But before we do so, I’ll honor the off topic nature of the other threads by starting off with an equally off topic image here:
Thank you. And begin debating.
over here we have this Piece of Shit :
Her Motto ?
Rapefugees fucking welcome…
God, i wanna shoot her in the Face with a sawed off Shotie !
Meh, still better than fricking Sweden i guess.
Fucking discuss this, why don’t you ?
———- Post added at 04:36 PM ———- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ———-
Meh, still better than fricking Sweden i guess.
lol Sweden. Those guys… I don’t even know what to say.
This Year, but nothing is gonna change, Head of the State will still be
put up by the fucking Rich Man’s Party, same as her, so, no fucking Changes…
The Girls at my Workplace are fucking afraid to walk home alone in the Dark,
they are being followed and stalked by fucking Immigrants on their Way.
Especially the one Girl, she is quite the Hottie, i walk her to her Tram
every Night, i’ll fucking knife every last Guy who bugs her. 🙂
I don’t know much about Spanish politics. Care to elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain
I don’t really care that much either. Call me what you want. I *hate* politics.
A Thread. A Goddamn Thread.
Still At Least After This I Do Not Have To Listen /Read Anything Anymore.
So I Guess Thanks For Moving it All Here.
A Thread. A Goddamn Thread.
Still At Least After This I Do Not Have To Listen /Read Anything Anymore.
So I Guess Thanks For Moving it All Here.
Why else would I do it then? I was starting to get sick of it showing up on other threads, so I thought I’d be gullible enough to do it here. As you can see, it’s done fine so far. Can’t wait for all the Trump talk though. That’ll be juicy.
put up by the fucking Rich Man’s Party, same as her, so, no fucking Changes…
The Girls at my Workplace are fucking afraid to walk home alone in the Dark,
they are being followed and stalked by fucking Immigrants on their Way.
Especially the one Girl, she is quite the Hottie, i walk her to her Tram
every Night, i’ll fucking knife every last Guy who bugs her. 🙂
Any facts to back your statement or is that your xenophobia talking?
According to the Bundeskriminalamt, also known as the Federal Criminal Police Office or BKA, crimes by immigrants rose 79 percent in 2015.
But at the same time, the number of refugees in the country rose more than fivefold ??? by 440 percent.
In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-population-idUSKCN1110Q8
This is my new favorite meme, it’s so so so true:
You Americans should be a little bit happy about Trump,
over here we have this Piece of Shit :
Oh believe me, I’m thrilled. It’s still so unreal seeing him when he signs the executive orders and then displaying it for all the media to see. It’s like he’s saying "Here, CNN. Here, MSNBC. Here, abc. Here NBC. I signed the executive order, and you just saw me do it." I love it. I also love when Kate McKinnon does Merkel on Weekend Update on SNL. It’s the best.
According to the Bundeskriminalamt, also known as the Federal Criminal Police Office or BKA, crimes by immigrants rose 79 percent in 2015.
But at the same time, the number of refugees in the country rose more than fivefold — by 440 percent.
In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-population-idUSKCN1110Q8
I very much appreciate that you found some actual numbers (yay! facts!).
Plus my Mom and her family were refugees during WWII and I know the stories of how poorly they were treated. And I’ve assisted with refugee evacuations. You see the look on the face of a mother and child that you’ve just ensured will live and not die in a ditch, it’s a look I’ll never forget.
This is my new favorite meme, it’s so so so true:
Yes! OMG I love it :laugh:
I’ve never been called a racist cause I’ve never gotten in a heated debate with anyone. But I hope it happens one day just so I can go off on them :p
over here we have this Piece of Shit :
Her Motto ?
Rapefugees fucking welcome…
God, i wanna shoot her in the Face with a sawed off Shotie !
Meh, still better than fricking Sweden i guess.
Fucking discuss this, why don’t you ?
It’s Merkel! Ewwwwwwwwww! I always feel sorry for Germany.
A Thread. A Goddamn Thread.
Still At Least After This I Do Not Have To Listen /Read Anything Anymore.
So I Guess Thanks For Moving it All Here.
I’m gonna keep doing it in the other thread so you have to see it, just like I’m going to keep protesting in the street so everyone else does.
Too important not to.
But apparently it’s no longer offensive or unconstitutional today…. Ain’t America grand? You’re free to change your mind. And with the added bonus you can shit on its Constitution too.
Don’t need any Census, when i’ve experienced it firsthand.
What World do we love in when the White Women can’t walk home in Peace
without Fear of getting fucking raped ?
Fucking Rapefugees are outta Control.
Since Wikipedia is a quantified Source all of a sudden,
explain THIS : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year‘s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany [/QUOTE]
It’s Merkel! Ewwwwwwwwww! I always feel sorry for Germany.
Amen
Here is a live stream of kittens. I assume we can all agree kittens are wonderful.
It was bad enough when Killary (Hillary) crawled up from the depths over here. Thank God Killary didn’t succeed.
This is the essence of the anti-science, anti-reason stance of the far right extremist today.
Your personal anecdotal experiences are NOT a valid way of determining absolute truth. Collection and analysis of data in a scientific manner gives an objective view of reality. Not RayMan’s opinion.
(
)
Here is a live stream of kittens. I assume we can all agree kittens are wonderful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3KeRLdmcUI
Don’t remember dialing fucking Zero, HPG, what made you crawl outta your Cave ?
Feel threatened by Chivalry you effin’ Douche ?
Pathetic, you aren’t even worth my fuckin’ Time unless you bring up a valuable Point.
TRY. But don’t kill yourself while you’re at it.
Why all the rage?
Besides, why would you think every refugee would be a rapist? If that were true, then those countries would be nuked.
Problem with that ?
Do I personally have a problem with it? No, man, do what you please. If you’re asking me if there is any problem with it, though, I’d say there could be. For example, later when you’re sober, you might regret writing very stupid things.
Cool for you, but you’re not living in the real World, are you ?
My Girls @ Work can’t go home without getting fucking bothered…
Besides, why would you think every refugee would be a rapist? If that were true, then those countries would be nuked.
uh, no, I don’t think they’d be nuked. That seems like a sort of odd claim.
RayMan is claiming that all the refugees are rapists because he’s buying into a story that he can use to explain certain things he perceives, rather than looking at objective data. His demeanor as he defends his flawed point of view is overly aggressive due to the influence of alcohol.
Personally, when I’m drunk it never does make me aggressive. It just makes me talk a lot. Drunk TK is like the goddamn owl from Zelda.
Never. And I’m never not right.
———- Post added at 02:28 AM ———- Previous post was at 02:26 AM ———-
Personally, when I’m drunk it never does make me aggressive. It just makes me talk a lot. Drunk TK is like the goddamn owl from Zelda.
Why is this the way you are?
Be true to your words, yo
———- Post added at 05:32 PM ———- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ———-
uh, no, I don’t think they’d be nuked. That seems like a sort of odd claim.
RayMan is claiming that all the refugees are rapists because he’s buying into a story that he can use to explain certain things he perceives, rather than looking at objective data. His demeanor as he defends his flawed point of view is overly aggressive due to the influence of alcohol.
Personally, when I’m drunk it never does make me aggressive. It just makes me talk a lot. Drunk TK is like the goddamn owl from Zelda.
I was being silly when I wrote that. I’m not being serious.
So, it’s like Cloneboy and his views? OK
But, alcohol and a discussion like this is not a good combination… well, that’s not my business.
There are two things that always make a quarrel.
Religion and Politics.
Okay okay, sorry, I’m out. Bye
Not to worry. If I ever get drunk I’ll make it known and tell you guys. 😮
Here is a live stream of kittens. I assume we can all agree kittens are wonderful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3KeRLdmcUI
They have Lady and the Tramp in the background, I’m sold.
But, alcohol and a discussion like this is not a good combination… well, that’s not my business.
There are two things that always make a quarrel.
Religion and Politics.
Okay okay, sorry, I’m out. Bye
They don’t have to. People can talk in a rational and respectful way even when it’s a heated discussion. See my disagreement with clonemaster in the other thread, for example. No personal attacks.
It’s possible to understand RayMan’s viewpoint, but that doesn’t justify it.
His viewpoint is already justified by his personal experiences. Why would he lie about this?
But you’re (soon to be?) 16, you’ve never had a drop of alcohol in your life. Right? :laugh:
That’s good! Unfortunately, I have always experienced bad things of this.
Meh, Eff Off then, because when even First Person First-Hand Experiences do not count…
Which have happened…
Keep fucking denying. Fucking French Kiss with those Rapefugees. Be my Guest.
But expect to get fucking shanked in the not too far Future you Faggot. Meet you on the Street you’re not gonna survive.
Be true to your words, yo
I am, are you ?
Mhm….
https://media.giphy.com/media/l3q2GN9XKukSjmOek/200.gif#4
Yep. Never have.
or made a smart Comment… *snore*
All below 68 i guess….
Yeah, derailing threads is what we do best at the Shrine :laugh:
I would, but you’re acting like a grade A asshole right now. Your personal experiences do not make anyone else’s the same. Just because you deal with rogue refugess doesn’t mean everyone else is. Sucks that you have to deal with it, but don’t be stereotyping. Don’t be insulting others who’ve responded calmly as well.
Just get a rest and maybe you’ll feel better in the morning.
Alcohol is the fucking Devil…
I advise you People to drink more of it !!!
But how does one recognize the dangerous ones?
This is an art that our policy unfortunately does not come to the line.
Well, how should this work, right?
Help people who deserve help, but also pay attention to yourself.
I’m going to sleep now..
or made a smart Comment… *snore*
All below 68 i guess….
Have you actually been reading them? Or do they not conform to your opinion?
Fuck off. You don’t get to decide what’s smart.
I’m not saying that he is lying. I’m saying that he is erroneously assuming his personal experiences are more significant than scientific data. Did you miss that he literally wrote the words "Don’t need any Census, when i’ve experienced it firsthand."
I don’t know exactly what RayMan is referring to. But apparently he’s experienced something bad involving people who he believes were refugees. That is unfortunate. Whatever it is, I probably would extend my sympathy. But he is discarding facts in favor of making an assumption about refugees (and, by extension, muslims) as a whole based on isolated incidents. That is wrong, both logically and morally.
O
K
?
Errrmmm ? My Personal Experiences validates my Stance 120% I wasn’t generalizing, but now i fucking am,
because fuck Merkel and fuck the German Immigrant Policy… You don’t even have a Clue Hunter, about
how bad it is over here…
I hope so. He’s just in that mode that I don’t like when he’s in. Probably brought out by the alcohol.
It’s probably just late though. It’s too late for the both of you. Get some rest.
Fuck off. You don’t get to decide what’s smart.
Don’t think you’re smart Hunter.
That is not the Case.
Which have happened…
Keep fucking denying. Fucking French Kiss with those Rapefugees. Be my Guest.
But expect to get fucking shanked in the not too far Future you Faggot. Meet you on the Street you’re not gonna survive.
Very classy.
I did not say that personal experiences are meaningless. But you are writing off objective data because it doesn’t fit with the assumptions you’ve made based on your personal experiences. That is irrational, and frankly, anti-rational.
Today because of Donald Trump’s executive order a family of Syrian refugees with family here in PA were turned away at PHL and sent back to Qatar. They had legally obtained visas. They were fleeing a war zone with their children. Because of people like you, who assume things about them based on things that have nothing to do with them, they’re being sent back to a war zone to continue suffering and perhaps die.
I’d like to put you in front of them and force you to explain to them with their children watching why it’s so important that they not be allowed to enter my country. You fucking dipshit.
Now I’m tired. I should stop typing.
Thanks. I totally needed that. It’s not like having a lack of understanding of the world and people thanks to a very common disorder would be considered, but this is most certainly better than that. Bravo.
Don’t be a victim, he wasn’t refering at all to that. He was just being a smart ass douche.
No, this is the exact opposite of the reality. This is why scientific studies are done to make determinations instead of basing them on individual anecdotes. Data is collected with control groups to test against, on a massive level, so that it’s statistically valid to draw conclusions from it.
What you’re arguing for is exactly the kind of logic that people use to justify racism. No, I am not calling you a racist, so don’t play that card. I’m pointing out the flaw in your thinking. A racist might walk down the street and get mugged by a black man. This may be his only experience with a black man all year. From this he draws the conclusion: "See, black people are more likely to be criminals, because the only time I encounter one he attacks me." This might seem right from his perspective, but it’s not right from a scientific perspective. Data shows that the major factor in a person’s likelihood of criminality is socioeconomic status.
RayMan is making assumptions about all refugees based on isolated incidents in exactly the same way that this hypothetical racist makes assumptions about all black people based on isolated incidents.
I did not say that personal experiences are meaningless. But you are writing off objective data because it doesn’t fit with the assumptions you’ve made based on your personal experiences. That is irrational, and frankly, anti-rational.
Today because of Donald Trump’s executive order a family of Syrian refugees with family here in PA were turned away at PHL and sent back to Qatar. They had legally obtained visas. They were fleeing a war zone with their children. Because of people like you, who assume things about them based on things that have nothing to do with them, they’re being sent back to a war zone to continue suffering and perhaps die.
I’d like to put you in front of them and force you to explain to them with their children watching why it’s so important that they not be allowed to enter my country. You fucking dipshit.
No Problem with Women and Children…
Didn’t realize that my Problem was all with the & e(?(/%(/%5.
It’s not taking in of poor lost Souls,
it’s a fucking hostile Takeover.
WE’ve all got enough Probs of our Own.
I will not be guilt-tripped. I am in the Right.
Fuck you. Your attitude is what has been used to put people like Donald Trump in power, and innocent people are currently suffering because of it. I hope you have one hell of a hangover tomorrow morning and that the shame you feel is even worse.
I’m not worrying, I’m hoping.
What I’m worrying about is all the people who are going to die because of irrational hysteria over immigration.
What you’re arguing for is exactly the kind of logic that people use to justify racism. No, I am not calling you a racist, so don’t play that card. I’m pointing out the flaw in your thinking. A racist might walk down the street and get mugged by a black man. This may be his only experience with a black man all year. From this he draws the conclusion: "See, black people are more likely to be criminals, because the only time I encounter one he attacks me." This might seem right from his perspective, but it’s not right from a scientific perspective. Data shows that the major factor in a person’s likelihood of criminality is socioeconomic status.
RayMan is making assumptions about all refugees based on isolated incidents in exactly the same way that this hypothetical racist makes assumptions about all black people based on isolated incidents.
I’m not arguing for the consensus, I’m arguing for his perspective, saying that it was most likely right. I’m not saying his perspective counts for the whole determination.
Fucking liberal Cunt.
Never said anything. I am for equal Rights. In every Country. Wouldn’t that be nice ?
I’m for #StoptheBombs !
So high on your fucking canadian Throne, aren’t you, HPG ?
Don’t have an Immigrant Problems, have you ?
You don’t even know what you’re talking about, so shut your Mouth.
The effin’ Girls are afraid to walk 10 Minutes Home over here because of the Rapefugees…
Groan. You made it a race thing. I’m not talking about muslims. I’m talking about mass inmigration in general. From anywhere, in any country. From what I know from basic knowledge, massive inmigration is horrible for a country’s economy, so indeed, without making it a racial issue, the inmigration problem is an issue, because it can fuck up the country, economically. So I think I heard in the basics of economy class one day, if I recall correctly.
His perspective is valid in the sense that it is what he personally perceived, sure. What I’m trying to explain is that it is not valid for him to claim that his perspective is valid for everyone, which is what he’s doing when he’s claiming that because of his perspective refugees should not be allowed into his country.
———- Post added at 09:29 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ———-
I never have Hangovers. They are for Sissies.
https://s27.postimg.org/bix4u6qhf/1355227937723.gif
Oh, whoa, let’s back off everybody. We’ve got a real internet badass here.
What information are you basing this on?
A economy class long time ago. Now, if I’m proved wrong, I don’t have any problem admitting it, I never said I was right. Just what I thought.
Nope, simply Irish.
That’s your Argument ?
L A M E…
It’s not something I’ve ever specifically looked into, I’m just skeptical. It seems to me this would depend very heavily on the nature of the society they’re entering and how healthy its economy already is. Regardless, as a moral issue I think it is quite clear.
———- Post added at 09:35 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ———-
Nope, simply Irish.
That’s your Argument ?
L A M E…
You don’t get to do nothing but scream "fuck u Im right!!!" and then complain that I’m not making a sophisticated argument.
Your Irish heritage has absolutely nothing to do with your alcohol tolerance. It’s entirely determined by your body mass and the amount you’re accustomed to drinking. I’m sure you disagree with this because of your personal experience of Irish people. You might as well claim that the earth is flat and evolution is a lie because your grandpa wasn’t a monkey.
What do you mean "a race thing"? It would help if you could argue in good faith. Also, you plainly no jack shit about world history, so why even bother, Ponyo?
What I meant to say originally is, that inmigration is not something that must not be completely ignored, it can be an issue to some countries, and then, it should be looked without bias. And not make it a race problem. Because not only muslims inmigrate. Other races, other person, anyone really, inmigrates to other countries.
What do you mean "a race thing"? It would help if you could argue in good faith. Also, you plainly no jack shit about world history, so why even bother, Ponyo?
I was talking about inmigration in general, not just from refugees or muslims, which based on your reply that’s what you seemed to speak about. Inmigration in general. Meaning anyone at all, no matter the race, no matter where they come from. Now I know I’m not the best person to argue with but I don’t see why you should say that of me.
This intrigued me. I’d never heard of it. Google searches on the topic were only returning unsourced results from fake news sites. But congressmen and women were referencing it, so I wanted a clear picture.
I asked a few Republican acquaintances of mine for more information, and after a bit of a runaround I was finally informed that the "2011 Obama refugee ban" story originates from his invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (one of six occurrences in his presidency)
This July 2011 executive order imposed a travel ban on the following:
"anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”
So yeah, when you hear Republicans in congress talk about how Obama banned refugees in 2011…
Alternative facts folks
I thought it was still about Immigrants ?
Way to change the Subject becuase you can’t win anymore.
Why don’t you try and repel at least a single one of my Aguments ?
Because you can’t you fucking Faggot.
You’re fucking pathetic, and you can’t deal with that, can you HeadPhoneGirl ?
You’re a Joke HPG, anyone can see that.
Again, I was talking about inmigrants in general, and you mentioned the US bombing people for 30 years. And the US has only bombed muslims for 30 years, so yeah. Okay. I clearly just see things in my head. Shouldn’t have tried to talk with ever-so-smarter than thou Gururu. Peace.
———- Post added at 08:46 PM ———- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ———-
ManRay seriously back the fuck off, you’ve already made yourself look like a huge joke. Alcohol is bad, folks.
