with logic.Well you know:
Findings show study participants who began using marijuana at the age of 16 or younger demonstrated brain variations that indicate arrested brain development in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for judgment, reasoning and complex thinking. Individuals who started using marijuana after age 16 showed the opposite effect and demonstrated signs of accelerated brain aging.Wow! And everybody thinks marijuana is so harmless.
Yeah, that’s what pot smugglers want you to believe. Right Randy?
What's the excuse for your confusion, T? Just natural, I suppose?
Do you care what others put into their bodies? Is this another case of the government righties wanting the government to tell us what to do, show us hot to live? I'm closer to a libertarian than any of the so-called conservatives around here.
We could also be a little more honest as the noted and marked differences in amount of use affects the results in that study. Too much of most things can have negative affects on the brain.
Additionally, from the study; "Filbey notes that a longitudinal study would be necessary to establish a causal relationship between brain alterations and marijuana use."
So, no causal relationships were established even in this one study. What's more is that one study does not make science, or even anything close to a theory. So, why cherry pick from one study of "42 heavy marijuana users?"
It looks to me like searching for data to support the findings you WANT to see. Why would anyone want to see this? Maybe to support a ban or some such nonsense. And then they say liberals want a nanny state!?!?You'll soon learn to take T's comment with a bag of salt. A grain simply won't do the job.
Yeah. I've noticed that, with a few Hubbers, you can point out glaring discrepancies and untruths with their writings, and they simply just don't care. It's kind of like they say to themselves, "yeah you're right, but I don't care, I'm going to keep on with the same nonsense as it fits with this warped worldview that I have." It's an illness.
Christianity, like virtually all religions, engages in a lot of cult-like behaviors. For many, religion is a cult that guides their lives in opposition to rational thought. Religion, at its core and throughout history, opposes science and rational thought.
This may be the crux of many "disagreements" here. It's impossible to debate with those who don't even understand what reality is. They make their own reality of which there is no debate.
"This may be the crux of many disagreements here. It's impossible to debate with those who don't even understand what reality is. They make their own reality of which there is no debate".
If there was ever anything more Pelosi-ish, leftist, Dem Party than that paragraph, I don't know what it could possibly be.
Can I borrow it for my next hub, hard sun? Is it yours to lend? That last sentence in particular.
Seriously! No really, I am being serious.I knew you'd like that as it reveals something about you. My point is we live in separate worlds. You emphasized that point very well. No, you can't use it word for word. You'll have to find other words to describe your behavior.
Most religionist's have to bend their beliefs into all sorts of shapes to atone for the errors in their particular cult. It's easy for them to rationalize Trump's actions, even when they're obviously wrong, because they're accustomed to doing so for their religious beliefs.
Religion and science are two different things. Science explains the physical world. Religion explains the spiritual world. Science can not explain many things that occur in the spiritual world. There are many things science can't explain. So, science only knows the physical world.
Science can explain things, such as lightning, that people used to attribute to gods and the spiritual realm. Science will continue to uncover such things.
They still are unable to explain the spiritual world. There are scientists who agree with me.
Excerpts of Statements by Scientists
Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science
Scientists, like people in other professions, hold a wide range of positions about religion and the role of supernatural forces or entities in the universe.
Some adhere to a position known as scientism, which holds that the methods of science alone are sufficient for discovering everything there is to know about the universe.
Others ascribe to an idea known as deism, which posits that God created all things and set the universe in motion but no longer actively directs physical phenomena. Others are theists, who believe that God actively intervenes in the world. Many scientists who believe in God, either as a prime mover or as an active force in the universe, have written eloquently about their beliefs.
"Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained."
— Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Religion. Quote is excerpted from an interview available here.
"In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul."
— Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health. Excerpted from his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 6).
"Our scientific understanding of the universe … provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs."
— Father George Coyne, Catholic priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory. Quote is from a talk, "Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution," at Palm Beach Atlantic University, January 31, 2006.
https://www.nas.edu/evolution/StatementsScience.html"They still are unable to explain the spiritual world. There are scientists who agree with me."
