James A Watkins For President - 2012

1. 81

   BDazzlerposted 14 years ago

   Here are several reasons, I honestly believe James A Watkins should seriously consider running for President in 2012.
   
   1. He treats everyone with grace and respect. 
      A. Politics can get pretty ugly on hub pages.  Right wing and left wing calling each other names. Whether you agree with him or not, he will always treat you with dignity and respect. (Whether you deserve it or not!)
   
     B. He addresses issues not people.  I've seen him called some pretty ugly names by people who disagree with him.  He can hold his position without taking it personally (even if it's meant personally!)
   
   
   2.  His view and knowledge of history gives him a context from which to make solid "long term" decisions that will stand up to time.
   
   3. His ideas are GOOD.  Yes, he's conservative. But it's not a "I'm conservative because my daddy was."  He knows WHY he believes what he believes.  He knows where his ideas come from.
   
   4. He's well traveled.  Although the US was founded as an isolationist nation, our choices(like it or not) have global implications.  James understands and loves people from other cultures and nations without thinking he has to be like them or even be liked by them.
   
   5. He has  failed spectacularly.  I've read his hubs. He has been open about his failures. There's a strength to that kind of humility. He's had some pretty high climbs and therefore some pretty hard falls.  And he has gotten up, brushed himself off and kept going.
   
   You can't buy, rent or learn that kind of life experience.  It has to be earned through the school of hard knocks.
   
   Even if you disagree with his politics and ideas ... you have to admit, the man is a class act in every sense of the word.
   
   James A Watkins For President - 2012!
   
   P.S. James Watkins did not know or "approve" of this post!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I've enjoyed James's writings, the ones I've had time to read, and yes he seems like a good guy.
      As far as voting for anyone, I'd have to know exactly where they stand on several issues;  they'd have to actually be transparent instead of just sayin' they are (like Obama and his stooges); and they'd have to.....want to run for Office!  haha Does James wanna run for Office?
      
      Of course they'd have to hold to the Republican Platform to get my vote; and show no signs of reverse racism; stick up for State and national sovreignty, and have some over-all common sense.  But heck, who am I?  Just a simple country gal clinging to her pepper spray and Faith. 

      replyreport
      1. 81

         BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Take a look at his hubs about his plan to unite America and Late Great United States.
         
         I disagree with him on the legalization of drugs, but ... I consider that a minor issue ... dude knows his constitution and the role of government. And dang, he actually believes it. 
         
         As far as transparency ... He put his bankruptcy on his hubs ... that could not have been pleasant or easy...
         
         Of course, you never get to know anybody, really via the web or TV or whatever ... but what I see so far, I like ... A LOT ...

         replyreport
   2. 0

      cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      groovy idea! James Watkins is HubPages' Ferris Bueller - everyone adores him. yeah...i can see it...
      
      
      
      i will campaign for him but only if he appoints me Feng Shui and Bunny Rescue Czar.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You forget an important one....he is awfully hot as well.
      And I bet he does not wear a toupee.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well BP, I didn't even think of that one ... sorry!

         replyreport
         1. 68

            blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It is quite ok I had fun evaluating LMAO!!

            replyreport
            1. 81

               BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, it's the whole hetro thing  ... when I think of "Hot Hubber" I might think of you, but I wouldn't think of James

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  blondepoetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Aww gee whiz you just went to the top of the class LMAO.

                  replyreport
   4. 60

      tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I have immense respect for James to be sure. I do not know whether he would want to be infected by the virus of corruption that permeates from Capitol Hill. However I would have more trust in James then anybody who currently resides in Washington DC. Especially 1600 Pennsylvania Ave !

      replyreport
      1. 81

         BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think that because he has been both rich and poor he will be less susceptible to Washington corruption.  His hub show the character of a man who has been through the fire.
         
         Want to ... that's another issue. I honestly hope he would consider it. 
         
         I know he COULD do a good job.  I just don't know if he's electable or would want it.

         replyreport
   5. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't agree with you
      eg your points 1. & 2.  although is  'gentlemanly' a lot of the time, when it comes his views (he can't divorce politics & religion), he does call names and is very black-and -white eg calls people that don't share his views 'demon-possessed' , 'evil' etc & uses sweeping statements like 'all socialists are atheists' etc

      replyreport
2. 65

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   LOL I love James - but as a writer. But then I don't vote anyway

   replyreport
   1. 81

      BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Well ... we could make you a birth certificate with Adobe like our current presidents' and you could be his running mate.

      replyreport
3. 88

   Deborah Demanderposted 14 years ago

   This is a great idea. It's time for a strong grass roots candidate, who doesn't crack under pressure, as Ross Perot. He is smart, well travelled, grounded and a man who stands behind his beliefs. Lets get it growing.
   James A Watkins for president!

   replyreport
   1. 81

      BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, yeah!

      replyreport
4. 83

   donotfearposted 14 years ago

   Wow. I'm impressed.
   