This intrigued me. I’d never heard of it. Google searches on the topic were only returning unsourced results from fake news sites. But congressmen and women were referencing it, so I wanted a clear picture.
I asked a few Republican acquaintances of mine for more information, and after a bit of a runaround I was finally informed that the "2011 Obama refugee ban" story originates from his invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. (one of six occurrences in his presidency)
This July 2011 executive order imposed a travel ban on the following:
"anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”
So yeah, when you hear Republicans in congress talk about how Obama banned refugees in 2011…
Alternative facts folks
Keep pushing that alternative facts thing. It’s starting to get really entertaining :smrt:
Also, most ‘republican’ politicians are just as good as ‘democrats’ (they’ve actually both become quite misleading labels as to what their way of means actually are, compared to the actually definition of the party)
Welcome to the white house, Trumpy. Get ready to deal with this every day you’re there.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/muslim-ban-federal-court
———- Post added at 09:49 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ———-
Keep pushing that alternative facts thing. It’s starting to get really entertaining :smrt:
Your side are the ones who created it. We’re just repeating their own words.
———- Post added at 09:50 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ———-
[/COLOR]ManRay seriously back the fuck off, you’ve already made yourself look like a huge joke. Alcohol is bad, folks.
Alcohol is great. It gives you a peek into someone’s true character.
It isn’t the alcohol speaking. The alcohol just let us hear what he’s normally thinking but doesn’t say.
Also, most ‘republican’ politicians are just as good as ‘democrats’ (they’re actually both quite misleading labels as to what they’re way of means actually are)
He had a good point, Clonemaster. Would you quit being so fanatical. You should also stop reading and watching the news of only those who cater to your political beliefs.. they make you think you’re *always* right.
I also don’t set out to be always right, having to be always right is not a good characteristic of anybody; most conservative websites (Infowars too) will always correct themselves on anything misleading that they’ve accidentally or mistakenly reported on. Every once and a while CNN will too, but not most of the time.
No.. so far, a lot of people have debunked your so called "truths" and all you did was continue to support them with even more bullshit articles.
You know, Clonemaster. Just like how there’s a conspiracy in the media, according to you, that only shits on Trump and republicans or conservatives, there’s also media that caters to them, by posting what they want to read, wether if it’s true or not. No media is really trustworthy if you ask me. There’s always bias in political news and people are quick to decide which one is true depending on what they believe.
Wars and environmental disasters are the only causes of immigration upset.
Ha, Son, don’t get in my Way,
Don’t know why you’re butting in, but,
do you want some of this ?
Why don’t you do some Homework and read up
on the last few Comments ?
I haven’t said anything that is not fucking true.
18 ? You haven’t got a fucking Clue.
Thought you were smart… Appparently not. 🙂
Tell me how i am emberassing myself ?
Of the Arguments i brought forward,
they must all be false right ?
Examples.
Please.
———- Post added at 04:12 AM ———- Previous post was at 04:05 AM ———-
Thought so.
It goes both ways. Your last statement is totally true and is a major part of my point. But the general public media outlets are the ones where nearly all of the bias is coming from (they will report false news the majority of the time because their paid by those of the left side to do so and therefore they are supportive of their respective cause). Places like Infowars have to do in depth research to get the truth of what they tell; Alex Jones built Infowars from the ground by himself, and he’s not interested of making a profit off of what he reports. You can even see all of the tons of papers on his desk in the videos; it’s taken him hours to retrieve and lay out that information. He’s not just blindly telling what will be supportive of Trump, all the time, because even Trump makes mistakes and he’s not a God (believe it or not). Their main cause is only the truth and it’s all they want to be known. Their as well invested in exposing whatever lie the media has told, and they do it a lot, and I’ve explained why they do it. There’s actually too much evidence to support what I’m saying and all that has to be done is for one to dig deep enough to find it; which individuals such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Alex Jones do, and when you add up what they’re saying, and / or form a conclusion based upon evidence you’ve found if you’ve taken the time to find it, it’s like an epiphany in your mind for God’s sakes!
Fun fact: the name Infowars is succinctly representative of what point I’m driving – there’s literally a war on for your mind! A war of information. Dishonest media is trying to tell you what to believe and, so may be places like Infowars, but there’s also evidence to find that supports their information, contrary to bullshit evidence not backed by anything but a shallow lie. (yes, places like CNN have reported on the truth before, but it’s not very often at all; at least not enough for them to keep the credibility they totally don’t deserve.)
I wouldn’t want to hurt Republican snowflakes’ feels by using the L word.
I’m 12
For the record I believe that *most* Republicans are guilty of almost every of the same thing that I’m saying Democrats are, that’s because a lot of Republicans just operate under that name and with what they’re involved in they might as well just be Democrats, but even that name is now misleading and their party should be referred to as ‘Bullshiterian’ from here on out.
Invalidated.
George is the only Person i’m taking seriously for the last 2 Pages.
Here I made an over-exaggerated version of a typical Donald Trump speech, and me, myself? I’m laughing my ass off at it.
"Folks, I am so great. I am so great. I had a lot of voters…we got a lot of votes, didn’t we? We won, didn’t we? We won the election? Yes, yes, we did…and you know what, folks, the fake news, dishonest media… are part of movement to make me look bad! Can you believe it? I can’t believe it. Folks, folks, folks……it’s very very bad. It’s very bad out there, you know there’s a lot of protests, and a lot of violence out there, and Hillary Clinton, paid those people a lot of money to protest and say those things! Can you believe it? And our hard earned jobs and manufacturing are shifting to Mexico, and China! Communist China created global warming; it’s all a big money making scheme but you know what, folks, we’re going to Make America Great Again, aren’t we? We’re gonna build a wall too, it’ll be a great wall…you know the illegal immigrants and rapists are crossing the Mexican border and committing crimes and you know what, folks? The Mexican president is saying they won’t be paying for the wall but I think they will, right? Right, people? We’re gonna make them pay for the wall and you know what, I’ve said before, we’re going to Make, America Great Again and you know what people? We face a lot of opposition. But we will Make America Great Again, aren’t we folks? Yes we are, yes we’re gonna do it. And you know what, folks….China!, but I’ll tell ya what, I am so great.*goes on and on for hours*
*later* …and folks, folks…America First… America First…and Americans, Americans, Americans….but you know what, folks? I’ll tell ya what…
I feel I’ve opened a can of worms that ended up being too big.
PA, u?
A Ray of Man……yeah, go to fucking bed. That alcohol took too much a hold of your head.
Probably less confusion would have been generated if the thread had been titled: "Drunken Assholes & Conspiracy Theorists Welcome". In which case Clone boy, DAK and Man of War would have had the place to themselves.
:laugh: True. I should probably ask them to rename it.
At this point, if everything calms down and the tone is more formal, then I’ll keep the thread open. If not, I’ll ask for it to close.
….The shrine’s, official, example of typical conservatism behavior. Glad to be here with ya, folks. It’s gonna be a good one.
*camera quickly pans out*
This photo coincides in timing very closely with the gigapixel image. Trump was sworn in at noon. By the time this earthcam photo is taken he’s already been sworn in.
Now, if the crowd size increased after that, that’s perfectly valid. It may very well have done so! But that doesn’t make the media’s reports dishonest. The photo that was spread directly comparing the two events from the Washington Monument was a comparison of the Trump inauguration just before noon and the Obama inauguration just before noon. The comparison is valid – that doesn’t mean that the crowd size couldn’t have increased later.
Sigh….again, I’ll point to some other things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQ-kgUk5g
And most importantly
http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/trump-inauguration-photos-rigged/
Late addition; video evidence of the crowd
https://youtu.be/yePtCGg7b40?t=1h27m36s
And some additional explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxjEnPPclE8
So, let’s see.
This…
against this…
And this fucking bullshit
Harsh sigh…..The CNN gigapixel is clearly detailed enough so that you can see any gap in the crowd. I already demonstrated this, and now compared it with other photos that were deliberately taken before he was sworn in; they were not all taken around the same time. And Trump’s photo – that was widely used as the comparison was definitely taken at a different, earlier time than Obama’s, at a possible two or three hour difference. There’s also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they’re too blurry. And they clearly demonstrate areas of the crowd empty whereas the CNN gigapixel shows minimal gaps at the least, and taking the photo(s) at such a time earlier would be the only way that this is possible without, uh…deeming him a delusional liar.
And you tell me that this doesn’t make the media’s reporting dishonest…
The media’s amount of coverage on this is ridiculous – more ridiculous than Trump’s claims ever were. The media saw another opportunity to make him (them) out as liar(s) and they took it. And they’re just using it to affirm that Donald Trump, Sean Spicer and the White House are liars that you can’t trust.
I seriously don’t know any other way to put it….it’s just ridiculous.
Again, what I’m pointing out here is also backed up by the records of Metro tickets sold that day, which you still haven’t responded to. You can post all the low angle shots taken from within the crowd you want, but you can’t show any alternative angles on the Metro numbers.
Um… Spicer and the White House have already corrected themselves on this; I saw no need to respond about it.
In regards to your "voter fraud evidence," that’s not what I’m asking for. Yes, voter fraud can occur to some extent, and I have no doubt that it does sometimes. But Trump claimed that three million people voted illegally. Where did he get this number from? It is a very convenient number because that just happens to be the number by which he lost the popular vote. The entire context in which he gave this made up number was just to try to save face and pretend he didn’t "really" lose the popular vote.
I actually wasn’t directing that towards you, but there is already existing evidence (that you WILL find if you take the time to look for it) that back up Trump’s claims so I’ll just leave it there for now/
Have you noticed that all of the sources you provide are pro-Trump sources? Why is it that you insist that the media’s bias means that they must be lying, but you don’t extend that same logic to r/TheDonald or Alex Jones? Do you seriously believe that Sean Hannity isn’t biased towards Trump?
Yes. Sean Hannity, along with Bill O’Reilly (these two I know for a fact, so I won’t cite any others because I don’t know for sure), for that matter have known Donald Trump for years. They know him very well; they know how he thinks, they know what sort of person he is, what his usual behavior consists of; they know what his intentions are, they flatly know that he’s not a liar, and that he and his cabinet wouldn’t make such ridiculous claims without the events and factors in question having actually happened, they also know that Trump is not perfect and he makes mistakes just as much as you and I do. And in addition they research this stuff themselves – especially Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.
(I recall one of Hannity’s comments on how almost all of what Trump does on a daily basis is negotiate; people who personally know him, know this. I also clearly recall that Hannity has many (sometimes phone) conversations with Donald Trump, usually anywhere from the hours of 1 – 5 AM, and he has these conversations and talks to him personally on a regular basis to keep in check with he’s doing, what he means to do, and for what he himself says about Trump)
There’s a good reason I don’t extend logic to them. All they’re doing is telling the truth – that’s all they want to do. They, unlike the media, are not being paid to make Trump look better than he actually is, contrary to the majority of the media and news outlets who are paid to make Trump look worse than he actually is (I’ve already previously explained in thorough why they do this). They aren’t in it for the money; they have no ulterior motives, deceptive, biased, nor wrongful motives based on money like the controlled-media does. And think about if the media ever said anything honest about Obama or Clinton ever. They would be ridiculed, they would be shunned, they would lose their jobs; they would collapse or be bought out.
I would dare you to personally get in contact with Sean, Rush, O’Reilly, or even Jones and ask about this yourself.
Another late addition; quoted from the about (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/about/) of The Conservative Treehouse:
"The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community
Perhaps you’ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.
Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.
Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.
The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.
But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard. The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.
The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it’s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.
This is where democrats mis-view republicans as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.
The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.
The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The liberal believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)
The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger. The liberal believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.
And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the liberal, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.
One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.
And there it is. There’s where the meanness comes from. The liberal ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” He constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.
One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our liberal friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.
In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need – make donations to the Red Cross when there’s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it’s just $50 here and there – it’s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it’s your duty to give back.
The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. And perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable. Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their “generosity” to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention – re distributive policies ALWAYS end up dis-empowering those who they’re meant to help.)
However each of us got here, it’s probably a fact that we have the turmoil of those storms in common, perhaps some unease that we could share and always, we also find fresh ground to cover from day to day. We’re developing valuable relationships as we trust one another in our community in the woods. The chatting in the branches encourages, strengthens and equips for some serious walking.
We think the Treehouse is a good armory for those who doing long distance walking for the sake of our nation. We hope you’ll think so, too. Find yourself a good branch….or just pull up a rock to the campfire."
Read this, and tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about; that I’m using low-IC thinking. That conservative sites, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity and the like are biased for Donald Trump, and that they’ll fabricate and make up stories to support his cause. That they’re not credible. That they don’t do their research. That they won’t tell the truth. That they don’t want to tell the truth. That I’m pushing some crazy unbelievable conspiracy theory. That I haven’t done my research; that there isn’t evidence to back up what I’ve been saying the past couple days.
Regardless of it looking lazy, immature, foolish, or naive on my part; I say with all my passion and faith (in God as well, mind you) that NONE of the above are true.
Not trying to get really serious on you, here, (oh wait, I am. Sorry) but this is simply and overall a discussion of which its subject involves very serious determining factors that affect our lives. And that which affects are lives are one of the chief determining factors in this situation; those of which will or already has proven me right. It’s not about being right either, it’s just about understanding the absolute truth and scope of the situation – and conspiracy (not theory, fact)
Gordon Freeman at the inauguration confirmed
(
)
Joe Pesci at the inauguration confirmed
(
)
More individuals confirmed
(
)
Then we have this guy over here who looks shady as fuck
(
)
All of these have been confirmed
Plus my Mom and her family were refugees during WWII and I know the stories of how poorly they were treated. And I’ve assisted with refugee evacuations. You see the look on the face of a mother and child that you’ve just ensured will live and not die in a ditch, it’s a look I’ll never forget.
Exactly. What country/state did your Mom and her family leave?
———- Post added at 10:49 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ———-
Don’t need any Census, when i’ve experienced it firsthand.
What World do we love in when the White Women can’t walk home in Peace
without Fear of getting fucking raped ?
Fucking Rapefugees are outta Control.
Wow, so much hate. So little need for actual numbers. Or facts. Alter, wo wohnst du denn?
———- Post added at 10:50 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ———-
It’s Merkel! Ewwwwwwwwww! I always feel sorry for Germany.
Don’t be. I’m pretty sure we will manage. It will be problematic and not easy but we will manage.
Gordon Freeman at the inauguration confirmed
()
Joe Pesci at the inauguration confirmed
()
More individuals confirmed
()
Then we have this guy over here who looks shady as fuck
()
All of these have been confirmed
Dude I’m super confused by this. I’m *thinking* that you know no of those people are who you say they are? Because it’s CNN (and we know how they report the 100% truth :laugh:) but I see no "lol" or ":p" or ":laugh:" from you, so I’m not sure how to take this lol
Joe Pesci wishes he was as young as that guy. Looks more like Mr. Constanza to me :p
And Rob Reiner is such a raging, flaming liberal that he’d most likely rather die than attend a republican inauguration
Joe Pesci wishes he was as young as that guy. Looks more like Mr. Constanza to me :p
And Rob Reiner is such a raging, flaming liberal that he’d most likely rather die than attend a republican inauguration
He’s joking. It would be sort of funny if it weren’t making light of a fascist coming into power.
I agree the guy labeled Joe Pesci doesn’t look anything like him though.
Storms are brewing. I really do wonder if this guy is going to make it through four years.
http://time.com/4652966/donald-trump-refugee-ban-executive-order-republicans/
I have to date yet to see Trump make an antisemitic comment, for all people want to chuck that at him to gain Jewish support. It’s pretty blatantly explicit when you’re talking about the Holocaust that you have Jews in mind, and frankly I think it’s disrespectful to the millions of slavs that were purged by Nazi Germany to paint it as an exclusively Jewish persecution anyway.
A thousand controversies in front of us and the press picks up on this trivial nonsense. Way to undermine your credibility at a time when the President is trying to do exactly that.
———- Post added at 02:45 PM ———- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ———-
Sigh….again, I’ll point to some other things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQ-kgUk5g
And most importantly
http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/trump-inauguration-photos-rigged/
Late addition; video evidence of the crowd
https://youtu.be/yePtCGg7b40?t=1h27m36s
And some additional explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxjEnPPclE8
So, let’s see.
This…
against this…
And this fucking bullshit
Harsh sigh…..The CNN gigapixel is clearly detailed enough so that you can see any gap in the crowd. I already demonstrated this, and now compared it with other photos that were deliberately taken before he was sworn in; they were not all taken around the same time. And Trump’s photo – that was widely used as the comparison was definitely taken at a different, earlier time than Obama’s, at a possible two or three hour difference. There’s also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they’re too blurry. And they clearly demonstrate areas of the crowd empty whereas the CNN gigapixel shows minimal gaps at the least, and taking the photo(s) at such a time earlier would be the only way that this is possible without, uh…deeming him a delusional liar.
And you tell me that this doesn’t make the media’s reporting dishonest…
The media’s amount of coverage on this is ridiculous – more ridiculous than Trump’s claims ever were. The media saw another opportunity to make him (them) out as liar(s) and they took it. And they’re just using it to affirm that Donald Trump, Sean Spicer and the White House are liars that you can’t trust.
I seriously don’t know any other way to put it….it’s just ridiculous.
Um… Spicer and the White House have already corrected themselves on this; I saw no need to respond about it.
I actually wasn’t directing that towards you, but there is already existing evidence (that you WILL find if you take the time to look for it) that back up Trump’s claims so I’ll just leave it there for now/
Yes. Sean Hannity, along with Bill O’Reilly (these two I know for a fact, so I won’t cite any others because I don’t know for sure), for that matter have known Donald Trump for years. They know him very well; they know how he thinks, they know what sort of person he is, what his usual behavior consists of; they know what his intentions are, they flatly know that he’s not a liar, and that he and his cabinet wouldn’t make such ridiculous claims without the events and factors in question having actually happened, they also know that Trump is not perfect and he makes mistakes just as much as you and I do. And in addition they research this stuff themselves – especially Sean Hannity and Alex Jones.
(I recall one of Hannity’s comments on how almost all of what Trump does on a daily basis is negotiate; people who personally know him, know this. I also clearly recall that Hannity has many (sometimes phone) conversations with Donald Trump, usually anywhere from the hours of 1 – 5 AM, and he has these conversations and talks to him personally on a regular basis to keep in check with he’s doing, what he means to do, and for what he himself says about Trump)
There’s a good reason I don’t extend logic to them. All they’re doing is telling the truth – that’s all they want to do. They, unlike the media, are not being paid to make Trump look better than he actually is, contrary to the majority of the media and news outlets who are paid to make Trump look worse than he actually is (I’ve already previously explained in thorough why they do this). They aren’t in it for the money; they have no ulterior motives, deceptive, biased, nor wrongful motives based on money like the controlled-media does. And think about if the media ever said anything honest about Obama or Clinton ever. They would be ridiculed, they would be shunned, they would lose their jobs; they would collapse or be bought out.