But Mike, they can't find a "spiritual world". Given that the only "explanation" of it has to be "well, maybe it's there and maybe it's not".I believe there is a spiritual world.
I was once given an assignment by one of my editors to do a story on scientific ghost research. It was published in a book that was around for about a decade before it was taken out of print.
I found many people who worked in the science field trying to discover the spiritual world.
There are some common things they found. As scientists, they tried to disprove everything they discovered. What they were left with were things they couldn't explain.
These weren't people who did this for a television show, these were scientists with PhD's in physics, engineering etc. who were conducting scientific experiments.
I went with three different groups. It was fascinating. Energy spikes they couldn't explain. Voices they had no idea how they recorded. Images they couldn't explain and more. Yes, there is a spiritual world. Yes, there are scientists who attempt to use science to learn about it.
I was told by most of them fellow scientists dismiss their evidence and research without even looking at it. Some believed it scared some of their fellow scientists.
I think that is interesting.You missed the point. While you may believe, and science cannot explain everything they see, that does not mean that a "spiritual world", whatever you might mean by that term, actually exists. When voices are recorded but they don't where they came from, when unknown energy spikes occur, that is not a reason to make up an entire world simply to explain the unknown.
In times far distant that's exactly what people did; make up explanations for events they didn't understand. Thunder and lightning, moving stars, volcanoes, sicknesses; anything they didn't understand. We know better than to take that path today.Every time I start thinking we may live on difference planets we agree on something again Dan. There's still a couple Hubbers that comment with whom I've yet to find a point of agreement with.
We do know better than to make up shortcuts for these phenomena because science has proved over and over that it will likely find the answer at some point. And, for now, it likely has a theory that is at least closer to the truth than simply "It's part of the spiritual realm."Wilderness, I suggest you make some effort to discover what science had detected in regards to the spiritual world. It is far more than what I would list here.
What was once spiritual often becomes not such when science better understands it. That is the truth.
This is my favorite quote.
"Creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained."
— Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Religion. Quote is excerpted from an interview available here.Much of what this means depends on is the definition of god we are using. If that definition is too narrow, i'd argue those scientists are likely overlooking evidence and taking their research on the wrong track due to that bias.
hard sun, it seems to me as if the deniers of God, can’t accept that there is something much larger and grander than them. So quick to explain it all away, not the least bit curious, in denial. This is as crazy to me, as me being a believer is to you. “In the beginning God.....”, there is no better explanation! But, it goes much deeper than that and that is where faith comes in.
I know that's not what science is about. I'm not debating the existence of a "god." Science is not about belief. And..science is never "so quick to explain" away anything. Gotta go.
I saw two people debate this once. The scientist who believed in God said "Science takes quite a bit of belief, especially when it comes to scientific theories. You have to believe that your data is correct. You have to believe that your experiments prove what you believe they prove. Have some scientific theories been proven wrong over time? Yes, but until then scientists believed what they had produced was correct. He ended it with saying science does take quite a bit of faith.
I still say the physical world is best explained by science. The spiritual world is best explained by faith in God. I still say they are two very different things. So, I don't disparage scientific findings. When there is a scientific discovery that helps humans, there are many of us who believe it is something sent to us from God through the scientists.Following evidence does not take faith. Since we acknowledge evidence could change things in the future, that is the exact opposite of faith. Furthermore, is it a "belief" for me to look at the floor and say: "That is a floor." We can play with semantics all day, but in the end, science means following evidence with the understanding that evidence can change.
As far as the rest, it's all just conjecture. My thing is the pursuit of truth...nothign more and nothing less. If someone wants to call that religion, or faith, I don't truly care as it's not going to affect the outcome.Oh but it does hard sun.
Believers have heard it all; every argument that you could possibly come up with. Don't flatter yourself into thinking you've come up with anything Earth shattering. Have you ever wondered why you try so hard though?Have you really ever taken the time to examine your religion, AB. I mean the veracity of it, the history, whether it's based on myth or facts? Or is your faith simply blind?
Not at all. Your turn. Why do you care how much time I've invested? You've got it all figured out already.