   I think James would make a great political figure. There are lots of open slots. Only thing is the liberal left media would focus on his "not so perfect past" so they could slime him before the world, like they always do. It's their job.
   
   James Watkins for political office? Not a bad idea.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      He's done SO well on coming to terms with his "less than perfect" past and I honestly think that is one of the things that qualifies him.  ... Yes, I think the leftist media would have a field day ... and I also believe James could take it.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         donotfearposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree.....
         But the 'Left Press' fights dirty without a fair game. They'd tear him up, chew him up, and spit him out. I'd like to see how he would handle it though, cause he seems to be so gracious that it would literally blow their leftin-lovin mind.
         
         But, YES, he could take it. Could we actually convince everyone else that overcoming adversity in life is a good trait?  Seems like the trend is toward "oh my perfect past with no blemishes, all American, goody goody." 
         
         I'd rather have somebody who's "been there, done that" than these other joke-sters that get up there and hurl projectiles.

         replyreport
5. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

   BDazzler,
   
   I did read another hub of his and loved it.
   The one about the Late Great U.S.
   
   He even had the guts to stand up for traditional marriage and show the bad consequences of the politically-correct "alternative".   Unlike many who call themselves Bible-Believers.   So yeah I respect him a lot already.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      All I know about him is what I read on hub pages, but I tell you truly, from what I've seen so far, I think he would get us back on the road to peace and prosperity.

      replyreport
6. 89

   Paragliderposted 14 years ago

   James is an excellent writer, researcher and scholar. More than that, he is a gentleman. However his tendency to court populist acclaim and his addiction to a failed dualistic dialectic would deny him my nomination.
   But I'd support his candidature to host an Art Appreciation TV series.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      One of the problems with democracy is that the skill set required to win elections does not necessarily match the skill set to lead well.
      
      In general those from Europe disapprove of the way we have done things in America.  They always have.  I would have preferred the isolationist doctrines pre-Wilson.  I honestly think we sided with the wrong team in WWI and therefore caused the Great Depression and WW2. 
      
      WW1 was not about "making the world safe for democracy" that was a spin ... it was just the logical conclusion of all the crown heads of Europe doing what they did...
      
      We should have stayed out of it.  Then, I would be able to say with good conscience, "Leave Us Alone what we do doesn't matter to you."
      
      Sadly, it does.  I would like for the US to be more isolationist, but that's no longer an option.
      
      All that to say ... I see where you're coming from, but it's <snicker> very un-American.
      
      I think his "pouplist" thing makes him electable, and his talent and knowledge make it possible that he could lead well.

      replyreport
7. 81

   CMHypnoposted 14 years ago

   Being from the UK I can't vote for James, but can we swop him for Nick Clegg or David Cameron?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'll swap Obama for either of those.   Just 'cause we'd KNOW they were from another country and could act accordingly on that fact.  The foreigner we know is better than the one claiming American patriotism....

      replyreport
8. 93

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   I'd vote for James! He could make me education czar!

   replyreport
9. 90

   livelongerposted 14 years ago

   Yeah, a guy who compares gay people to pedophiles. Hmm... don't think I'll be supporting anyone like that. We've already had one Jerry Falwell.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      A man is known by his enemies as well as his friends ... sometimes more so.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't think only leftists would be offended by his repeated suggestion that gay people want to support pedophilia. Do you support that?

         replyreport
         1. 81

            BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I believe that the people in political power behind the gay movement, specifically Barney Frank and Larry King are pedophiles and support pedophilia, yes.
            
            Lest you think that's a "Republican" point of view, I believe HW Bush was involved in a cover up on the issue.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Based on what evidence?

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I believe this story to be true:
                  http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/PhotographerTied.htm

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Because you choose to believe unsubstantiated conspiracy theories does not mean that gay people being portrayed as supporters of pedophilia is right (in either sense of the word).
                     