I would dare you to personally get in contact with Sean, Rush, O’Reilly, or even Jones and ask about this yourself.
Another late addition; quoted from the about (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/about/) of The Conservative Treehouse:
"The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community
Perhaps you???ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.
Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.
Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society ??? the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it???s means there???s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also ??? shocking ??? not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.
The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.
But here???s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity ??? the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen ??? but you have to work hard. The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward ??? material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.
The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it???s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you???ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people???s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices. And we want the same in return.
This is where democrats mis-view republicans as heartless. But really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence ??? and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues ??? welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can???t actually afford ??? ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger ??? they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.
The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.
The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The liberal believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a ???perfect??? utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)
The conservative tends to be more faithful ??? and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment ??? trust and faith in something bigger. The liberal believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and ???fix??? things.
And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, he knows he has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance. For the liberal, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.
One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.
And there it is. There???s where the meanness comes from. The liberal ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear ???unfair.??? He constantly chooses only to see the ???injustices??? ??? and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.
One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our liberal friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.
In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need ??? make donations to the Red Cross when there???s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it???s just $50 here and there ??? it???s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it???s your duty to give back.
The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. And perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable. Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their ???generosity??? to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention ??? re distributive policies ALWAYS end up dis-empowering those who they???re meant to help.)
However each of us got here, it???s probably a fact that we have the turmoil of those storms in common, perhaps some unease that we could share and always, we also find fresh ground to cover from day to day. We???re developing valuable relationships as we trust one another in our community in the woods. The chatting in the branches encourages, strengthens and equips for some serious walking.
We think the Treehouse is a good armory for those who doing long distance walking for the sake of our nation. We hope you???ll think so, too. Find yourself a good branch???.or just pull up a rock to the campfire."
Read this, and tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about; that I’m using low-IC thinking. That conservative sites, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity and the like are biased for Donald Trump, and that they’ll fabricate and make up stories to support his cause. That they’re not credible. That they don’t do their research. That they won’t tell the truth. That they don’t want to tell the truth. That I’m pushing some crazy unbelievable conspiracy theory. That I haven’t done my research; that there isn’t evidence to back up what I’ve been saying the past couple days.
Regardless of it looking lazy, immature, foolish, or naive on my part; I say with all my passion and faith (in God as well, mind you) that NONE of the above are true.
Not trying to get really serious on you, here, (oh wait, I am. Sorry) but this is simply and overall a discussion of which its subject involves very serious determining factors that affect our lives. And that which affects are lives are one of the chief determining factors in this situation; those of which will or already has proven me right. It’s not about being right either, it’s just about understanding the absolute truth and scope of the situation – and conspiracy (not theory, fact)
I’ve played this game a number of times, pulled my own imagery from CNN footage to guarantee against photoshop, because the crowd does look bigger at a glance from the broadcast angle than from the overhead view. But I always reach the same conclusion.
You look at where the gaps are in the overhead view. You match them up with where they are in the broadcast view. They’re still there. The entire mat in front of the press booth is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. Next tier, the mat on the right hand side from the broadcast perspective is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. The next section is jam packed in both pictures. The next section is empty on one side in both pictures. etc etc etc And Obama’s crowd not only fills most of these spots, but spills over into the grass on either side and way back beyond where the press booth was for Trump’s inauguration.
The CNN live broadcast imagery literally confirms that the overhead is right. Yeah, different camera angles make one look big and the other look small. You methodically go through and match up the images with where people are standing in both, and they’re literally pictures of the exact same thing from different perspectives.
Anyone who wants to deny consensus on crowd size is obligated to perform this exercise. You can’t simply point to the most flattering camera angle available and go "Look! Lots of people! National Park Service conspiracy confirmed!!!"
I mean, you can say it, but you’re not fooling anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.
The Holocaust targeted Jews first and foremost. No one is denying this. Not me. Not the President.
The Holocaust also targeted slavs, who were not considered Aryan. Many, many people were exterminated who had no Jewish ancestry for this reason. Doesn’t mean we should downplay the Jewish aspect of the persecution. I think it’s generally unfortunate that we tend to forget the other victims. That’s all.
When someone talks about the victims of the Holocaust and does not specifically narrow their focus to Jewish victims, they are either being conscientious about the other victims or else they are taking it for granted that Holocaust Victim = Jew. The latter is somewhat regrettable but certainly understandable in so far it is how we commonly remember the event.
At worst, Trump is guilty about that. I read his remarks. Nothing antisemitic about them. I have seen him labeled antisemitic on a number of other occasions. I have looked into these accusations when I’ve been aware of them. I have yet to find any that I feel were legitimate.
I hate Donald Trump’s guts and I think that’s pretty obvious, but I’m going to object when I see him accused of something that I don’t feel is a legitimate complaint.
Want to know what was disgusting about the Trump administration in relation to this topic? Spicer tossing antisemitism back on Obama during the press conference because Obama had stood up for persecuted Palestinians.
You look at where the gaps are in the overhead view. You match them up with where they are in the broadcast view. They’re still there. The entire mat in front of the press booth is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. Next tier, the mat on the right hand side from the broadcast perspective is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. The next section is jam packed in both pictures. The next section is empty on one side in both pictures. etc etc etc And Obama’s crowd not only fills most of these spots, but spills over into the grass on either side and way back beyond where the press booth was for Trump’s inauguration.
The CNN live broadcast imagery literally confirms that the overhead is right. Yeah, different camera angles make one look big and the other look small. You methodically go through and match up the images with where people are standing in both, and they’re literally pictures of the exact same thing from different perspectives.
Anyone who wants to deny consensus on crowd size is obligated to perform this exercise. You can’t simply point to the most flattering camera angle available and go "Look! Lots of people! National Park Service conspiracy confirmed!!!"
I mean, you can say it, but you’re not fooling anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.
It’s not worth it. I just went through this with him, even showing aerial photos taken at the same time as the CNN photo he’s pointing to that have the same crowd gaps, but he doesn’t care. The man has a story and he’s sticking to it. Maybe in a few years it’ll be different.
I think you’re making too much of the holocaust question. I didn’t see what you’re referring to, but it sounds like a reasonable question. Trump’s direct ties to the alt right are enough to raise suspicion even if he hasn’t said anything directly anti-semitic – he might not have, but his chief adviser has, and he’s closely associated with a movement that includes a lot of fiercely anti-semitic individuals.
I remember teenagers denying it in highschool.
Now there’s a movie about it with Rachel Weiss. I did not finish it. It didn’t seem all that interesting.
I have to date yet to see Trump make an antisemitic comment, for all people want to chuck that at him to gain Jewish support. It’s pretty blatantly explicit when you’re talking about the Holocaust that you have Jews in mind, and frankly I think it’s disrespectful to the millions of slavs that were purged by Nazi Germany to paint it as an exclusively Jewish persecution anyway.
A thousand controversies in front of us and the press picks up on this trivial nonsense. Way to undermine your credibility at a time when the President is trying to do exactly that.
———- Post added at 02:45 PM ———- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ———-
I’ve played this game a number of times, pulled my own imagery from CNN footage to guarantee against photoshop, because the crowd does look bigger at a glance from the broadcast angle than from the overhead view. But I always reach the same conclusion.
You look at where the gaps are in the overhead view. You match them up with where they are in the broadcast view. They’re still there. The entire mat in front of the press booth is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. Next tier, the mat on the right hand side from the broadcast perspective is still empty in the photo you zoomed in on. The next section is jam packed in both pictures. The next section is empty on one side in both pictures. etc etc etc And Obama’s crowd not only fills most of these spots, but spills over into the grass on either side and way back beyond where the press booth was for Trump’s inauguration.
The CNN live broadcast imagery literally confirms that the overhead is right. Yeah, different camera angles make one look big and the other look small. You methodically go through and match up the images with where people are standing in both, and they’re literally pictures of the exact same thing from different perspectives.
Anyone who wants to deny consensus on crowd size is obligated to perform this exercise. You can’t simply point to the most flattering camera angle available and go "Look! Lots of people! National Park Service conspiracy confirmed!!!"
I mean, you can say it, but you’re not fooling anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.
smh
Again,
From someone who was actually there:
There’s absolutely nothing to confirm that the overhead photos used as comparison between Obama’s were taken around the same time ("There’s also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they’re too blurry.") and listed times for respective photos where they’re presented could easily just be lied about. I think that they were taken about 2 or 3 hours before the whole crowd had gathered, CNN and others passed it off as the comparison between Obama’s crowd and Trump’s crowd, and had falsely cited that they were taken at the time Trump was inaugurated – which there is currently no visual evidence to support that claim, as, once again, the photos are too blurry to tell.
Seriously. That crowd shown in those overhead photos are so significantly inferior compared to Obama’s, it just makes jack-shit for sense that only that many people would attend Donald Trump’s inauguration. I call bullshit. I’ve been calling bullshit for a while, and I’m also clearly not the only one who thinks so.
———- Post added at 02:50 PM ———- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ———-
HA! Holocaust Denail. I would like somebody of that group to sit through the whole 10-hour entirety of Shoah and continue to deny the holocaust.
George’s job, like all his compatriots, is to spread FUD and undermine rational debate.
Sound familiar?
Also curious that no citizen from any of the seven countries on Trump’s Muslim Ban have attacked the U.S. Yet Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack the U.S. – 9/11 anyone? – are not on the ban. India and Pakistan are also not part of the ban.
Could it be because Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon?
Donald Trump: Make America White Again.
To add: I would modify to "Make America White Christian Again".
lol @ Clone continuing to post a picture of the same thing over and over again in the hopes that sooner or later more people will magically appear in it.
Again,
From someone who was actually there:
There’s absolutely nothing to confirm that the overhead photos used as comparison between Obama’s were taken around the same time ("There’s also no way at all to tell in the photo(s) I compare the gigapixel with if Trump has already been sworn in or not; the distance is too far and they’re too blurry.") and listed times for respective photos where they’re presented could easily just be lied about. I think that they were taken about 2 or 3 hours before the whole crowd had gathered, CNN and others passed it off as the comparison between Obama’s crowd and Trump’s crowd, and had falsely cited that they were taken at the time Trump was inaugurated – which there is currently no visual evidence to support that claim, as, once again, the photos are too blurry to tell.
Seriously. That crowd shown in those overhead photos are so significantly inferior compared to Obama’s, it just makes jack-shit for sense that only that many people would attend Donald Trump’s inauguration. I call bullshit. I’ve been calling bullshit for a while, and I’m also clearly not the only one who thinks so.[COLOR="Silver"]
Alright, I’m going to try one more time.
Here is an entire archive of earthcam’s video footage for the whole event, half hour by half hour, from a high angle. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08
Here’s specifically the footage from 12:00-12:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOjaTcDuwI4&list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08&index=11
But you can go through the whole thing. I just did. The gaps in the crowd that are apparent in the supposed "fake news" comparison never disappear.
All the photos you can point to that you claim disprove it are taken from low angles. You don’t have a single piece of counter evidence taken from the same height, same angle as the ones that show the clear crowd gaps. You have testimony from someone who was there… on the ground. Giving his personal subjective experience. Who also happens to be a Trump supporter.
You have nothing.
———- Post added at 04:25 PM ———- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ———-
It was the gross tone deafness of the Trump administration to issue that executive order denying refugees on Holocaust Remembrance Day. During WWII the Roosevelt administration denied the entry of Jews fleeing persecution into the U.S. on the ground they could be spies, saboteurs, members of the fifth column and that their presence could threaten national security.
Sound familiar?
Also curious that no citizen from any of the seven countries on Trump’s Muslim Ban have attacked the U.S. Yet Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon, whose citizens did attack the U.S. – 9/11 anyone? – are not on the ban. India and Pakistan are also not part of the ban.
Could it be because Trump has business dealings in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon?
Donald Trump: Make America White Again.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
Google Fred Trump and the KKK and see what you get.
The orange doesn’t fall far from the racist tree.
I hadn’t heard these before. What a doozie.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_complained_about_blacks_inherent_laziness_19 91_book_says.html
I am sure r/thedonald has had some things to say about this. No doubt, the mainstream media retroactively invented the book, and hacked into google books to plant it so they could lie and claim poor innocent Trumpy (who never says anything awful and embarrassing) is a racist. I guess they must have manufactured fake 1999 Playboy issues with a fake interview, as well.
Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html): "I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed. “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” …Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.
On the other hand, this is probably why some Republicans in congress are already showing minor signs of revolt.
Here is an entire archive of earthcam’s video footage for the whole event, half hour by half hour, from a high angle. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08
Here’s specifically the footage from 12:00-12:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOjaTcDuwI4&list=PLY_evXM74o9naEld1gRLDPTx7qM4ayK08&index=11
But you can go through the whole thing. I just did. The gaps in the crowd that are apparent in the supposed "fake news" comparison never disappear.
All the photos you can point to that you claim disprove it are taken from low angles. You don’t have a single piece of counter evidence taken from the same height, same angle as the ones that show the clear crowd gaps. You have testimony from someone who was there… on the ground. Giving his personal subjective experience. Who also happens to be a Trump supporter.
You have nothing.
Great way to end a post.
So, okay, you got me here. You’ve finally presented some video evidence which (I think) proves me wrong on the comparison to the CNN gigapixel, and which I’ve also taken some time looking through (here, you can see screens showing Trump speaking; you can also see the camera’s counting time, which both these things indicate that the crowds shown are at the respective time of his swearing in). But in particular, I noticed a discrepancy with the crowd at the base of the monument shown by the Twitter photos compared to what the footage shows. That’s odd. I’m still a bit skeptical, as it doesn’t make much sense for only that amount of attendance for a presidential inauguration of Donald Trump, but there’s also a great amount of people that simply weren’t able to get in, either from fear of being attacked, or entryways being blocked, or some other circumstances which I’m forgetting (this (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/21/definitive-cnn-gigapixel-image-of-crowd-during-trump-inauguration-speech-confirms-sean-spicer-correct/) which I linked before I think explains in more detail; I don’t have time at the moment to type it out). The CNN gigapixel also shows the crazy amount people who were resorted to watch the inauguration from outside the attendance area, which still supports Spicer’s claims to at least some degree (in that statement he considered every factor of attendance or viewership.)
Still, this doesn’t disprove that the majority of mainstream media are lying bastards most of the time and that they’ll take any opportunity (real, or fabricated) to discourage support and enthusiasm for Donald Trump. It also doesn’t change the fact that they’ve given this subject more coverage, air time and overall disproportion than deserved, for which there are also other countless examples of the media doing so.
———- Post added at 05:02 PM ———- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ———-
George’s job, like all his compatriots, is to spread FUD and undermine rational debate.
Good detective work. I’m also getting compensation for my drive to push these concepts, so I guess that’s why I’m doing it.
No, I wouldn’t ever lie, or anything…of course Donald Trump has never eaten food with a white fork! That would automatically make him a white-supremacist, as we all well know.
Common sense, people.
First, I’ve been looking for an archive of the whole earthcam footage for a while just because I hoped it might finally end this silly debate (I don’t just mean with you specifically, I mean across the board) but hadn’t managed to find an upload of it until now. (This archive was only uploaded two days ago.) But ultimately I shouldn’t really have had to – most people understood that the evidence already available was sufficient that the media’s stories on it were not dishonest, and the only people arguing against it were those who were already fully invested in defending Trump, such as r/thedonald.
There are lots of reasons why Trump’s inauguration would have been smaller than Obama’s, and not all of them are reasons that even necessarily reflect poorly on him. As you said, some amount of people were slowed down in their attempts to reach the inauguration by protesters – though I do not think any of the evidence about that shows it to be more than a small amount. Much more significant is the fact that the D.C. voting population went overwhelmingly blue this election, as indeed they virtually always do; since D.C. residents are obviously the most likely to be in attendance, it stands to reason that far fewer locals would be showing up for a president they didn’t want. Not only that, but Obama had the historical significance of being the first black president, and many people who wouldn’t have otherwise attended even for someone they approved of went precisely for that reason. Black Americans in particular showed up in massive numbers for Obama’s inauguration because for the first time in their lives, someone who could have some kind of first-hand understanding of what it’s like to face racial discrimination in America was leading the country. Conversely, a lot of the white people who voted Trump in this year did so reluctantly, and even among those who weren’t so reluctant, having another white male espousing conservatism was not exactly a new event in their lives.
Frankly, anyone who would have predicted Trump’s turnout would be as big as Obama’s would have been crazy — for reasons that are not inherently anti-Trump. And this is why it’s been such a huge problem.
The media reported on what was essentially a fairly obvious and mundane fact. Trump’s supporters are so trained to attack anything and everything the media says about him that they immediately set about desperately looking for anything they could find that would "prove" the DISHONEST MEDIA WAS LYING ABOUT THE ATTENDANCE! See, the reason this was made a big deal of is twofold: it’s partly because the comparison image spread all over social media by people who are looking for cathartic ways of responding to the fact that someone they feel deeply, truly threatened by has taken power in their country. But it’s also because the backlash from Trump’s side (and the fact that Trump and Spicer lied about it and then accused the media of lying) made a huge issue out of something that was, as far as sources like CNN and PBS were concerned, only one small story they ran for the day.
All I ask is that you seriously consider this: if it turned out that you were wrong about this, despite the fact that it seemed so incredibly sure that the media was lying from all the stuff you read on r/thedonald and how just and righteous the cause seems when you’re hanging out with people there, doesn’t it stand to reason that maybe, just maybe, this applies to other things that you feel sure about too? That maybe most of the other things you see people on r/thedonald decrying as the "lying media" might actually not be lies, even though it just seems so strongly to you that they must be?
Not asking you to answer me, though of course it’s your prerogative if you feel the need to. Just throwing it out there.
For the record, I do not agree with gururuu that you are trying to undermine rational debate. I respect that you’re willing to have it even when I throw walls of text at you.
One nation Under God
Written in 1882 and not adopted as the nation’s pledge until 1942. Not written by the founding fathers. There is no inherently Christian language in the constitution or the declaration of independence. And for that matter, what you’re quoting might as well be Muslim.
Too early, I think it was during Eisenhower’s presidency as a reaction to the red scare.
The next thing DAK will push is the old canard that the "founding fathers" were devout Christians.
You’re right, my bad. 42 is when it was adopted as the pledge but 54 is when the words "Under God" were added.
The next thing DAK will push is the old canard that the "founding fathers" were devout Christians.
Who owned slaves. I wonder where God was for the enslaved? Aren’t they "under God" or maybe that only applied to rich landowners. Perhaps God really is old and white.