AB, isn't is amazing how having faith in God, the Bible and Jesus really upsets some people? It's as if they want you to be as miserable as they are and hate the fact your happy with your religion.
I think what is at the core of the thinking of such people is a fear that Christians are right. That we are connected to something they are not able to comprehend. It is something larger than this world and the events and the people in it. I think it is fear that drives miserable people to attack those who are followers of the Christian faith.
John 14:17 7 He will send you the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive the true Spirit because it does not see or know him. You know him because he is with you and will be in you.
I also like Matthew 43-45 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteousAmen Mike.
It is interesting that you mentioned fear in your response. I had initially included one other sentence and deleted it.
What are you so afraid of?Could you be afraid "religionists" are right?
Have you ever heard the sentiment that Christians find 'xmas' offensive? (taking the Christ out of Christmas) Could that be a reason you use "xtians," to be purposely offensive?
GAGA, I already pointed that out to him 6 months ago - you hit the nail on the head.
I don't know about that tsadjatko. I am simply expressing a thought. My thought.
GA
Could be Xtian is easier to use than christian, GA? I'm definitely not afraid the religionists are right.
Try again!So you will take the time to spell out the word "religionists", but Christian is too long, therefore shorthand is required? Interesting.
See, I tried to avoid using Xtian and get hellhacked for doing so. Back to the word 'Xtian" then.
I don't know what you mean, ab. Called on what?
Nah, I don't think "easier" is the reason. But what do I know . . .
GA
Why would I hate anyone religious unless it affected my life, Mike? I know you want to think that, but you'd be mistaken as usual.
You don't even know who wrote the scripture you posted.
I don't care, just wondered if you really know where your beliefs come from.
What does what now? Earth shattering? It is difficult to follow evidence as opposed to simply filling in gaps with fairy tales. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to. You do you, I guarantee I'll do me.
You described religion/faith as conjecture and wrote "it's not going to affect the outcome".
I disagreed."Here's my quote: "If someone wants to call that religion, or faith, I don't truly care as it's not going to affect the outcome." I was referring to my pursuit of truth and others calling it whatever they want, and it not affecting the outcome of my pursuit of truth.
I understand you don't agree that religion is conjecture. But, I still don't get how you can disagree with my personal feeling that people can call my pursuit of truth whatever they want and it won't affect the outcome of that pursuit.
At any rate, religious debates will continue to look sillier and sillier as time goes on, and nobody will need anything "Earth shattering" to make that so.I too seek to sincerely observe or experience truth. Just as long as it does not approach atheism. Atheism is an illogical position and to entertain it would be silly.
"illogical"? Did you really just try to bring logic into a discussion about religion?
Isn't religion a faith-based thing?
GAThere are 3 positions. Belief in a God or Creator, Agnostic and atheist.
Some people believe in God or a Creator based upon a claim of experience similar to qualia. Others, like the greatest minds that have ever existed; such as Leibniz argued that it is a logical conclusion.
Agnosticism believe they do not know or have no knowledge and is indeterminate.
Atheists claim they themselves are god and omniscient and from their porch in West Virginia have searched the universe and claim there is definitely no god.Ohhh, I see. I never knew about those folks in West Virginia. My bad.
GAIt gets even worse. By default the atheists "mythical daddy" is the devil, who got beat in a fiddlin contest by a hillbilly in Georgia. Sad!
Atheist simply means without god. It doesn't mean there could absolutely no way be a god, despite what Wikipedia may tell you..well. maybe for some West Virginians but not most a-theists I know. It sounds like you sure have it all figured out though...except the basic definitions of the things you are lecturing people about.
How convenient there are an endless flavors of atheist. A given position of a particular atheists position is like an uncertainty principle.
Why not, there are endless flavors Xtians as well. Jim Jones was one of them, along with Joseph Smith. Where do you fit in, Phoe?
Fundamentally, they all believe in God. Whereas the atheist position is fundamentally like an ideological "whack a mole"game.
Ps. Jim Jones was an admitted atheistAdmitted to his followers? I don't thinks so....
And Joseph Smith was a Polygamist. What's your point?