                     But thank you for sharing this; it certainly explains a lot about you and what you choose to believe.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say, nor do I believe that all gay people support pedophilia.... I said I believe that the several powerful politicians behind  the movement are pedophiles.

                        replyreport
                        1. 90

                           livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           I didn't. I said you're supporting someone who has made repeated claims that gay people support pedophilia, and then you back up your support pointing to a conspiracy theory about a coverup involving a couple of politicians.

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Understand, LL, I don't trust politicians on either side of the aisle at all...
                              
                              I read his hub and his views on it, and I don't get that from him.
                              
                              The ILGA only recently disassociated itself from NAMbLa ... and critics on both sides of the issue say it was simply for political reasons, that the "movers and shakers" within the organization are still philosophical supporters of that.
                              
                              Historically, the two organizations have been linked.  I'm not saying I expect you to agree ... because I don't ... but I do believe that the individuals and politics behind the homosexual agenda are "pedophile friendly."
                              
                              I do oppose the very core the homosexual political agenda ... and I honestly don't know why I have so many gay friends, because they all know what I think ... I just don't treat individuals according to politics I guess.
                              
                              I see the same thing in James.

                              replyreport
10. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

    I doubt any conservative expects a leftist to support him.
    Not everyone is  like Obama who straddles the fence at his own convenience just to gain support from all corners.

    replyreport
    1. 51

       paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       James A Watkins For President - 2012
       
       What is his standing in the politicians in the line? I know little about them as I don't live there. America is the Capitol of the world; I should know though
       
       Thanks
       
       I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

       replyreport
       1. 81

          BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          He is a hubber, his ideas and histories are quite clear in his hubs. I recommend reading them.

          replyreport
11. 80

    manlypoetrymanposted 14 years ago

    What we need is someone who will not "cowtail" to the powers that be...EVERYWHERE! (I mean for crying out loud...you're the President of the United States...there is no more butts left to kiss at that point!)
    
    James could do this as well as anyone...with the demeanor and decorum he has shown here in Hub World. A President should be a normal person concerned with normal things that effect or deter from the everyday normal common good. Who could do this better, then a good ol' down-to-Earth Hubber...I ask you?
    
    James A. Watkins in 2012!

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       {{ (I mean for crying out loud...you're the President of the United States...there is no more butts left to kiss at that point!)}}
       
       Um, how about China - you know, these guys who are holding all your debt??

       replyreport
       1. 81

          BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah, the problem is that works both ways ... you know what happens if we don't/can't pay? 
          
          Not sure who's bright idea this whole deficit spending plan was ... but it has to be fixed..

          replyreport
          1. 89

             Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             BD - it can't be fixed, except by re-inventing the world. Usury was deprecated in your favourite book, but espoused by your favourite nation.
             The problem is that usury works within any single generation, but cannot be handed down to succeeding generations unless they have 'dominion' over new nations to exploit.
             You've run out of new victims. Time to pay the bill. China expects

             replyreport
             1. 81

                BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Yeah, that's gonna suck ...

                replyreport
             2. 90

                livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Who's our favorite nation?

                replyreport
                1. 70

                   Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Does it really matter?

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      kimberlyslyricsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      
                      
                      touche

                      replyreport
                   2. 90

                      livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Unless you can read his mind, why are you answering a question I asked Paraglider?

                      replyreport
                2. 81

                   BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I think he was taking to me ... he knows my favorite nation!

                   replyreport
                   1. 89

                      Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      I was, and I believe yours is the USA. But in fairness, usury has been espoused by every nation. The US just happened to be the first to apotheosize it so comprehensively.

                      replyreport
                      1. 81

                         BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         Debt is one of those things I wish I had listened more to my grandparents about ...  I've finally gotten ALL my credit cards paid off, I owe only on my house.

                         replyreport
12. 59

    tobey100posted 14 years ago

    I second the nomination.

    replyreport
    1. 91

       kimh039posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       James strikes me as a respectful and civil gentleman.......with an interest in politics.  Civility in politics would be refreshing.

       replyreport
13. 77

    Me, Steve Waltersposted 14 years ago

    He gets my vote, also! Just takes someone with a little schmartz...in the ol' brain dept. James qualifies for that!

    replyreport
14. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 14 years ago

    Oh my.
    Steve, I have a friend whose husband has the same name as yours, first name and last name!
    But you're not him; I checked your pic and profile.
    But that was quite a coincidence when ya put your name on here.
    

    replyreport
15. 65

    prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago

    he has a good graps on politics, a little bit conservative but a firm ground on values pertaining to family and  social values. He is a gentleman yes and his politics is accomodating.
    He knows history and economy as well -- well grounded.
    