Ironic, since the Founding Fathers were products of the Enlightenment, they valued reason over emotion. But it only goes so far.
Don’t forget Jefferson took a razor to the Bible and cut out portions he thought "were contrary to reason?"
Or the presence of the Bible at Washington’s Presidential inauguration was an afterthought?
Actually the U.S. motto is: In God We Trust. All others pay cash.
Get some fucking sense. Separation of religion and government is something that was done and very clear when America was founded, or its constitution.
Then I would’ve said Allah or Muhammad or whatever
It was the principles and concepts from the bible which the Declaration of Independence consists some of and which the US Constitution was founded upon. "In God We Trust" makes every bit of sense; the US is a Christian nation, believe it or not.
:this:
I knew there was something else I forgot :p
Get some fucking sense. Separation of religion and government is something that was done and very clear when America was founded, or its constitution.
Farthest from the truth. (Coming from one who has actually read these documents)
A christian-based gobernment is much worse than a Trump government.
A christian-based gobernment is much worse than a Trump government.
Familiarize yourself with US history and the documents themselves before making such statements.
http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/So+did+bowser+impregnate+her+with+his+reptile+spaw n+or+_e4ab4388478b647012431e9a40fc4df5.jpg
Because we’re a Christian nation! :smrt:
I don’t know much about American law but here in Canada you’re given a choice. You can "swear" on whatever holy book you follow (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.) or you can "affirm" (which is basically the same thing just without a religious connection). What they’re doing is "swearing" or "affirming" that their live testimony (or written, if the evidence is in the form of an affidavit) is true and that they will perjure themselves if they lie while sworn in.
I’m guessing they just do that because your country was founded by mostly Christian men (as far as I know).
It doesn’t.
I’m Christian and I 100% agree. As would be the same for any government with any clear religious ties.
Because Religion is the Opium of the People.
Hell, this is why the muslims are like they are. Because they follow their lives as the book of centuries ago tells them. You want to have a Christian government, that bases their laws in the Bible, so you people can stone your wives? Come on. I’m not even bashing your beliefs, believe in whatever the fuck you want, just have some common sense and don’t make everyone have to abide by those beliefs too.
I had to resort to reading a transcript, admittedly. :erm:
Hell, this is why the muslims are like they are. Because they follow their lives as the book of centuries ago tells them. You want to have a Christian government, that bases their laws in the Bible, so you people can stone your wives? Come on. I’m not even bashing your beliefs, believe in whatever the fuck you want, just have some common sense and don’t make everyone have to abide by those beliefs too.
For the most part, I agree. I’d just recommend you don’t put Muslims (or anyone, for that matter) into one giant box when making these statements. Not trying to be rude. I just find we need to be careful, even in an environment like this.
I’m not trying to offend, I’m just putting an example; and it’s more or less the same thing.
———- Post added at 06:21 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ———-
And also, https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/
Clonemaster, seriously, continuing to put links that caters to whatever you think does not mean what you want to believe is the total, undeniable truth. You keep seriously using links as your arguments.
Yes, but your example could be more effective with specific instances firmly grounded in fact. (i.e. take a passage directly from the Koran, in this case)
*waits to be told to "fuck off" or "go fuck myself"*
That’s likely to make it worse ten Times over :laugh:
:this:
*waits to be told to "fuck off" or "go fuck myself"*
Wow, you totally win the argument against me by saying that I’ve cursed two or three times. Good job, DAK, you win today.
———- Post added at 06:24 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ———-
:this:
Weren’t you not ever getting into this thread?
That’s likely to make it worse ten Times over :laugh:
I don’t think we should shy away from difficult topics. As long as we’re mature, we should be able to discuss anything like reasonable adults.
It has all to do with the historical practice of making a show of vows or affirmation. Read all about it at Quora (https://www.quora.com/Oaths-If-church-and-state-are-separate-why-do-we-swear-on-the-Bible-in-court-Is-there-an-alternative-for-non-Christians).
This is a good part:
"…the custom of raising ones right hand dates back to the medieval period in which felons would be branded on their right hand with a mark denoting their crime, so you lift your right hand to show you are not a felon and thus not of suspect testimony. During those times felons were also not allowed to make declarations under oath."
Don’t automatically assume that it’s biased.
I’m also not going to write an essay on the matter because I’m on my phone right now. I’m only guilty of being a little more succinct than I should be.
None of that really has anything to do with Leninism. Nothing about the Trump administration is remotely reflective of Leninism.
I don’t know if I should be more or less concerned by that.
It basically suggests that Bannon is just as uneducated as his boss.
*Ducks under Desk*
*Ducks under Desk*
Don’t you dare lol
*Ducks under Desk*
I’m a creationist. I have friends of all beliefs (including atheists). We get along fine, oddly enough.
Sure. This is the only Life we get,
who am I to scream into somebody’s Face about his/her Beliefs ?
Live and let live.
Same here, actually. My best friend and I are polar opposites on the political field, yet we don’t get heated about it. We’ll harass each other about it from time to time, but it never gets out of hand. My love/friendship for someone trumps everything else. That includes your race, religion, sexual orientation, and political beliefs.
16 years old and already making billions off of pushing conspiracies. :smrt:
*insert Hillary Clinton triggered meme here*
:laugh:
I don’t know if I should be more or less concerned by that.
It basically suggests that Bannon is just as uneducated as his boss.
It’s co-rrrelated to right-wing populism in that the hereditary/financial/what have you elites are overthrown by the (historical) working class, aka the proletariat or the common man.
Except that never really comes to pass. Another set of elites just take over. Communism under Stalin. Fascism under Mussolini. National Socialism under Hitler. Cultural Revolution under Mao.
What they all share alike is the killing of millions and millions.
Learn that on Breitbart?
The original texts this nation was founded on were largely inspired by John Locke, who was pretty much the godfather of removing Christianity from philosophy and politics.
Moreover, the religion that most Americans call "Christianity" today didn’t really exist yet.
That’s such a superficial correlation though. There are hundreds of revolutionaries he could have drawn a better comparison to. Bannon’s two key focal points seem to be nationalism and militarization, both of which Lenin would have rejected out of hand.
That would be a weird country.
Oh wait, that’s the Netherlands.
A tradition started by Washington. A tradition is not law. Article IV of The Constitution states: "… No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
And Trump went against that article in his executive order which says Christians get preference. If you issue an order giving one religious group preference over other based on their religions, that’s a religious test and against The Constitution.
And if we elect a Muslim president he or she has every right to put their hands on a Koran.
Swearing on the Bible in court is not mandatory. It’s tradition, again. Atheists or agnostics can simply swear to tell the truth. The very devout who don’t like the word swear can say they affirm to tell the truth.
And how Christian is a nation that had slavery, child labor, imposed laws that kept non whites from voting, turned a blind eye to groups like the KKK, denied women the right to vote, and committed genocide against Native Americans?
I think they were more discussing the official religious affiliation of the founding fathers, not necessarily whether they followed their beliefs. Which is a topic for another day.
I agree. But, at the same time, should everything he says be taken literally? My guess is that invocation of Lenin has more to do with the dead Russian’s propaganda tactics.
This is absolute nonsense. The declaration makes a couple of references to a deity, but the actual principles in it are not derived from the Bible. Where in the Bible is the principle expressed that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed? That is the primary thrust of the document.
There’s nothing about the constitution that is directly linked to the Bible either. The principles it contains came primarily from enlightenment era philosophy, particularly John Locke; the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a minor alteration of a quote from him. Now Locke himself was a Christian, there is certainly no doubt of that. But in his philosophy he specifically set out to deduce things without referring to scriptural authority. Most Enlightenment philosophers were deists, explicitly not Christians.
If your claims are right then why isn’t there anything in the constitution or the declaration that explicitly proclaims Christianity a state religion? Why is there instead a statement that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? It’s very explicitly clear that although most people in the country were Christian, they did not want a country that was defined by that religion, but rather was defined by its own principles derived from reason.
———- Post added at 08:06 PM ———- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ———-
I agree. But, at the same time, should everything he says be taken literally? My guess is that invocation of Lenin has more to do with the dead Russian’s propaganda tactics.
He means it in the sense that Lenin’s goal was to tear down the established government and replace it from the ground up. That’s all.
Well, I think Bannon is a bit of a mystery to all of us. Is the Dark Lord pulling the strings behind Trump an evil genius or just another idiot? Comparing himself to a historic figure who he doesn’t appear to know much about indicates the latter.
———- Post added at 08:10 PM ———- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ———-
He means it in the sense that Lenin’s goal was to tear down the established government and replace it from the ground up. That’s all.
That’s been the goal of like every revolutionary ever.
Bannon chose to name one who he appears to have next to nothing in common with otherwise.
That should give us some clues into what is (or isn’t) ticking inside his head.
———- Post added at 08:30 PM ———- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ———-
It’s very explicitly clear that although most people in the country were Christian, they did not want a country that was defined by that religion, but rather was defined by its own principles derived from reason.
I kind of think they wouldn’t have even said "most people in the country are Christian". ‘Christian’ is a really vague term that lacks any core defining features beyond the use, in some capacity, of a set of texts that share a (mostly) common ancestor. This was at the forefront of a lot of enlightenment thinkers’ minds in the wake of Europe’s religious wars.
Whereas today, due in large part I think to the ascent of non-denominationalism, most Americans share an erroneous assumption that ‘Christian’ is a fairly well-defined term.
Whereas today, due in large part I think to the ascent of non-denominationalism, most Americans share an erroneous assumption that ‘Christian’ is a fairly well-defined term.
It doesn’t need to be a really precisely defined term to say most people in the country were Christian. But I don’t know if I agree with you that it’s vague. I would rather say "broad." There are countless different variations of Christianity, many of which have severely different beliefs. But in general, Christians are people who derive their religious beliefs from the scriptures purporting to document the life of Jesus. That is broad but not vague, and it is most definitely accurate to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the colonies fell under that description.
There is Hanlon’s razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". However, I would contend that the inverse is still within the realm of possibility, particularly given who the new president is, and the means by which he came to occupy that position.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say they have to be "derived" from it to qualify. I can think of plenty of counterexamples. But I suppose that’s getting on to a different topic.
My point was more [redacted until I can be arsed to refresh my memory, because I could have been pretty off the mark here].
———- Post added at 09:03 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ———-
There is Hanlon’s razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". However, I would contend that the inverse is still within the realm of possibility, particularly given who the new president is, and the means by which he came to occupy that position.
I want to frame this quote and put it on my wall.
———- Post added at 09:08 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ———-
Trump probably only ever read Leviathan anyway………
I’d say "Bullet Point Ayn Rand for Dummies".
There’s nothing about the constitution that is directly linked to the Bible either. The principles it contains came primarily from enlightenment era philosophy, particularly John Locke; the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a minor alteration of a quote from him. Now Locke himself was a Christian, there is certainly no doubt of that. But in his philosophy he specifically set out to deduce things without referring to scriptural authority. Most Enlightenment philosophers were deists, explicitly not Christians.
If your claims are right then why isn’t there anything in the constitution or the declaration that explicitly proclaims Christianity a state religion? Why is there instead a statement that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? It’s very explicitly clear that although most people in the country were Christian, they did not want a country that was defined by that religion, but rather was defined by its own principles derived from reason.
Time for me to get religious as fuck and start quoting things from the Bible and shit.
So, consider this; from where do most of our laws and morals stem from? The Bible; which consists of The Ten Commandants. examples;
"Thou shalt not kill" (Dignity)
"Thou shalt not steal" (Ownership)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Veracity)
From where does truth stem from? God’s word. From where is his word? Well, it’s as written, recorded, and documented in the Bible; God spoke through numerous individuals to transcript his word to paper, which has been collected to a sort of manual of guidelines that we are essentially to live our lives by it’s principles and concepts. That is how man knows God’s word. It’s through the word of God that man knows right from wrong, and that man knows truth. That’s how we know right from wrong. That’s how we know truth. From where does truth stem from? It has to come from somewhere, right?
"Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." – John 14:6
Of course, if don’t believe or place your faith in God, than I suppose this simply is either irrelevant or doesn’t apply to you. But it is from the Bible that our foundation is formed; so is from God. And The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based upon Biblical principles; they at least derive from such.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/ – read this (not all of it!) before you dare say it’s biased or false
I predict you’ll come back with the whole John Locke thing, at which point I’ll drop this subject with you.
I honestly don’t think Trump is a Randian. He is something of a very different nature. It wasn’t that long ago he identified as a Democrat and spoke in favor of things like national healthcare, and praised Bill and Hillary Clinton. His transformation began with Obama’s presidency, which suggests that a) his views are malleable depending on what he sees as most advantageous to himself, and b) he’s as racist as we think he is.
———- Post added at 09:25 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ———-
Time for me to get religious as fuck and start quoting things from the Bible and shit.
So, consider this; from where do most of our laws and morals stem from? The Bible; which consists of The Ten Commandants. examples;
"Thou shalt not kill" (Dignity)
"Thou shalt not steal" (Ownership)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Veracity)
From where does truth stem from? God’s word. From where is his word? Well, it’s as written, recorded, and documented in the Bible; God spoke through numerous individuals to transcript his word to paper, which has been collected to a sort of manual of guidelines that we are essentially to live our lives by it’s principles and concepts. That is how man knows God’s word. It’s through the word of God that man knows right from wrong, and that man knows truth. That’s how we know right from wrong. That’s how we know truth. From where does truth stem from? It has to come from somewhere, right?
"Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." – John 14:6
Of course, if don’t believe or place your faith in God, than I suppose this simply is either irrelevant or doesn’t apply to you. But it is from the Bible that our foundation is formed; so is from God. And The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based upon Biblical principles; they at least derive from such.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
I predict you’ll come back with the whole John Locke thing, at which point I’ll drop this subject with you.
So… none of that has anything to do with the principle that governments obtain their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
"Thou shalt not kill," first off, is an inaccurate translation. It is much more accurately rendered "you shall not murder."
The Decalogue is not the first historical instance of such laws being given. Furthermore those laws are not the aspects of the constitution or the declaration that define them as opposed to other forms of government at the time. They are almost completely universal to all human societies.
If you want to make the case that the Bible is the source of the principles that actually define the constitution you need to show that the people who wrote it found its unique elements – like its system of checks and balances, and its prohibition against restricting free speech or the press, just as some examples – in the Bible, and where in the Bible they found those things. Not just spout a bunch of Bible quotes that apply to every place on earth and make incredibly vague comparisons to one line from the document.
Your religious beliefs are your own and I respect them. You do not get to make them define life for everyone else in the country.
———- Post added at 08:27 PM ———- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ———-
Your religious beliefs are your own and I respect them. You do not get to make them define life for everyone else in the country.
:this:
Yes it does, because that statement means that the government gets all its power from the people; the people set up the government; the people run the government, and, those people that did so followed the Bible, and the link that I posted is testament to that with actual quotes from them, so… yes it does.
Your religious beliefs are your own and I respect them. You do not get to make them define life for everyone else in the country.
And Clonemaster said unto you,
"Of course, if don’t believe or place your faith in God, than I suppose this simply is either irrelevant or doesn’t apply to you" – FFShrine 2:18
It’s just that these documents derive from Biblical principles. But it’s also somebody’s freedom not to follow the whole religion, but to one who chooses to live in the US, they must abide by the law, but not the religion. Just only the such principles instated to the basis (and laws) of our government and documents that constitute it. This is made evident by what beliefs the people who wrote them, as well as what’s in the documents themselves.
———- Post added at 09:01 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ———-
Wow, Clonemaster, I’m gonna need to ask you to calm down there, you said "fuck." once.
Stop barking, Ponyo.
———- Post added at 09:06 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ———-
Clonemaster, this is slightly off topic and feel free to tell me not to be nosy, but if you don’t mind my asking, do you have plans about what you want to do after high school? You seem to be more well-read and interested in contentious issues than most people your age, so I am curious as to whether you are planning to take those qualities in a professional direction.
History has always been a prime interest of mine. But I’d really, really like to be composer most of all. I dabble in creating music as of now, but I don’t write it, nor do I know how to read it. Here’s my most recent track (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B18GQkZXWsEVQWlJSEdmWVdfT0E), for testament.
But it doesn’t rule out any other options of things I may want to do at some point.
But it doesn’t rule out any other options of things I may want to do at some point.
It’s a nice track. Really comes together when the addition string parts come in at 30 seconds.
Are you planning on going to school for music theory?
———- Post added at 10:25 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ———-
Huh, I had a reply made to the top of your post before that but the forum seems to have eaten it. Retyping …..
Democracy was not a core Christian value at the time. That’s why it’s called democracy, because it calls back to a political traditions from polytheistic ancient Greece.
The only remotely democratic mechanism in Europe, the Icelandic Althing, predates Christianity’s arrival by at least seventy years.
The English Parliament, the most direct model for the American government was not founded out of high minded Christian values but by the demand of feudal lords who were not willing to submit unconditionally to king. That is not a religious concept. That is a political one.
So when the Founding Father’s thought about what government they should have, they abandoned every model made using Christ’s name and went for a Pagan forebear.
This not meant as an anti religion statement, it’s just what happened.
Are you planning on going to school for music theory?
I should.
Like I said, I agree that most people in the colonies at that time were Christian. But it’s not a valid logical jump from there to assume that anything they devised as a system of government must therefore be based on Christianity. England was also a mostly Christian nation but they had a monarchy and parliament. Was that based on Christian principles too? If not then why didn’t their being Christian define what they came up with in that case? What about other predominantly Christian countries which had monarchs without a parliament?
What about the Roman empire? They were a pagan society before they became a Christian one, but they developed a republic anyway. Was that republic the product of their pagan beliefs? In what way did they derive that system of government from paganism? If the American republic came from Christianity then how come the Romans got a republic from something else?
Democracy was not a core Christian value at the time. That’s why it’s called democracy, because it calls back to a political traditions from polytheistic ancient Greece.
The only remotely democratic mechanism in Europe, the Icelandic Althing, predates Christianity’s arrival by at least seventy years.
The English Parliament, the most direct model for the American government was not founded out of high minded Christian values but by the demand of feudal lords who were not willing to submit unconditionally to king. That is not a religious concept. That is a political one.
So when the Founding Father’s thought about what government they should have, they abandoned every model made using Christ’s name and went for a Pagan forebear.
This not meant as an anti religion statement, it’s just what happened.
We’re not a democracy; we’re a republic.
Because I don’t feel like doing a bunch of typing (http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html)
We’re regarded more as a democracy now, which is the issue.
———- Post added at 10:51 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ———-
Which I guess is kind of what Trump wants. lulz
The article which to I linked before, has many quotes from some of the founding fathers that only affirm my point, and along with the link to the very article (https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/), I hereby re-quote some of the more noteworthy quotes….