You neglected to tell me where you fit in, Phoe. Priest, Rabbi, Televangelist, etc.I believe he admitted it while being taped by the FBI and on multiple other occasions, if memory serves.
Ya know, I was thinking. If Da Vinci could teach pigs in a pen to paint on the walls of the barn a pretty picture, would they ever really appreciate art? And to what end Sir? To what end..I'll assume you don't want to answer where you fit in, Phoe. I've asked you twice and you avoided responding both times.
"I believe" is not worth much when you make such a claim. And Joe Smith, the former con man who claimed to be able to find gold by talking into his hat? And wanted multiple young wives. Was he a Xtian?When I say " I believe" it means there are actual transcripts of the recording made by the FBI where Jim Jones admits he is an atheist. Transcripts of the recording, and of course an actual tape of his voice admitting he is an atheist. Hope that clears that up for you.
I am a Methodist if anything. I have a famous Methodist in my family tree. I dont subscribe much to denominations or visit Church much.Probably John Wesley. He got kicked out of Georgia because a young lady scorned him and he denied her the sacrament. He was a hoot, for sure.
A link to the transcripts would be fine.
And Christians all interpret the bible exactly the same, that's why there is only one branch of that relig..oh yeah.
Wow this dead terrorist dude really has us talking, it has run the gamut.
I think us not always being able to thoroughly explain what is in this world, but is not of this world (the things of our making) speaks volumes.Bizarre seeing the atheist, anti-religionists, liberal etc making a martyr out of an evil thug from an evil theocracy. I am waiting for them to start praying to him or create a new Holi-day for him. They are very inconsistent in their jumbled up contradictions and emotions. Sad!
Who has made a martyr out of the general, Phoe? I'm sure you can add a link backing up your claim though.
Come on Randy...this is the TOPIC. I wrote it because of my frustration with MSM and the left making him (the 'general') out to be some cherished, loved, wrongly targeted distinguished gentleman and oh no,Trump has really gone and done it now, he is going to start a war, what can we do to tell them how very sorry we are.....and on and on it went, on and on it still goes.
I did't hear all of that, ab. It must have been on Faux News.
It just may be too soon to face reality for liberals. They are still visibly and publicly grieving over their beloved general soleimani.
YEP!!! Funny the timing of this, I was just reminding Randy of the topic at hand.
You people are really something. Just what, I haven't figured out yet. But I'm learning....
Despite the silly meme, I'll never support the criminal. Watch McConnell try to sweep the documents and witnesses under the rug. But you guys would be fine with it...
If you choose to see or call things which I see and call God-things, something else, that's your prerogative.
That's very Xtian of you to allow Don his own beliefs.
Related Discussions
- 276
Another 1 Bites the Dust: What are your thoughts on Police Brutality?
by deecoleworld 10 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
- 27
The slippery slope toward tyranny: Trump says profile U.S. Muslims?
by Credence2 8 years ago
American Muslims to be profiled? These are American citizens. Are not all of us innocent until proven guilty? This suggestion is truly the mark of a tyrant. This is the guy that said that he would have had no problem imprisoning Americans of Japanese ancestery just after Pearl Harbor, just...
- 129
Iranians terrorists funded by the US!
by Deforest 12 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
- 316
Is the World More or Less Safe Given Trump Killed an Iranian General?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Donald Trump, after some discussion with few of his top generals, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense as well as some of his advisors, over a two or three day period, decided to assassinate the second most powerful person in the Iranian government - General Qasem Soleimani, the leader...
- 308
Trump sells out to Turkey
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
In 2015 Trump admitted he had a conflict of interest with Turkey because he had a Trump Towers project in the works. He now stabs the Kurds in the back after they fought beside American troops to help rid the region from ISIS. Apparently money means more to him than human lives as Turkey is posed...
- 39
Another hub bites the dust
by Angelique Newman 12 years ago
It's starting to get frustrating that my hubs slip into idle mode and I'm not aware of it until I do a count of them. I wish they would notify me, not to mention explain why they did it. I admit my page views are incredibly low lately but this is the second time they stopped featuring...