    YES for his nomination, although he should open up  a little bit more on his views about family, gay issues -- mostly social issue.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       He has written a hub on his view of the homosexual political agenda.  LiveLonger is correct, it's not in the least, from a political standpoint, "Gay Friendly".
       
       BUT ... I still say he treats individuals who choose that lifestyle with respect.. He simply adamantly opposes their politics.

       replyreport
16. 90

    livelongerposted 14 years ago

    *sigh*
    
    I think it's sad that some people like to delude themselves into thinking the gay agenda involves anything more than equality under the law.
    
    I suppose it's easier to concoct conspiracy theories and cherry-pick Biblical quotes to justify keeping a group of people as second-class citizens under the law.
    
    The only solace I see is that your numbers continue to dwindle.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Please show me any hubs or forum posts in which I have used the bible to attack gay people.

       replyreport
       1. 90

          livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I was talking about James. You're on the same page as him with regard to the "gay agenda," right?

          replyreport
          1. 81

             BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             In general that's true.
             
             I generally try not to use scripture to advance a specific political point of view.  And I do try very hard to be sure that when I quote a verse, it's for the purpose it was intended within context. 
             
             If I had failed to do that, ... if I had misused scripture for my own agenda ... I was already planning an apology hub, because that would have been wrong of me.   
             
             I do not subscribe to the general theory that one must be on the political right to be acceptable to God.
             
             I believe you believe that "all you are asking for is equality under the law ..."  But I don't believe that's really what's going on.
             
             I see you as deluded as you see me.  That's the wonderful thing about delusion ... you don't know you're deluded

             replyreport
17. 90

    livelongerposted 14 years ago

    So what does the gay agenda entail beyond equality under the law?

    replyreport
    1. 81

       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Like any other special interest group, special privileges:
       
       Examples:
       
       1. "Hate Crimes" ... somehow beating you up because you're homosexual is worse than beating me up  because I'm heterosexual? Sorry... doesn't cut it.
       
       2. "Hate Speech" ... somehow disagreeing with you is "hate"?
       
       I don't believe that's "equality" I believe it's "special privilege".
       
       I just re-read two of James hubs on the issue.  I can find  nothing in them I disagree with:
       
       http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Homosexual-Movement
       and
       http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Homosexual-Agenda
       
       I saw nothing on them I consider an abuse of scripture and, in fact, in the hubs themselves, I saw no "cherry picked" bible verses.

       replyreport
       1. 90

          livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Hate crimes/speech legislation is controversial and not every gay person supports it. You do know, though, that hate crime legislation *would* cover a straight person being beaten up for being straight by a gay person, right? (It just doesn't seem to happen all that often)
          
          Regardless, this is the only other thing beyond marriage equality and ending DADT that comprise the "gay agenda" (one that is increasingly supported by straight people, too). Rights for pedophiles and other things that conspiracy theorists like to imagine gay people want won't be any more true just because you want to believe it.

          replyreport
          1. 81

             BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Well ... I guess I can put you down for a "No" then, when we start our James A Watkins For President 2012 Fundraiser, eh?

             replyreport
             1. 90

                livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I'll leave that up to you.

                replyreport
             2. 58

                Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                BD - you surprise me - just when I was  thinking you are a tolerant person open to other ways of thinking - you go remind me you are just another Kristian intent on making everyone else believe the same garbage you do. My way or the high way like wot Jeebus sed.  LOL
                
                Oh well - Even Jeebus warned against the Federal Reserve. Still - you guys are pretty selective about what you believe huh?

                replyreport
                1. 81

                   BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Shucks Mark, I was thinking about forging some citizen papers for you and getting you into a cabinet position. 
                   
                   Dang, gonna have to re-think that plan.
                   
                   But to answer your question seriously ... No plan to make people believe what I believe, would just like to have someone who believes what I believe in charge.  Minor difference.

                   replyreport
       2. 60

          anandpokarposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          1.  Hate crime legislation protects all people on the basis of sexual orientation, just like they protect all people on the basis of race.  Hate crime legislation does not only protect homosexuals and not heterosexuals.  So beating you up because you're homosexual is the same as beating me up because I'm heterosexual.
          