Samuel Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.
The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.
I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.
He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .
the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.
George Washington
JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS;
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY;
PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION;
FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; “FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY”
You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.
While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.
The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.
I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.
Daniel Webster
U. S. SENATOR; SECRETARY OF STATE; “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”
[T]he Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.
[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible… men [are] much indebted for right views of civil liberty.
The Bible is a book… which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man.
Noah Webster
REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA”
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.
The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.
All the… evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.
[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion. [T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society – the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men.
[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.
Every one of these quotes and the rest assuredly make great example of what I’ve been trying to say this whole time.
Our nation is simply founded upon these concepts and that’s the very truth of the matter.
———- Post added at 10:34 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ———-
Folks, today is the day you’ll remember as the day you saw that which was nearly unbelievable to your own eyes.
Our nation is simply founded upon these concepts and that’s the very truth of the matter.
They truly don’t, though. Let me preface this by saying I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume for argument’s sake these are all accurate, even though in reality I wouldn’t do so without looking them up given that they come from a slanted source. That doesn’t mean they are inaccurate but it sure doesn’t convince me either. But forgetting that because I don’t feel like googling them all right now.
The closest one here to really supporting the claim you’re making is the Adams "general principles" quote, because in that one he at least does express the opinion that the principles of Christianity are the basis for the revolution. But notice he says he believes they are the basis for the founders "achieving independence," not at all that he is saying they are the basis for the way the new government was designed or the laws in the constitution.
The rest of these quotes are essentially personal statements of faith. There is nothing contentious about the idea that these men were mostly religious. What is in question is whether, as you claim, the principles in the constitution were derived from the Bible, and you’ve still shown nothing more than extremely tenuous, vague connections between the two. You’re just claiming "these guys were Christian, therefore everything they came up with was from the Bible." That is not a sound argument.
———- Post added at 11:42 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:40 PM ———-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ18exdhR6I
———- Post added at 10:34 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ———-
Folks, today is the day you’ll remember as the day you saw that which was nearly unbelievable to your own eyes.
Uh, no, this is quite in line with my expectations, actually. I’m well aware that religious zealots who want to turn the country into a theocracy turned out in force to vote for Trump.
There’s also no reason whatsoever that they wouldn’t implement these values into the governmental structure, almost every quote is an implication of how they did or were going to, especially given their position of either;supporting the constitution; signing the constitution; signing the declaration; or otherwise
I think it’s quite a sound argument. There’s more than twenty quotes in here that give testament to the whole idea, as well.
———- Post added at 10:53 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ———-
Uh, no, this is quite in line with my expectations, actually. I’m well aware that religious zealots who want to turn the country into a theocracy turned out in force to vote for Trump.
No, that’s just undeniable. That video gave me fucking chills. I felt an immense power as like such "This is good. This is for something good. And he was elected president, and it was also for a reason that he was". I can see why you’re skeptical, because you’re not religious, but I mean…
How do you know that? I never said I wasn’t.
My beliefs are sort of a mixture of swedenborgian christianity, the philosophy of Alan Watts and the literary outlook of Tom Robbins.
1.Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 254, to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817.
3. John Adams, Works, Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
4. John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.
5. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.
6. John Adams and John Quincy Adams, The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), p. 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.
7. Life of John Quincy Adams, W. H. Seward, editor (Auburn, NY: Derby, Miller & Company, 1849), p. 248.
8. John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.
9. From the Last Will & Testament of Samuel Adams, attested December 29, 1790; see also Samuel Adams, Life & Public Services of Samuel Adams, William V. Wells, editor (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1865), Vol. III, p. 379, Last Will and Testament of Samuel Adams.
10. Letters of Delegates to Congress: August 16, 1776-December 31, 1776, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1979), Vol. 5, pp. 669-670, Samuel Adams to Elizabeth Adams on December 26, 1776.
11. From a Fast Day Proclamation issued by Governor Samuel Adams, Massachusetts, March 20, 1797, in our possession; see also Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam???s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 407, from his proclamation of March 20, 1797.
12. Samuel Adams, A Proclamation For a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, given as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from an original broadside in our possession; see also, Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam???s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 385, October 14, 1795.
13. Samuel Adams, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 10, 1793.
14. Samuel Adams, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 15, 1796.
15. Josiah Bartlett, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 17, 1792.
16. Gunning Bedford, Funeral Oration Upon the Death of General George Washington (Wilmington: James Wilson, 1800), p. 18, Evans #36922.
17. Elias Boudinot, The Life, Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, pp. 19, 21, speech in the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.
18. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Susan, on October 30, 1782; see also Letters of the Delegates to Congress: 1774-1789, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1992), Vol. XIX, p. 325, from a letter of Elias Boudinot to his daughter, Susan Boudinot, on October 30, 1782; see also, Elias Boudinot, The Life Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1896), Vol. I, p. 260-262.
19. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation, or the Age of Reason Shewn to be An Age of Infidelity (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), p. xv, from his ???Dedication: Letter to his daughter Susan Bradford.???
20. Jacob Broom to his son, James, on February 24, 1794, written from Wilmington, Delaware, from an original letter in our possession.
21. From an autograph letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., September 27, 1825.
22. Lewis A. Leonard, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: Moffit, Yard & Co, 1918), pp. 256-257.
23. Kate Mason Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: G.P. Putnam???s Sons, 1890), Vol. II, pp. 373-374, will of Charles Carroll, Dec. 1, 1718 (later replaced by a subsequent will not containing this phrase, although he reexpressed this sentiment on several subsequent occasions, including repeatedly in the latter years of his life).
24. Journal of the House of the Representatives of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 354, January 23, 1856; see also: Lorenzo D. Johnson, Chaplains of the General Government With Objections to their Employment Considered (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1856), p. 35, quoting from the House Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1856, and B. F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 328.
25. Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6-9.
26. From the Last Will & Testament of John Dickinson, attested March 25, 1808.
27. John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), Vol. I, pp. 111-112.
28. From his last will and testament, attested on September 21, 1840.
29. Benjamin Franklin, Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam???s Sons, 1904), p. 185, to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790.
30. Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin (Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. More, and W. Janes, 1793), p. 149.
31. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise, October 24, 1810, from a proclamation in our possession, EAI #20675.
32. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 13, 1811, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #23317.
33. Elbridge Gerry, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 6, 1812, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #26003.
34. John M. Mason, A Collection of the Facts and Documents Relative to the Death of Major General Alexander Hamilton (New York: Hopkins and Seymour, 1804), p. 53.
35. John M. Mason, A Collection of the Facts and Documents Relative to the Death of Major General Alexander Hamilton (New York: Hopkins and Seymour, 1804), pp. 48-50.
36. Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, John C. Hamilton, editor (New York: John F. Trow, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 542, to James A. Bayard, April, 1802; see also, Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), Vol. XXV, p. 606, to James A. Bayard, April 16, 1802.
37. Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.
38. John Hancock, A Proclamation For a Day of Public Thanksgiving 1791, given as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, from an original broadside in our possession.
39. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 28, 1784, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #18593.
40. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 29, 1788, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #21237.
41. John Hancock, Proclamation For a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 16, 1789, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #21946.
42. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise, September 16, 1790, from an original broadside in our possession.
43. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, February 11, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23549.
44. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, February 24, 1792, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #24519.
45. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 25, 1792, from an original broadside in our possession.
46. John Hancock, Proclamation for Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, March 4, 1793, from a broadside in our possession.
47. From his last will and testament, attested April 16, 1779.
48. A. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250.
49. William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: James Webster, 1818), p. 402; see also George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia & London: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 403.
50. Patrick Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry, editor (New York: Charles Scribner???s Sons, 1891), Vol. II, p. 632, addendum to his resolutions against the Stamp Act, May 29, 1765.
51. Patrick Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry, editor (New York: Charles Scribner???s Sons, 1891), Vol. II, p. 592, to Archibald Blair on January 8, 1799.
52. Will of Patrick Henry, attested November 20, 1798.
53. Samuel Huntington, A Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, March 9, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23284.
54. James Iredell, The Papers of James Iredell, Don Higginbotham, editor (Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1976), Vol. I, p. 11 from his 1768 essay on religion.
55. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J & J Harper, 1833), Vol. I p. 518, Appendix V, from a prayer found among Mr. Jay???s papers and in his handwriting.
56. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 519-520, from his Last Will & Testament.
57. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J & J Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 386, to John Murray, April 15, 1818.
58. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: Burt Franklin, 1890), Vol. IV, pp. 494, 498, from his ???Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society,??? May 13, 1824.
59. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 457-458, to the Committee of the Corporation of the City of New York on June 29, 1826.
60. John Jay, John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, Richard B. Morris, editor (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), Vol. II, p. 709, to Peter Augustus Jay on April 8, 1784.
61. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796.
62. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 376, to John Murray Jr. on October 12, 1816.
63. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.
64. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
65. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
66. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
67. Edwards Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1886), p. 184.
68. E. Edwards Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1886), pp. 141-145.
69. William Kent, Memoirs and Letters of James Kent, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1898), pp. 276-277.
70. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 104, from Francis Scott Key to John Randolph.
71. James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (New York: R. Worthington, 1884), Vol. I, pp. 5-6, to William Bradford on November 9, 1772.
72. James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, William T. Hutchinson, editor (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Vol. I, p. 96, to William Bradford on September 25, 1773.
73. Letters of Delegates to Congress: November 7, 1785-November 5, 1786, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1995), Vol. 23, p. 337, James Manning to Robert Carter on June 7, 1786.
74. Letters of Delegates to Congress: May 1, 1777 ??? September 18, 1777, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1981), Vol. 7, pp. 645-646, Henry Marchant to Sarah Marchant on September 9, 1777.
75. Kate Mason Rowland, Life of George Mason (New York: G. P. Putnam???s Sons, 1892), Vol. I, p. 373, Will of Colonel George Mason, June 29, 1715 (this will was later replaced by the will below.)
76. Will of George Mason, attested March 20, 1773.
77. Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.
78. Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.
79. A. J. Dallas, Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Courts of Pennsylvania (Phila???delphia: P. Byrne, 1806), p. 39, Respublica v. John Roberts, Pa. Sup. Ct. 1778.
80. William B. Reed, Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed (Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1847), Vol. II, pp. 36-37.
81. Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss and E. White, 1821), pp. 32, 34, from ???An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris, (President,) 4th September, 1816.???
82. Letters of Delegates to Congress: February 1, 1778-May 31, 1778, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1982), Vol. 9, pp. 729-730, Gouverneur Morris to General Anthony Wayne on May 21, 1778.
83. Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America, Delivered at Charlestown, April 25, 1799, The Day of the National Fast (MA: Printed by Samuel Etheridge, 1799), p. 9.
84. From his last will and testament, attested January 28, 1777.
85. James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London: J. Williams and J. Almon, 1766), pp. 11, 98.
86. Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen T. Riley and Edward W. Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, Robert Treat Paine???s Confession of Faith, 1749.
87. From the Last Will & Testament of Robert Treat Paine, attested May 11, 1814.
88. Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen T. Riley and Edward W. Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 49, Robert Treat Paine???s Confession of Faith, 1749.
89. United States Oracle (Portsmouth, NH), May 24, 1800.
90. Charles W. Upham, The Life of Timothy Pickering (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1873), Vol. IV, p. 390, from his prayer of November 30, 1828.
91. Mary Orne Pickering, Life of John Pickering (Boston: 1887), p. 79, letter from Thomas Pickering to his son John Pickering, May 12, 1796.
92. From his last will and testament, attested October 8, 1807.
93. Collected Letters of John Randolph of Roanoke to Dr. John Brockenbrough, Kenneth Shorey, editor (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 17, to John Brockenbrough, August 25, 1818.
94. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 99, to Francis Scott Key on September 7, 1818.
95. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. 1I, p. 374.
96. Hugh A. Garland, The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 106, to Francis Scott Key, May 3, 1819.
97. Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George W. Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948), pp. 165-166.
98. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, New Jersey: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 475, to Elias Boudinot on July 9, 1788.
99. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.
100. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 84, Thoughts upon Female Education.???
101. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 112, ???A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.???
102. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. I, p. 521, to Jeremy Belknap on July 13, 1789.
103. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 93, ???A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.??? See also Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 578, to Jeremy Belknap on March 2, 1791.
104. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 93, ???A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book;??? see also Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 578, to Jeremy Belknap on March 2, 1791.
105. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), pp. 94, 100, ???A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.???
106. Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 271-273.
107. Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1889), p. 9, from Roger Sherman to Samuel Hopkins, June 28, 1790.
108. Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1889), p. 10, from Roger Sherman to Samuel Hopkins, June 28, 1790.
109. Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins (Worcester, MA: Charles Hamilton, 1889), p. 26, from Roger Sherman to Samuel Hopkins, October, 1790.
110. The Globe (Washington DC newspaper), August 15, 1837, p. 1.
111. Will of Richard Stockton, dated May 20, 1780.
112. John Sanderson, Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1824), Vol. IX, p. 333, Thomas Stone to his son, October 1787.
113. Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, p. 8.
114. Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. I, p. 92, March 24, 1801.
115. Caleb Strong, Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, February 13, 1813, from a proclamation in our possession, Shaw #29090.
116. Zephaniah Swift, The Correspondent (Windham: John Byrne, 1793), p. 135.
117. The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush; His ???Travels Through Life??? together with his Commonplace Book for 1789-1813, George W. Carter, editor (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1948), p. 294, October 2, 1810.
118. Jonathan Trumbull, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 9, 1774, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #13210.
119. Last will and testament of Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., attested on January 29, 1785.
120. Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut, A Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 12, 1770, from a proclamation in our possession.
121. George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
122. George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.
123. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. 5, p. 245, July 9, 1776 Order.
124. George Washington, The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 (London: G. Robinson, 1784), p. 150.
125. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster???s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard???s Will (Washington: Printed by Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 41.
126. Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. I, p. 44, A Discourse Delivered at Plymouth, on December 22, 1820.
127. Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31; see also W. P. Strickland, History of the American Bible Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), p.
128. Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31; see also W. P. Strickland, History of the American Bible Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), p.
129. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), p. 300, ??? 578.
130. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339, ???Advice to the Young,??? ??? 53.
131. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339, ???Advice to the Young,??? ??? 53.
132. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), p. 6.
133. Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his ???Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.???
134. Noah Webster, The Holy Bible . . . With Amendments of the Language (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833), p. v.
135. K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829.
136. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 255, Sermon 15, ???The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,??? January 2, 1758.
137. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 245, Sermon 15, ???The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,??? January 2, 1758.
138. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 248, Sermon 15, ???The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,??? January 2, 1758.
139. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 276, Sermon 15, ???The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ??? January 2, 1758.
140. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 267, Sermon 15, ???The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,??? January 2, 1758.
141. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 278, Sermon 15, ???The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,??? January 2, 1758.
142. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 42.
143. Letters of Delegates to Congress: January 1, 1776-May 15, 1776, Paul H. Smith, editor (Washington DC: Library of Congress, 1978), Vol. 3, pp. 502-503, Oliver Wolcott to Laura Wolcott on April 10, 1776.
———- Post added at 11:12 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ———-
I’m not a Christian, but I definitely have religious beliefs. They’re just evidently very different from yours. Here’s a snapshot of the bookshelf next to me.
My beliefs are sort of a mixture of swedenborgian christianity, the philosophy of Alan Watts and the literary outlook of Tom Robbins.
Okay, then. Thanks for telling me. (That wasn’t sarcastic :p)
If you wish to understand the thought process behind the principles of our nation, you’re in luck. Many of the political philosophers who devised this form of law wrote at great length about how they got there. Read Locke. Read Jefferson. Make no assumptions and form an understanding of there religious views based on what they are actually saying, in context and at length. You should reach a much different conclusion.
Most popular leaders died of drug overdoses and acted more like rebellious teens that found the perfect book of excuses for any behaviour they want.
Drugs, sex (even controversial), and general mayhem.
The heavy metal industry got a good grasp of Satanism for what stands for today: Pure commercialist ideals.
Slap a Baphomet sticker on their album, have some pyrotechnic effects, scream about blood and anything for shock value and you got your Sunday Satanist.
I don’t think there will ever be a true Satanist.
It’s such a cheap concept, that it can be applied to anything by anyone for any reason.
Conspiracy nuts can call themselves Satanists if they want to tackle the Church+State conspiracies just to be a dick.
Although even that is not the case. He said independence was achieved because of Christian values, not that it was inspired by them, or that they had any say in how that independence would implemented after victory.
Again, when they needed to figure out how to make this all work, they looked elsewhere.
And if it were that important, it would have not taken much to get it explicitly stated in the actual relevant documents.
———- Post added at 09:22 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ———-
Anton LeVay was an ex-carnie who got into religion to get laid.
It’s an error to assume that your views represent Christianity. They represent yourself, certainly, and perhaps to a great extent a collection of other individuals who would likewise describe themselves as Christians. My wife is a devout Christian with a degree from a theological seminary, and she would agree with literally nothing I have ever seen you say. Whether we wish to call Christianity vague or merely broad, one size by no means fits all or even most.
The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws."
Re-read the Noah Webster quote.
———- Post added at 11:28 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:26 PM ———-
It’s an error to assume that your views represent Christianity. They represent yourself, certainly, and perhaps to a great extent a collection of other individuals who would likewise describe themselves as Christians. My wife is a devout Christian with a degree from a theological seminary, and she would agree with literally nothing I have ever seen you say. Whether we wish to call Christianity vague or merely broad, one size by no means fits all or even most.
There are so many different variations of Christianity that my saying I am Christian is not going to describe what are the necessary criteria to constitute as such. It’s come to have many different definitions and it’s now very confusing.
———- Post added at 11:31 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ———-
I think any more dispute following is just because you guys don’t necessarily agree.
You are hanging the entirety of an enormous claim on a small handful of out of context quotations only some of which are even from people who contributed to the documents you’re talking about.
———- Post added at 12:33 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ———-
I think any more dispute following is just because you guys don’t necessarily agree.
Well yes, but not in the same way that you and I probably disagree on the best rock and roll song of the past decade. We disagree with you because what you’re saying is directly contrary to overwhelming historical evidence that’s virtually unanimously acknowledged by US historians.
Most popular leaders died of drug overdoses and acted more like rebellious teens that found the perfect book of excuses for any behaviour they want.
Drugs, sex (even controversial), and general mayhem.
The heavy metal industry got a good grasp of Satanism for what stands for today: Pure commercialist ideals.
Slap a Baphomet sticker on their album, have some pyrotechnic effects, scream about blood and anything for shock value and you got your Sunday Satanist.
I don’t think there will ever be a true Satanist.
It’s such a cheap concept, that it can be applied to anything by anyone for any reason.
Conspiracy nuts can call themselves Satanists if they want to tackle the Church+State conspiracies just to be a dick.
I’m not sure what brought this up, but the Church of Satan is a lifestyle doctrine firmly rooted in atheism. The religious connotation is purely symbolic. And the lifestyle, I might add, is really silly in my opinion.
Satanism as a theology rooted in Hebraic text and Christian doctrine is extraordinarily fringe.
The additional problem is that there are so many versions of Christianity that have such different views on even basic social, political, or economic issues that the term "Christian Nation" is meaningless on its face. Which Christian? The Founding Fathers? They didn’t always see eye to either. They certainly would find a lot of modern expressions of Christianity as anywhere from bewildering to blasphemous.
In the 1700’s, being the wrong kind of Christian in a ‘Christian nation’ could get you oppressed, or beaten, or dead.
The very proposal is missing the point of what they were trying to create.
If only way there was some way they could make sure that any potential "in My name" crap didn’t ended up screwing everyone over…
Oh, yeah…
Congress Shall Make No Law…
That’s in line with the current government’s desire to cut off any reference of Jesus and Christianity, or in other words, our roots. And, of course, since that’s what they want to be known, that’s where most false evidence (Which is overwhelming only because that want so much for that to be truth that is known) comes up.
Why do you think that schools don’t teach anything related to God or the Bible anymore? Why do you think they stopped having the pledge of allegiance said by every member in classroom of a school?
From someone who explains the basis better than I ever could at the moment.
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2010/08/us-constitution-and-biblical-principles.html
Say it’s biased, say it’s slanted, but don’t say that it cites passages and things which are not written.
A noteworthy quote, "The basic foundation of our morals is the Ten Commandments, and the Founding Fathers drew from the Ten Commandments the basic principles that would govern our system of laws, and courts."
Yes, of course I’m posting this because it supports my argument.
We (are supposed to) have freedom of religion, but you’re required to follow the laws which stem from that religion (or rather it’s book; word), but not to wholly follow the religion itself. That would be considered interfering with one’s worship which the government is not supposed to do but have done so.
If not I don’t follow you.
If so uh……………………
Again, there’s plenty of evidence brought forth over the years (that you really have to search for) that supports what I’m saying, but it doesn’t even amount or compare to the majority. :notgood:
History professors in particular build their careers off of revision. There is constant reassessment and reinterpretation of the past going on in nearly every subject you can imagine. It’s never as simple as a conclusion being cast in stone and locked away in the vaults to be secretly tampered with once first scholarly consensus is reached.
The odds of say, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government being a modern forgery, are one in impossible.
The idea which I’m just only not ever scraping the surface of is immense. And it’s all connected and purposed to a desire of control and taking away of one’s independence, which is the opposite drive of one of the main ideas from which we were founded upon.
Because schools are public institutions and not all of the public is Christian. Every US citizen pays taxes to support the public education system, not just Christians. So people have a right to be able to send their kids to school to get an education that teaches them secular truth, and then to handle passing their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to their children in their own way as a family. This makes perfect sense. It is not a government conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
If public schools, which are government funded, were teaching a particular religion then that would essentially be making it into a state religion, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid when they wrote "congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion."
———- Post added at 01:06 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:01 AM ———-
At some point I think you are going to have to face the fact that there is a serious problem with your belief system if you this consistently can only justify things by invoking some kind of nationwide conspiracy to destroy the truth.
At some point you’re going to have to face the fact that the thinking you’re employing here is virtually the same as that of people who believe the world is controlled by disguised alien lizard people.
Regardless of that, I’m very impressed how quick this thread has grown, as well as how respectful we all are here (at the moment, at least). I may not have much opinion or care for the many topics at hand here that I didn’t even know existed, but I’m glad I made the move to actually open this thread. It shows our manners of thinking and responding in conversation, which is what I would’ve most wanted. Where things will go from here is a matter of what happens next. The only definitive one being that I probably won’t post here much, seeing as I’d rather my mind be in other places. Still, it wouldn’t hurt to say something every now and then.
To another 4 years of pure nonsense!
At some point you’re going to have to face the fact that the thinking you’re employing here is virtually the same as that of people who believe the world is controlled by disguised alien lizard people.
Yeah, exactly. It sounds crazy. But I was (and still am) going to give a more elaborate explanation rather than just sentences that can’t describe years of evidence.
Okay. But there are very, very elaborate explanations about how all the world’s leaders are alien lizardmen.
Watch They Live too.
:laugh:
Watch They Live too.
:laugh:
I have read it. It reminds me much more of Trump than Obama.
But I also think you’re intelligent enough to pull out if it, if you give yourself the opportunity.
Trump is much more genuine, forthright, and outspoken. Obama’s a typical politician.
But I also think you’re intelligent enough to pull out if it, if you give yourself the opportunity.
:iveseenthings:
or rather read, as well as have been told, things that you really don’t want to know, but that you should know. The first time I put it all together, I was in shock and awe. It was nearly unbelievable, but it also fit together in such a way that it made sense.
or rather read, as well as have been told, things that you really don’t want to know, but that you should know. The first time I put it all together, I was in shock and awe. It was nearly unbelievable, but it also fit together in such a way that it made sense.
This is what all conspiracy theorists say.
RayMan probably spent today recovering from his hangover instead of getting smashed again. We’ll see what happens tomorrow night. :laugh:
———- Post added at 01:30 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:28 AM ———-
And on that note, I’m out for this one. See you later, lovelies.
The common characteristic is that the lack of evidence is proof of the existence of the conspiracy.
"There’s nothing here."
"That’s because ‘they’ve’ taken it."
"What proof do you have?"
"Well, it’s missing, which means ‘they’ must have taken it."
Big elaborate conspiracies are the superstitions of the modern age. They are, in their own way, comforting, because they give us assurances that life is not random, and that when things go bad, you can blame an anonymous shadowy adversary.
Because we would rather believe there are monsters in the woods than to accept that we walk through the forest alone.
This is why peer reviewing and institutional integrity exist.
The media you subscribe to thrives on sensationalist conspiracy theories, but in practice a conspiracy is extraordinarily difficult to pull off, and the more parties involved, the more it is guaranteed to get blown wide open.
In an age where Wikileaks makes regular headlines, do you have the slightest grasp of what it would take for our government to convince tens of thousands of scholars in an international collaborative community to unanimously subscribe to an extraordinary plot to rewrite the original sources of our history and reinterpret them along a strict ideological guidelines?
An infinite regression which, in terms of propaganda, would be equivalent to a hall of mirrors, or in colloquial terms: utter bullshit.
Thing is, there’s no lack of evidence. Yes, I know that I’ve already said multiple times that ‘and there is plenty of evidence to back this up’, but in truth, there is, and it’s not an easy job to find it because it’s buried in the majority of evidence which attempts the disprove the latter, because the latter attempts to expose the former.
———- Post added at 12:40 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ———-
This is why peer reviewing and institutional integrity exist.
The media you subscribe to thrives on sensationalist conspiracy theories, but in practice a conspiracy is extraordinarily difficult to pull off, and the more parties involved, the more it is guaranteed to get blown wide open.
In an age where Wikileaks makes regular headlines, do you have the slightest grasp of what it would take for our government to convince tens of thousands of scholars in an international collaborative community to unanimously subscribe to an extraordinary plot to rewrite the original sources of our history and reinterpret them along a strict ideological guidelines?
Yes. Money. Control. The basis of this whole prism is very simple, and more than half of the world’s political or governmental figures would gladly oblige to it.
———- Post added at 01:45 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:44 AM ———-
Yes. Money. Control. The basis of this whole prism is very simple, and more than half of the world’s political or governmental figures would gladly oblige to it.
If this were true there would be no such thing as whistle blowers.
In fact, you wouldn’t exist.
You would have been paid off by now, obviously. And like all humans you would lack the integrity to tell the truth in spite of it.
———- Post added at 01:46 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ———-
That’s just… I don’t really know how to penetrate that sort of mentality. You’re just going to have to go out and experience the world and come to the realization on your own eventually.
Just an example, out of countless others.
Go ahead and call it another logical fallacy, if you will.
———- Post added at 12:57 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ———-
God it must be depressing to view the world through such a cynical lens.
Not with Donald Trump in office! :smrt:
He, for another example, is aware of all of this, and is purposing all things he can do in his power to get rid of all of it.
I’m sorry, I’m tired right now; nothing’s coming out right. :erm:
Just an example, out of countless others.
Go ahead and call it another logical fallacy, if you will.
That may well happen.
It’s insanely different from confiscating all record of enlightenment political philosophy world-wide and rewriting it to suit an agenda with full backing from tens of thousands of scholars and publishers in a global community which holds accuracy as its most fundamental measure of excellence.
It’s just one. But it’s a big contributor to their cause.
Think about it; why wouldn’t I want to believe that our government is going to take care everything, and it’ll be all okay? Anyone wants to believe that is the case, but it isn’t. They could give a flying fuck about our health or safety. Literally all they could care for is money and control; and there’s been an elaborate conspiracy to bring these results planned out by certain individuals that you don’t know name of, it’s been complied to for years.
It’s just one. But it’s a big contributor to their cause.
I mean lol 9/11, governments can taint evidence in on-going events even when the scale is quite large. That is extremely different from rewriting something that happened 300 years ago and has been the subject of ceaseless study among an enormous community of scholars and philosophers and politicians ever since.
There’s also plenty of uncertainty.
You don’t really grow out of it until the mid twenties.
This makes it seem like you won’t consider any more than two or three methods of inciting fear and gaining control in the conspiracy that I’m proposing, while there’s many, many more than just 2 or 3. Bear in mind that while some of these may differ drastically, they’re still able to be and are purposed to the same general goal and effect.
Also; Bush did 9/11 :p
This is too vague for me to understand what you’re saying.
Also; Bush did 9/11 :p
We might never know what happened on 9/11 in full detail, but we know certain aspects of the official reports were falsified.
The least sinister interpretation is that the government dulled down some of the details after the fact to cover up the extremity to which national security was breached.
It’s our generation’s JFK assassination basically, except with far more gruesome consequences. I’ll always be fascinated by it. One of the few major conspiracy theory topics that actually has some merit.
You don’t really grow out of it until the mid twenties.
Yep, I hold further testament to these statements. But good to know.
———- Post added at 01:44 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ———-
This is too vague for me to understand what you’re saying.
Yeah, I completely understand. It is very vague. At some point in the very near future I’ll attempt to make a generally detailed (eh, can’t make any promises at the moment), the while succinct explanation which brings to light more pieces of the…puzzle, and how they fit together.
Hoo…
We might never know what happened on 9/11 in full detail, but we know certain aspects of the official reports were falsified.
The least sinister interpretation is that the government dulled down some of the details after the fact to cover up the extremity to which national security was breached.
It’s our generation’s JFK assassination basically, except with far more gruesome consequences. I’ll always be fascinated by it. One of the few major conspiracy theory topics that actually has some merit.
It would of course make perfect sense for the operation to have been entirely carried out by terrorists, but it also makes sense how the government could’ve been heavily involved and they’ve tried to cover it up. Alex Jones is a leading figure in this conspiracy and I think his theory makes perfect sense. A leading factor (not just of his, but in general) is that there was demolition placed at the base of and inside the building(s), and that the way how they went down, looked to numerous experts and other people more like it was demolitioned rather than caused by a plane crash. There’s footage even of around that time where various individuals are asked about it who were very skeptical about the whole thing. They more or less believed that the twin towers were demolitioned. I personally don’t see how a plane(s?) could inflict that much damage.
———- Post added at 02:08 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:44 AM ———-
Speaking of Alex Jones, I thought this was hilarious (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFy61gXY2B4)
What I’m trying say here is that it’s pretty likely that a plane hitting a building (a Twin Tower) can do a lot damage when approached a certain way. Plus, just because it "looks demolished," doesn’t mean it actually was.
You can say all you want about Trump, but this 9/11 shit is rubbing me the wrong way. Just tell me the Holocaust didn’t happen next.
What I’m trying say here is that it’s pretty likely that a plane hitting a building (a Twin Tower) can do a lot damage when approached a certain way. Plus, just because it "looks demolished," doesn’t mean it actually was.
Mind you, that this is still just speculation. Nothing is for fact, but if I remember correctly, (I’ll have to find the video again) when the plane hit the building the way it did, and the building came down how it did, I don’t know, something just didn’t add up.
I’m not one to follow politics (and frankly, I completely forgot about the elections) but the recent news and unrest around town has been a little worrying to me. I’m ashamed to admit that I know very little about the political system and climate in America at my old age, most of that I spent focusing on what I love the most: computers and video games.
Maybe I’m letting things get the better of me, but I’m hoping this blows over soon, and through my naivety I hope peace is restored. I don’t want anyone to get hurt, because no one can hold a conversation better about hobbies than another human being.
Sorry for butting in.
That’s corroborated by eye witnesses, government agency statements in the early aftermath before the official story took root, the fact that there were no debris at the crash site, and even the 9/11 Report acknowledging that passengers probably didn’t succeed in entering the cockpit, by the way. Were passengers actively trying to take the plane back when it was shot down? Maybe.
But we weren’t told the full story, and that casts shade on the whole event.
Should it? I don’t know. I think the extent to which they totally blundered that one suggests that other cover-ups would be just as obvious. Twin Towers look like they came down as claimed–the collapses originate at the impact sites. The Pentagon is more of a mystery just because we have so little visual evidence to work with and you’d have to be a flight expert to understand the rest of the data. But the fact that 93 was very likely shot down will always leave me morbidly curious about the rest.
If I’ve ever seen a person be such a literal personification of every stereotype that makes a Conservative to the point of outright confusion in the person’s existence, it would George.
It’s almost like a music heavy Conservative made a robot to be his son in order to not be alone after the rest of his down to earth family left him over how obsessed he became.
The chimp has a valid excuse…
Apparently the kid who shot up the mosque in Quebec was a white nationalist Trump supporter.
I’d not really paid attention to the story and Sean Spicer described it as a Muslim terrorist attack in one of his press conferences, so I just took it for granted that was true.
Need to be more vigilante about alternative facts.
Then when more details were made available, the story changed.
Which is why I don’t really pay attention to the details of these types of stories until two or three days after the event, when people can be more certain of things.
XD
Also: Trump did get into the record books by being one of the fastest presidents EVER to get a below 50% approval rating.
GG.
Since when hasn’t the press and the gov’t run with "Muslim Terrorists!!!" first, regardless of whether it’s true? I mean, for goodness sakes, a rep from the Canadian government had to place a complaint with FOX to have them take down a tweet that they were still running identifying the shooter as a Muslim a day after the fact.
Why would anyone except gullible fools believe anything Spicer has to say to begin with? He’s paid to pitch propaganda.
Then when more details were made available, the story changed.
Which is why I don’t really pay attention to the details of these types of stories until two or three days after the event, when people can be more certain of things.
The actual culprit turned himself in immediately after the crime. When police arrived, an immigrant fearing that the gunman had returned ran from the scene. He was briefly detained and released once they sorted things out. Unofficial sources (correctly) reported that one of the two individuals detained was a Moroccan immigrant. Trudeau contacted the White House and encouraged them to not make assumptions based upon this report but rather wait for an official statement. The White House declined and publicly stated that the Quebec City attack was another example of why the President’s travel ban was justified.
Can media be excused for reporting that one of the detainees was from Morocco? Of course. Can they be excused for blowing this up into a Muslim terrorist attack without any confirmation from the Canadian government? We’re used to it at this point in America, but it demonstrates a complete lack of journalistic integrity. Can the President be excused for taking this and further blowing it up into justification for his foreign policy? Holy fuck no.
Then when more details were made available, the story changed.
Which is why I don’t really pay attention to the details of these types of stories until two or three days after the event, when people can be more certain of things.
I don’t even believe he deserves that qualifier. Think about it this way: if the initial report had been that it was a conservative white male who was a Trump supporter, who wants to bet Spicer would have said "we are waiting until the initial reports are confirmed" or whatever. He jumped on that because it fit his narrative. If it didn’t he’d have been doing everything he could to divert attention away from it.
But that’s like, everyday politics.
cruzade them up the ass back to their sand dunes.
if i were given a death note, the world would have been a better place by now.
hell, you tell me theres a bomb that can make arabia into the arab sea just by pressing a button, which guarantees the complete destruction of every single terrorist, but also a great loss of "innocent" muslim life, then ill press it before they finish telling me what it does.
because i have -100% compassino for these terrorists and their collaborators. whichs is every muslim as the qouran states is perfectly fine AND encouraged to lie to non muslims about things. so by definition, every muslim is a terrorist sympathizer. and for tthat THEY MUST DIE.
and theres also that whole "fuck as many 9 year olds as you please, and then enslave them" bit in that book too.
awesome in fiction, soul crushingly horrifying in real life.
i also have no appreciation for pedos. fuck pedos.
Fascinating.
Although, a little does go a long way.
Good news is he hasn’t pulled a Pee-wee Herman in months.
Fascinating.
Although, a little does go a long way.
I think that Kooshy just wants us to believe he is full of hate. It is how he compensates for something. We may never truly know what that is.
But when I imagine it, I see — or perhaps see is not the right word, for it’s only the lack of something that’s perceptible — I perceive a void, roiling in and out of reality, buried deep in his gut. Not in his heart, shriveled and barricaded though that may be. It’s in that place that seems to exist inside us but that the coroner never notices when he cuts our corpses, that the physician never senses when she examines our insides, but that we know is there. It’s the place that flutters when we yearn and sinks when we lose.
There, in that place, something in our feisty little Kooshington Bear is metaphysically missing. He doesn’t want us to know, so he hides it with what he perceives to be the opposite of vulnerability.
Will he ever be whole? That is a question only the Kooshmeister himself can answer. But in the meantime, he will post a bunch of tryhard shit for attention.
i dont hate muslims, i just dont feel anything for them. if they all die i wont shed a tear, nor am i gonna throw a party, im just gonna say "oh, they died". if im offered the bomb and press the button, it will be with the most poker face anyone has ever seen.
pedos on the other hand, yeah, i hate them.
i dont hate muslims, i just dont feel anything for them. if they all die i wont shed a tear, nor am i gonna throw a party, im just gonna say "oh, they died". if im offered the bomb and press the button, it will be with the most poker face anyone has ever seen.
Yes. That’s called being a sociopath, and it is a prime attribute of hitmen and serial killers.
So, I don’t find this an improvement.
And if this how you react when you ‘unwind’ you have some very deep anger issues that deserve professional attention. This is not an insult, it is a suggestion on how not to end up dead or in prison.
Ya gotta learn to use the religion against itself.
Can’t tell ya how many times I’ve heard some religious person go ‘hate the sin, not the sinner’ and expect me to give them a damn cookie because they’re so ‘tolerant’.