          2.  I don't know who is passing hate speech laws in the US, we don't have any of that and cannot under freedom of speech.
          
          The similar comparison is also to black people.  The hate crime legislation protects whites as well as blacks, and they aren't passing hate speech laws either.
          
          So since those aren't special privileges being sought for gays only, could you cite if there is actually anything beyond equality that they are seeking?

          replyreport
          1. 81

             BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I responded to Live Longer because he and I have had amiable conversations in the past.
             
             Your assertions contain a myriad of axioms at odds with my fundamental world view.  As I have no desire to change your mind, I respond in politeness to say I know from experience you would be insulted.
             
             I have no desire to insult you, but I can't think of a response that you would not find insulting.
             
             Live Longer asked if I support James A Watkins political stance on the homosexual agenda.
             
             I do.  I stand by that.
             
             I do not expect you to.
             
             I'll put you down for a "No" on the fund raiser as well.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                anandpokarposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I do not understand, what I have posted are all facts about the law, and facts about what many other people think... I don't understand what axioms I have posted, or if you are saying these facts conflict with your world view and you refuse to accept them.
                
                And why would you think explaining your view about special privileges would be insulting?  It seems if it's not possible to explain your logic without you being insulting, then your world view is not based on logic but based on hatred.  Do you not wish to explain because you are aware of this, and do not wish to have your views addressed and converse about them to learn, but to harbor them in secret?
                
                Also, do you assume I'm gay, and that's why you think I'd find it insulting?

                replyreport
18. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    Because, when a question is irrelevant, it is meaningless in any form, regardless of who is being addressed.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       That's rather rude of you to police other people's questions to other people, isn't it? Why don't you just ignore them?

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Then how does one person learn anything without doing something?

          replyreport
          1. 90

             livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Weren't you just trying to shut down my attempt to ask a question? (One that Paraglider answered quite nicely)
             
             (This side-thread is getting a little ridiculous... )

             replyreport
19. 80

    iantoPFposted 14 years ago

    I am proud to say I am a fan of James A. Watkins. His writing is masterful and clear and his historical works are references in themselves. I recently wrote a Hub on "Hubbers who help me" and James is the first on that list.
    Would I support him for President? resoundingly No. For the record I am a red dyed in the wool Socialist. Unlike James I consider the future of the Human race is moving resolutely to the day when the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange will be in the hands of those who produce not in the habds of venture capitalists. So James and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet I would welcome him into my home and treat him with the respect a gentleman deserves.
    One aspect of his writing that I personally find fascinating is that though I disagree with almost everything he says in political terms, he makes me think about WHY I disagree. That is a valuable service in itself.
    But to support his political agenda?  NO.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       This is why I think he'd make a good leader.  Even his opponents respect him.  That's rare these days.

       replyreport
20. 59

    JulesGeromeposted 14 years ago

    I read a couple of hubs that I didn't like at all. So no, I wouldn't vote for him. I was surprised of some of the comments as well.
    Anyway everybody is free to dislike some kind of people.

    replyreport
21. 75

    skyfireposted 13 years ago

    He lost my respect when he expressed his opinion on science, evolution and society.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       same here - and then he went further with loads of personal attacks - apparently I am the devil. 
       
       Sounds like the last thing the US needs is delusional leaders that keep people in the dark ages because of their superstitions
       
       http://hubpages.com/hub/Skepticism-abou … ted-States

       replyreport
22. 75

    skyfireposted 13 years ago

    James is good guy and i've respect for his views but when he opens his holy diary with claims that have 0 proof it gives no difference of impression between him and TK to me. Sorry if it was reality check in their own words back to them. If james is going to stand for presidents position then put paarsurray for noble peace prize,let's play fair.
    
    Sometimes it's really funny to see people who make comment against evolution when they have no clue about single cell, speciation and abiogenesis. This applies to james and many other theists here and if you point that out then they call it personal attacks forgetting their own lack of education and manners when they do it on their hubs. You'll find people who have no clue about how to differentiate between galaxy and universe talk about jesus who died on cross helplessly being universal savior. People who have no clue where earth stands in milky way talk about universe being created by their bible or quran author. I wonder if they have stretch of imagination towards planets and species 10x bigger in size than ours.
    
    More than 40-50% theists here are for some agenda or for religious preaching (take paar for examples) and all they do to this place is post some verse spam without any proof of their claims. No wonder these guys think we're devil and our heart is blinded by satan against god.

    replyreport