But, these same assholes, then get PISSED at me when I go ‘hate the religion, not the religious’.
IDK MBFF J
So, I don’t find this an improvement.
ive been waiting so long for this:
also, unwind was probably not the word i should have used. more like "saying stuff i feel on the internet with my poker face because it means nothing to me but people will almost certainly think im spewing fire and brimstone when im just expressionlessly eating oreos as i typed that".
now, i have to wait for a comission to finish rendering. re7 isnt gonna buy itself.
Many, many, many more than numerous passages and quotes from the Congressional Record are consistent with the point I’ve been trying to affirm; and if this doesn’t affirm the point, then I don’t know what the hell will, so please, bear with me.
The following are 6 pages which are related to this subject; from the Congressional Record—House of Representatives; Vol. 147, No. 140; October 17, 2001 (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2001/10/17/CREC-2001-10-17.pdf); b 1500: What Made America Great
PDF of this respective section of the document; https://www.congress.gov/crec/2001/10/17/CREC-2001-10-17-pt1-PgH7120-3.pdf
Some noteworthy quotes, all found on page H7123 ();
Do you know that 67 percent of Americans today believe that the phrase ‘‘separation of church and state’’ is part of the Constitution? Remember, the words ‘‘separation, church and state’’ do not ever appear in the first amendment and appear nowhere together anywhere in the Constitution. Here is the truth: our Founding Fathers had every intention of establishing a distinctly Christian Nation. They had every intent of also giving freedom to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Their intent was to establish a distinctly Christian Nation, but one where no one Christian denomination ruled over the other denominations, as had been the case in so much of Europe. They wanted to honor the fact that under God, all men are created equal in value and rights.
In a landmark decision rendered February 29, 1892, against the claim of the cult called the Church of the Holy Spirit that Christianity was not the faith of the people, the Supreme Court did two powerful things in its ruling. First, Justice Josiah Brewer stated,
‘‘Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that they should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. No purpose of action against our religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to this present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.’’
Based on this report, in May of 1854, in joint session of Congress, this resolution was passed. This is a resolution passed by the Congress, and I quote:
‘‘The great vital and conserving element in our system of government is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’’
That was this Congress in May of1854.
And the following 7 pages which are also very well related to this subject; from the Congressional Record—House of Representatives; Vol. 155, No. 191; December 16, 2009 (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2009/12/16/CREC-2009-12-16.pdf): The Religious Heritage of the United States
PDF of this respective section of the document; https://www.congress.gov/crec/2009/12/16/CREC-2009-12-16-pt1-PgH15487-2.pdf
Some noteworthy quotes. both found on page H15488 ();
Now, the great thing about our Constitution, it does allow for freedom of religion and a freedom not to worship at all. That is because they’re based on the teachings of Christ and his willingness to allow all men to make their own decisions for themselves, knowing, as he did, that one day, all people will meet their maker.
Ben Franklin goes on and says: ‘‘I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a byword down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
And some more, all found on page H15489 ();
On April 25, 1799, Jedidiah Morse said: ‘‘Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.’’
James Madison, the fourth President, March 4, 1815, in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation said: ‘‘No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the Great Disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the United States. His kind providence originally conducted them to one of the best portions of the dwelling place allotted for the great family of the human race. He protected and cherished them under all the difficulties and trials to which they were exposed in their early days. Under His fostering care, their habits, their sentiments, and their pursuits prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of independence and self-government.’’
And John Quincy Adams in 1821 on July 4 said, ‘‘The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of the civil government with the principles of Christianity, wherefrom the day of the Declaration they, the American people, were bound by the laws of God which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.’’
Noah Webster, 1833, said: ‘‘The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from, vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.’’
So, in conclusion, what does this tell you? The point I’ve been attempting to affirm? Most definitely yes.
We don’t say "One Nation, Under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and don’t state "In God We Trust" for nothing, you know. The United States of America is indeed a Christian nation, and was founded upon such principles. That is the fact of the matter.
———- Post added at 04:14 AM ———- Previous post was at 04:12 AM ———-
George, it kinda saddens me, because I think you’re a cool young man, that you’re so indocrinated in your beliefs. You can deny it all you want, but it’s so obvious how what you believe is what the people around you believe and taught you to. You are kind of the typical super conservative christian that doesn’t allow the United States of America to grow. You’re the typical religious person who thinks, that just because a country wants to not be based in religion, to treat everyone equal, you think there’s a complex conspiracy to take down Christianity. Seriously, no. Just no. Just because we want to give gay people rights does not mean at all that we want to end Christianity, or anything similar to that, really. I’m sorry but I cannot stand the victimism christians like that. I do hope, like people have said here, that when you’re older you seriously grow out of it. I’m not saying you stop believing in Jesus but it’d be nice if you grew out of that super conspiracy nut and super religious conservative thoughts and beliefs that you have.
Ponyo, this is simply something that you just don’t *grow out of*.
First off, conspiracy rant incoming
….No, especially not from what I’ve seen come together – what of this…thing; this prism; this conspiracy. It’s insane! It’s lunacy! But most sadly and regrettably, it’s true. And it’s because we as the American people paid no attention over the years and let government involve themselves where they’ve no absolute constitutional right, or otherwise.
The highest authorities – of which we know no names of (though George Soros and John D. Rockefeller are (were) quite possible participants), for the most part, intend for us and our government to become globalist, and socialistic; they have crafted and devised an elaborate strategic outline of an ultimate and collective goal of governmental power, control, politicizing of certain things that have no business being politicized, or in other words; governmental involvement where they do not belong; excess of and too many regulations or government-funded institutions, and overall deprivation of freedom, independence, liberty; pretty much everything the United States stands for, and one of it’s big dependencies or bases of operation is simply money; billions are made off of what they’re involved in, or as well as the sort of exchanges, deals or agreements that are made between points of function within the government, etc, it goes on and on. The entire reason how this is possible is simply because there is evil; a lot of these individuals are evil, and it’s an evil means of control which is basically against the constitution; the founding documents; our republic and how it was originally meant in general. These people would rather disregard – or even destroy these documents; which are vital to our founding and being as a country. Fuck no.
Absolutely not. This will not happen under a Donald Trump presidency, and under God. Enough of us are not going to let it happen. Whatever Trump sees as necessary, that which is also square within his constitutional authority and power, will be done, carried out, or executed; regardless of if the majority of the Democratic idiots who won’t keep their traps shut claim that what the president means to do so is unconstitutional, unlawful, or immoral; really, whether they like it or not, it will be done, whatever is necessary to stop this secretive drive, is going to be carried out by the president. That’s the way and is, and that’s why the liberals and democrats are putting up such a fuss.
And individuals such as; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Steyn, Alex Jones, Janet Parshall, James O’Keefe, etc among others have invested a majority of their timing researching and finding out of this information; they tell the truth to the best of their ability, wherever possible; they always have, and always will, and they are some prime sources to be properly informed of actual events and happenings, or anything else concerning politics in the now. Say that they’re biased, slanted, if you will, but this is not the case. They’re well supportive of Donald Trump (a few, like Hannity, even personally know him) for very good and completely legitimate reasons. In fact, take the occasion to listen to their program(s) a minimal of 7 times before going straight off to say they’re slanted just because they support Trump’s cause. It isn’t fucking detrimental propaganda like it’s insisted as so often around here. If what most of what they say of Donald Trump is good, it’s because he’s a damn good president, and he’s doing good (make that great) things – because they tell the truth of what happens. It’s as simple as not lying to be compensated for supporting a really flawed cause and narrative.
It’s entirely your choice as to whether any of you at all believe any of this, at all, but it in fact is the truth, and should you continue to not think so, it is most likely because of the majority of evidence purposed to discredit and disprove our evidence, which is purposed only to expose the shit that the other side is doing and for the truth to be known, and is consistently put to the most broad circulation of general information through fabricated evidence and research to make it seem like ours is the fake evidence, and theirs is the true evidence, and to keep what they’re doing a secret from every individual by any means they can. It’s simply deflecting all of our attempts to expose their wrongdoings back to the other direction; that’s why and how it ‘goes both ways’. This will of course make for a convincing opposition to this whole cliched idea of a government conspiracy, which is why most of you don’t believe a word of it, and might think I’m crazy or something – and that’s exactly why those devious little bastards have done what they’ve done.
Of course, what I believe is because of what I’ve been taught; I think that’s the case with most people, and yet there is always time of where one will begin to question their beliefs and want to be more independent, at which point you really decide for yourself what you want to believe.
Obviously, and regardless of this, I’ve still held my stance in the (certain) type of Christianity and conservatism; seeming to me as for me to wholly identify as a conservative, there would be a necessary fusion between Traditionalist, Christian, Limited government, and Libertarian conservatism. – there is absolutely nothing wrong with this; one of the very defining concepts of conservatism is limited form of government, something that The Declaration of Independence very clearly affirmed; others are such as; liberty, freedom, equality, independence, etc; which Republicanism is overall consisting of (conservatism and classical liberalism are essentially of and within Republicanism; the guiding political philosophy of the United States). Other key concepts are; small or limited (by law) government, low(er) taxes, a limit to regulation(s); as well as a limit to where the government is allowed involvement in; that includes government (funded) institutions, free enterprise (capitalism), among others I’d have to look more into for to be mentioned.
Almost of all of these are affirmed by the "founding documents’, and are essentially in danger, jeopardy, under violation, general opposition, by and of the overall [social; not classical] liberal progressivism insistently proposed by the current Democratic party; Because democracy is guilty of the flawed ‘Tyranny of the majority’ aspect, this unstable form or system of government will therefore only inevitably end up as an oligarchy; with despotism and tyranny (in some ways, it already has), and technically should not even be allowed to exist as a political party. Yes, I am aware that our Republic is derived from a Democracy, but the distinct difference here is that the rights of the government aren’t subject to majority rule, and is instead limited by law as to what they are allowed to do and exactly how much involvement they have in those doings. This is the essence of a republic. ("The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government")
There is as well absolutely no mention whatsoever of the word ‘democracy’ in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other documents along these lines. (like any of the 50 state’s constitutions) The founding fathers took as example the past eventual failures of all other forms of government, and did everything they could to keep us the United States from having a democracy; which is found to be incompatible with everything which our three documents clearly detail, constitute, describe, and stand for. The United States is (supposed to be) a republican government; "Real liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of a democracy".
So, essentially, conservatism is within entire conformity to what the United States as a nation was originally intended to be, and is still supposed to be, as well as the three founding documents; the Constitution (that which describes the way the government is structured and how it operates); Declaration of Independence (that which declares us free and independent and announces the creation of a new country – the US); Bill of Rights (that which spells out American’s rights in relation to the government; like civil rights, liberties; freedom of speech, press, and religion).
On these grounds (literally), there’s absolutely nothing wrong with my being a ‘super conservative’, (I think the correct term would be ‘radical’ instead of ‘super’ :p) but I’ve described the somewhat confusing criteria.
The United States’ connection and relation to Christianity, and it’s importance, I addressed in the above post.
It’s almost like a music heavy Conservative made a robot to be his son in order to not be alone after the rest of his down to earth family left him over how obsessed he became.
:laugh:
———- Post added at 04:17 AM ———- Previous post was at 04:15 AM ———-
Yes, Clonemaster, I too, can search specifically for things that just pander to my belief, and make it look like the total truth.
:tommydissapproves:
You’re right, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. But there’s a reason why people associate it with the constitution, and if the game you want to play is throwing around quotations, let’s talk about where it does come from. It’s from Jefferson, in reference to the first amendment, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
I am not going to go through each of the quotations you posted because frankly I just don’t have the patience for it, but let’s focus on the Ben Franklin one because I think it’s a perfect example of the illogic of all this.
??????I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth???that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that, ???except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.??? I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a byword down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest."
Emphasis is mine. Now, what is Franklin saying here? It’s very clear that he’s saying he believes in their own efforts to come up with a government themselves, they had the aid of God. Just as, in so many stories of the Bible, those who express faith in God are protected. Shadrack and his boys walked through fire unharmed, Samson was given the strength to topple a temple, the Israelites could succeed in battle against superior forces. Countless examples. Franklin is invoking these kinds of successes, and also the failures of those who tried to succeed without faith in God like the builders of the tower of Babel. In other words, he’s saying that he believes God’s providence allowed for the creation of the United States, and their success against Britain.
All a powerful statement of personal faith. Not in any way an indication that the principles of the constitution came from the Bible. In fact, this quote actually seems to contradict that notion directly. He says that he believes without the aid of God’s providence, they would fail in their endeavor of establishing government by human wisdom. Seems fairly clear the Bible would not fall under "human wisdom" to a believer, correct? If they were getting the principles of the government from the Bible why would he express it that way?
But it’s extremely obvious to anyone who has objectively studied the history of these things why he phrases it that way – because the continental congress debated tirelessly, drawing principles from reason and the most modern philosophy of the day, what would be the most just and resilient form of government they could devise. They did not pore through the Bible and find it there. Its complexity and its imperfections are sure signs that it was designed by the limited thinking of human beings, intelligent and determined though they may have been. And Franklin himself says so right in the quotation you’re trying to use to prove otherwise.
All I can say beyond this is I hope you’ll remember the example of the inauguration crowd. There is a point buried in that exchange which runs much deeper than just an argument about numbers. There is a reason I harped so much about perspective and the way the appearance of truth can shift when you change it. I cannot overstate the importance of trying different perspectives and, so to speak, "zooming out."
Someday I hope you get the chance to explore the world on your own terms and not those handed to you by ideological warriors like Hannity.
You’re Your time to waste, I suppose.
You’re time to waste, I suppose.
I am not! >:O
I should have gone with "what did you call me" instead.
Spend a weekend at a spa resort with the Koch brothers.
Release a statement that Betsy DeVos is overwhelmingly qualified and the best possible choice for Secretary of Education.
Way to drain the swamp Republicans.
We’ve been spamming the hell out of Toomey’s office here in PA but I’m quite confident he’s not going to come around. I’m crossing my fingers, but expecting the worst.
———- Post added at 12:54 PM ———- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ———-
He said they gave up on emails and phone calls because they’re coming in faster than they can be processed, but letters still sometimes get read.
I didn’t know you were in PA! Do you go to Tuesdays With Toomey in Philly?
———- Post added at 01:29 PM ———- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ———-
But yeah, we did the Toomey Tuesday thing this week and will be making it a weekly routine.
I’d never done anything political before in my life. Trump’s at least succeeded in dragging a lot of liberals off of their couches.
Now I’ve marched in the street three times in the space of just last week.
It’s definitely changing a lot.
Or just plain ole anti-fascists.
Okay, I’ll bite. What are you referring to?
I’m a Christian. It’s completely nonsensical that a Christian would support Trump, in my opinion. But yes, there are Christians who do.
You do realize that "Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon" are all Christians…or at least fall under ‘Christianity’…right?
O_o
Unless you’re like my grandmother who thinks Catholics aren’t ‘real’ Christians, but rather ‘pagans who like Jesus the most’.
-Bible Belt Southern Baptist, ya’ll…I’ll never understand their ‘reasoning’.
😛
I also finding it rather…troubling…that groups who CLAIM to be for ‘traditional marriage’ would vote for a guy who has cheated on all his wives, or at least 2 of 3, while talking about his willingness to bang his daughter.
———- Post added at 10:06 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ———-
while talking about his willingness to bang his daughter.
Not entirely fair, he never said that. The comment was creepy and awkward but he didn’t say "I would totally fuck Ivanka."
I’ve seen that a LOT in my life.
Different sects think they’re the one ‘true way’ and everyone else is just playing at it.
Like a hot wheel verses a real car.
-Bible Belt Southern Baptist, ya’ll…I’ll never understand their ‘reasoning’.
😛
Didn’t know the Bible Belt was that progressive. You can still hear that in pockets of rural PA today. I wasn’t allowed to play with my next door neighbor growing up because he was Catholic and I’m only 32. <_<
I fucked up the words. AreN’T, not are.
STORY TIME!
She’s about as ‘progressive’ as someone who tried to run out ‘those mexicans with too many cars’ who tried to move near her.
-Lady waged a war of ‘keep it old, keep it white’ in her street for YEARS.
Her side of the family is FILLED with the very ‘why did you betray us dating outside of our race…god placed each color separate for a reason’, ‘evolution is evil’, ‘atheist eat babies’, ‘god hates figs’…type of xtians.
-While, at the same time, being part Native-American (which doesn’t count, because…reasons?).
My other family side is about the same, but less ‘betrayal at dating outside race’ and more ‘well, as long as you don’t breed with one of the mud races it’s okay’, while claiming homosexuals are the only people who rape children…
It’s one of the reasons I have little to do with either side.
That level of bigotry just doesn’t sit with me very well.
‘God is love’ with a GIANT fucking attached attached to it.
My grandmother really had no choice but to learn a bit of ‘tolerance’ for the Catholics.
My birth mother’s family is almost all Southern Baptist/Evangelical.
My father’s family is almost all ROMAN Catholic.
I was baptized three times because of their bullshit.
Once before my first birthday by the Baptists.
Another around 2.5 years of age by the Catholics.
And then ANOTHER time, around 3 years of age, by the grandmother, after my parents got divorced.
-She thought my soul needed to be purified because of her daughter’s sins and ‘ya know, those Catholic ones don’t really count’.
She almost vomited when I came out as a bisexual atheist.
My grandfather asked me to leave his house, he was actually pretty liberal and tolerant, till she ‘got over it’.
😆
:SMH:
———- Post added at 01:34 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:33 AM ———-
By the way, Toomey’s voicemail box in DC is taking calls again.
———- Post added at 01:36 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ———-
The travel ban situation seems to be legal chaos at the moment. Apparently Trump issued a secret second order calling for the destruction of all visa records irt these countries, so when the judge ordered them to be reinstated they said "sorry, we don’t have them anymore"? News agencies are struggling to get a straight story out of this.
———- Post added at 01:38 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:36 AM ———-
And that was illegal because they were evidence in the on-going lawsuits that were filed the day that the original executive order came down?
———- Post added at 01:41 AM ———- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ———-
Different news reporting different stories. The whole thing is a mess.
I will try again tomorrow then. It will only be a ceremonial effort though – it’s clear enough that his mind is made up at this point. I just don’t want his answering service to have a moment’s peace.
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"
"When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security – big trouble!"
The judge is "so-called." Apparently Mr. Trump does not think the rule of law is important, unless it is coming from him directly. If he’s not being allowed to do what he wants to do, it "takes law-enforcement away from our country" — i.e., his law is the only legitimate law.
I should be used to it by now but I will never in a million years understand how anyone can feel anything but embarrassment at having this guy in the white house.
They want to return to a world where white guys were in charge, women stayed at home and Blacks, Latinos and Asians did the nasty jobs that good white folk wouldn’t dirty their hands with.
BTW, it’s a Modern Family world, not a Mad Men one.
Trump’s going to give Wall Street a tax cut and gut Dodd Frank and let them play casino again with the nation’s money. Has everyone forgotten how we got into the Great Recession?
And here’s how Trump has impaled the little guy:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/real_estate/trump-suspends-fha-premium-rate-cut/
Short version: struggling homeowners will pay higher mortgage costs.
Presumably he chose his supreme court nomination for the purpose of seeing to it this is achieved.
———- Post added at 12:12 PM ———- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ———-
And that’s just the doomsday outcome. They could simply vow to rule in favor of the President at all times and it would have the same effect, it would just be an under the table sort of agreement that they could revoke in the future. That’s more likely and nearly as dangerous.
———- Post added at 12:15 PM ———- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ———-
The main difference being that lower courts could at least continue to temporarily freeze the President’s orders and force him to slow down his policy rollout.
I have not seen this anywhere remotely credible. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but I would need specific sources.
And yes, this would be a problem for the administration because it would be destroying evidence in an ongoing investigation.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – Carl Sagan
This is why it’s so important to delay the Supreme Court nomination as long as possible. There is grey area right now surrounding the right of the judiciary to challenge orders which state "national security" as their motive. If the supreme court rules that no order using this verbiage can be challenged, the judicial branch of our government relinquishes its authority to act as a check and balance to the president. He can literally begin all orders with "As a matter of national security" and rule with absolute authority as a dictator.
Presumably he chose his supreme court nomination for the purpose of seeing to it this is achieved.
[/COLOR]And that’s just the doomsday outcome. They could simply vow to rule in favor of the President at all times and it would have the same effect, it would just be an under the table sort of agreement that they could revoke in the future. That’s more likely and nearly as dangerous.[
Even this is a Doomsday scenario and quite unlikely. There is this impression that judges are just puppets of the administration that appoints them. They aren’t. While being of a similar (but not necessarily the same) ideological bent as the president appointing them, they are, if remotely competent (and generally they are, even if you don’t agree with them,) obligated to follow the rule of law before anything else. For example, the judge who overturned the ban on a national level was a conservative W appointee. The ban is so problematic from a legal standpoint (involving issues of due process and not being able to provide any proof that it would actually do anything useful,) that I doubt even most of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court would back him. I don’t even know if the guy he’s trying to appoint now would.
Left or right, the one thing judges really hate are plaintiffs that don’t respect the process. Don’t expect Trump to win very many court rulings, especially if he keeps being the dick he’s been so far.
apparently the fine line said "but you must not do it, or face the consequences"
And yes, this would be a problem for the administration because it would be destroying evidence in an ongoing investigation.
Yeah, they’d sorted it out by this morning. Basically no one went in and pressed shift+delete on all of the electronic records or anything like that. Most people should be good to go. The ones who had their visas physically revoked at airports etc while the ban was in effect have to reapply and that was inaccurately reported to impact all 100,000 revoked visas. Whether the process for those who have to reapply is from the ground up or just a matter of shuffling some additional paperwork, I don’t know, but tl;dr: media overreacted.
As far as the courts are concerned, you’ve got a huge chunk of Congress selling their votes to the highest doner. It would be nice to believe that the Supreme Court takes its job more seriously, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking Trump would appoint anyone he can’t purchase. It’s really a matter of whether the rest of the Supreme Court can be bought. I’m not sure that the integrity of lower courts really matters if that can be achieved?
There was an analysis I heard a while back (vague, I agree,) but the gist of it was that even crooked politicians aren’t consistently crooked. If they were, they wouldn’t be able to charge top dollar for their influence.
Bork couldn’t get past a Republican Senate. Neither did Bush succeed in getting his personal attorney. (I forget her name.) Candidates need to be credible.
PS, that same standard of destroying evidence also applies to confiscated visas. They’d have to return them.
Hard to cover up tens of thousands of identifiable PA residents telling you you’re wrong in a matter of a few hours.
Bullshit. That’s exactly the issue. You can go to the Quran and clearly see how that’s not the case. Why? Because I’m pretty sure the ‘Muslim faith’ teaches chaos to the extent that you are to convert anybody who is not Muslim, and if they resist, you are supposed to kill them. That is the issue. It isn’t a peaceful religion.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong, or ‘unconstitutional’ about the travel ban. It’s solely purported to our country’s safety, and sovereignty. And it’s been amazing the past couple weeks as I’ve seen so many (of the left) so strongly affirm that it is when it simply is not. And at that, it’s only temporary anyway. It is not permanent.
Speaking of travel bans, how do you react to them putting the "temporary" ban on hold. Sounds like your president doesn’t have all the power now, does he?
———- Post added at 09:21 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ———-
I do agree with the point though that the ban should’ve been in all countries. Terrorists and other dangerous people exist outside of the chosen territories, ya know.
That wasn’t the point. I was focusing on another.
———- Post added at 11:26 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ———-
Speaking of travel bans, how do you react to them putting the "temporary" ban on hold. Sounds like your president doesn’t have all the power now, does he?
How do I react? Well, the left is literally freaking out and doing everything they can to delay any of Trump’s actions or executive orders. Like having a judge do something he’s no legal right to; rejecting an executive order – that was entirely constitutional. It’s pathetic. They’re acting like he’s unhinged and out of control.
He does have all the power (that’s of a president), but it pretty easily seems like he doesn’t often enough.
Bullshit. That’s exactly the issue. You can go to the Quran and clearly see how that’s not the case. Why? Because I’m pretty sure the ‘Muslim faith’ teaches chaos to the extent that you are to convert anybody who is not Muslim, and if they resist, you are supposed to kill them. That is the issue. It isn’t a peaceful religion.
Wow
FUCKING WOW
Whoever feed you this bullshit is fucked in the head. I’ve seen many peaceful Muslims that still are very heavy to their beliefs. Hell, I’ve seen people of my religion be more sadistic and extreme than that of Muslims. But you don’t see those cases because "Christianity is the religion of the nation, you see. How could there possibly be any issue?. Well, every religion has their problems, but don’t act like Muslims are a special case of it.
You’re really starting to lose me, pal. I’d be scared as hell if you do things purely because it’s "Trump Approved."
Fucking hell…
Yeah, there were other countries that were just as susceptible as the ones detailed in the order that should’ve been counted.
Well my reaction to that is: They’re just doing their job. No ifs or but. It’s just the way things are designed to keep control.
He does have all the power (that’s of a president), but it pretty easily seems like he doesn’t often enough.
Which should always be the case. Can’t let one man have all the power (though his chosen associates are close to him, so that will probably still be the case then).
FUCKING WOW
Whoever feed you this bullshit is fucked in the head. I’ve seen many peaceful Muslims that still are very heavy to their beliefs. Hell, I’ve seen people of my religion be more sadistic and extreme than that of Muslims. But you don’t see those cases because "Christianity is the religion of the nation, you see. How could there possibly be any issue?. Well, every religion has their problems, but don’t act like Muslims are a special case of it.
You’re really starting to lose me, pal. I’d be scared as hell if you do things purely because it’s "Trump Approved."
Fucking hell…
You know there are Muslims that clearly don’t follow that part of the Quran? Maybe because they’d like to live in peace with everyone else?
Jesus, you just acted as if I suggested blowing up the White House*. My god, I never said the Muslim faith was the only religion with the problem. It’s just what’s brought to question as of now.
Edit: To be crystal clear, I am perfectly well aware that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, so I’m not going there if that’s what you think.
———- Post added at 11:40 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ———-
Well my reaction to that is: They’re just doing their job. No ifs or but. It’s just the way things are designed to keep control.
That was absolutely not the judge’s place to deny an executive order that was completely square within his constitutional right to make, and was not by any means immoral or unconstitutional. The judge did so on the grounds that it was the opposite, but that’s just not it. Trump is the only one trying to keep control, here. Robart was allowed to do what he did, that doesn’t mean it was his standing or right to. Honestly, he should be fired. He didn’t do his job well.
What they did isn’t keeping control, it’s disobeying the law. But they can try to convince us otherwise, and that’s another issue.
:this:
———- Post added at 10:40 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ———-
You know there are Muslims that clearly don’t follow that part of the Quran? Maybe because they’d like to live in peace with everyone else?
Jesus, you just acted as if I suggested blowing up the White House*. My god, I never said the Muslim faith was the only religion with the problem. It’s just what’s brought to question as of now.
Edit: To be crystal clear, I am perfectly well aware that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, so I’m not going there if that’s what you think.
The way you phrased it sounded too general. Like, you had to make a follow up post to clarify what you meant. It’s just vague. Granted, I probably shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions, but that tone was just unhealthy.
I’ve seen many cases of people following just the specifics of a religion, so what you say makes sense. I’m just tired of the generalizations that a lot of Muslims have to go through in their lives. Just because we have generally dangerous people doesn’t mean it goes for all of them. It makes me sick.
That was absolutely not the judge’s place to deny an executive order that was completely square within his constitutional right to make, and was not by any means immoral or unconstitutional. The judge did so on the grounds that it was the opposite, but that’s just not it. Trump is the only one trying to keep control, here. Robart was allowed to do what he did, that doesn’t mean it was his standing or right to. Honestly, he should be fired. He didn’t do his job well.
What they did isn’t keeping control, it’s disobeying the law. But they can try to convince us otherwise, and that’s another issue.
We have had many judges that have went against constitution before, so even if you can make the most articulate argument that this judge is corrupt, this won’t be the last time.
You know that Johnny Werzner kid – the kid who uploads soundtracks in the film music forum? He’s a fine kid. Some of the shriners say he smokes crack, but I don’t believe it. Anyway, for his 10th birthday, all he wanted was a burrow owl, just like his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I’ll never ask for anything else as long as I live". So the guy breaks down and buys him a burrow owl. Anyway at 10:30 the other night I go out into General Discussion and there’s the Werzner kid idling. I said, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I’m looking for my burrow owl." I say, "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground! Why the hell do you think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?!" Now Clonemaster, do you think a kid like that is gonna know what the queers are doing to the internet?
I first became aware of this about 10 years ago, the summer my oldest boy Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival that comes to the forums every year? Well this year it came with a thread called the Mixer. The OP said "Keep your posts on topic at all times." But Bill Jr., he was a daredevil, just like his old man. He was shitting up the thread saying, "Hey everybody! Look at me, look at me!" POW! He was decapitated. They found his head over by the Role Playing Games forum. A few days after that, I open up my old hotmail account and there’s a mass email in there, from Final Fantasy Online. And it’s addressed to Bill Jr. And it’s entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our internet?"
Now Clonemaster, if you look at the internet around any large Final Fantasy forum with a big underground homosexual population – EyesonFF, perfect example. Look at the internet around EyesonFF, Clonemaster. You can’t build a web site on it, you can’t grow a community in it. The administration says it’s due to poor posting. But I know what’s really going on, Clonemaster. I know it’s the queers. They’re in it with the furries! They’re building dens for gay wolfmen! I swear to God!
You know what Clonemaster, I like you. You’re not like the other people, here on FFShrine.
But wait a minute, I don’t know what the queers are doing to the internet either. Did you assume that I did? Apologies – I actually don’t. And you say they’re in it with the furries? Holy shit! News to me, I must say. But best I don’t involve myself where I’m not to tread.
I think you’re confusing authoritarian with authoritative. President Trump is authoritative, not authoritarian. He’s not a fucking ‘unhinged’ fascist dictator. He’s a US president. And he’s setting up to be a pretty damn fine president at that; such an unbelievably good one, with what he’s done, how much he’s accomplished, and the good it’s actually brought on.
(hint: to see what the president has done, take off the Fakestream™ Media goggles)
The reason why the certain things have ceased to be cared about is because there’s no worth in caring about bullshit; delusive and deceitful points of claim (always made by the left/media, who almost never have any verifiable sources, other than their head). We can’t be made out to look bad, irresponsible and crazy because we choose to disregard a falsified narrative, consistently put out by the left-wing liberal-democrats and the media. It just isn’t the truth. It’s deplorable and downright absurd. And it’s obviously slanted and purposed to a defamatory objective.
To think otherwise, I can only imagine one would have to be actually taking the 98% of what the media (or anything else that pushes ‘that narrative’) says about Donald Trump for truth, and in the case of being made aware of what the media does, I haven’t an idea why anyone would do so at this point, unless their incessant lying and abusively biased demeanor is somehow…condoned, in some way.
But see, this is just it; no one has ever once successfully pointed out how or why anything that’s in question was factually inaccurate, massively detrimental to national security, openly explicitly racist, unconstitutional, etc, with anything substantial to actually support it, unless you count the blatant lying, and simple saying of otherwise ("this is such and that is not!"), or the incredibly annoying and unbelievably outrageous insistence of numerous claims that ‘the travel ban is unconstitutional and immoral’, but that doesn’t do a damn thing for anybody. Tell me, and detail, exactly how, in the holy hell, this is so. It isn’t, for the last time, Goddammit.
It is entirely constitutional. It is entirely square within (I love saying that) Trump’s presidential and constitutional authority and power to make such an executive order. It’s not a threat to national security, it is for our national security. Though I admit it should be counted for every country, the detailed countries are susceptible sources of individuals who intend to commit terrorist acts against the US. And verifiably so; like, Syria has been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list since that list’s inception, for example. It makes perfect sense that we’d temporarily ban entry of those coming from those specified countries until proper vetting can be conducted. It’s a way of ensuring our safety and sovereignty.
Those who continue to argue otherwise really have no factual basis for doing so. Those who do so bearing that in mind are knowingly and purposely lying. The countless false claims made by those lunatics of the left, (like Elizabeth Warren), who will not shut the hell up about it, and the fakestream media, of course, who is also every bit of guilty as anybody else, it…well, it’s pissing me off, quite simply. It’s put me to a loss for words, almost. There’s nowhere in any section or law of the governmental structure that states Trump had no authority to do what he did. And they sit there and tell us otherwise….the while acting as if Trump is a lunatic ‘for even considering such a thing!’.
But there is a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act 212) that says something of great interest:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
There. ^Right there. (can you see it?) It’s undeniable. It’s completely legal. It’s in bold italic. It details the president’s authority to declare such suspensions. And for it to have been persisted in the notion that Trump passing that executive order was unconstitutional makes the loss of common sense and perception of reality believable, unless it’s already been known that these affirmations are just wrong, but still they persist because they just cannot accept defeat. That’s gotta be it.
As for us, the population, well, it’s vital and up to us to look for what the law says instead of what the media says on the subject. It’s our responsibility.
This proves one of my points. The media is disrespectfully and shamelessly lying to us, and attacking the president, without legitimate justification, on a daily and regular basis. I’ve said it a million times, and I’ll probably repeat it until it gets through. But it might never. Sigh.
Nah, this doesn’t have to be replied to. I just ranted. (this post was supposed to be much shorter)
The way you phrased it sounded too general. Like, you had to make a follow up post to clarify what you meant. It’s just vague. Granted, I probably shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions, but that tone was just unhealthy.
I’ve seen many cases of people following just the specifics of a religion, so what you say makes sense. I’m just tired of the generalizations that a lot of Muslims have to go through in their lives. Just because we have generally dangerous people doesn’t mean it goes for all of them. It makes me sick.
Well, it’s a damn shame. I do feel sorry for the peaceful individuals of Islam who rightfully choose to disregard the respective part of the Quran and allow themselves to live in peace with others of a different religion. Their Muslim majority gives them a bad name by committing terrorist acts because of difference in religion and such. And, look, I wouldn’t have said what I said if it wasn’t the truth. But that is in fact what the Muslim faith teaches. And I guess it ‘set me off’ when I saw it referred to as a religion of peace, because that’s far from the truth. All the certain type of Muslims are doing is following the Quran, but that’s a chaotic turnout, unfortunately, and that’s where the concern for Muslims stem from. No, they’re not the only religion with a problem, but Islam is the one with the biggest problem because it doesn’t technically allow harmony with other religions. That’s why it’s such an issue. That’s why it is the religion brought to question here. Because there is concern of our safety when you have a possible terrorist entering the country. It’s paranoid, but it makes sense.
We have had many judges that have went against constitution before, so even if you can make the most articulate argument that this judge is corrupt, this won’t be the last time.
Well it should be the last time. I’ve actually heard of the possibility of this particular judge’s impeachment, which is a totally right thing to be done.
———- Post added at 12:11 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:06 AM ———-
@TK; I noticed you replied to my last post concerning the topic of Christianity and such. Apologies, because I think I had a dentist appointment that day, I never noticed you’d replied, and I never remembered to check until more recently. I didn’t mean to leave you hanging. So I’ll get a reply out as soon as I have the opportunity.
I’ve been meaning to ask you, George: how did you manage to found your current beliefs and do you expect any changes? Because while I may be very different regarding out political beliefs, you sure seem like a smart and capable man. One pretty much suited to defend his stance on the world if necessary.
Wait a minute, I still didn’t answer the other point. Sorry about that.
Do I expect any changes? Well that depends on what you mean; if you mean in Washington and politically, hell yeah I do. Trump’s going at an astonishing rate. Things are always happening. But I don’t expect the left to give up anytime soon, if that’s what you meant either.
now think of everyday muslim person, the lies they may have told.
sorry, but islam is a really problematic religion. yes, all religions are a problem, but while catholics no longer go witch-burning and calling crusades, they dont go around blowing themselves up taking several innocent, normal (ie, non muslms) people with them, or straight up shooting them.
i will never trust a muslim as long as their shitty book says its ok to lie to me.
That’s OK. I felt like we pretty much established everybody’s view on the situation, but feel free to add if you’d like to. I’m not jumping into the current issue at the moment for lack of time, but will respond to that if you’d like.
———- Post added at 08:18 AM ———- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ———-
huntertech, youre forgetting one important thing: the qouran says that its perfectly acceptable to lie to non muslims. so even if you see a muslim shoot someone right in front of you, and you ask him if he shot that person which, again, you just saw him do, he will tell you that he didnt. despite you being right there.
Can you actually cite a passage for this or are you just repeating something you’ve heard? I would like to see the specific passage that explicitly says it.
16:106 – Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;
layman: i can lie to you, but its ok because i believe in allah fiercely.
theres an arab word for it: taqiyya. google it because i cant be botheres with muslim shit outside of cute arab girls.
please dont make me ever quote this book of shit.
and i mean literal shit since i wipe my ass with pages of it. lasts me longer than 4 toilet papers. and they are cheaper.
Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Pslam 137:9
———- Post added at 06:44 AM ———- Previous post was at 06:38 AM ———-
American Evangelical Christians generally know their arguments are a train wreck and just don’t care. At the end of the day, the Bible and Quran are just political tools for them. Why work hard to be successful in life when you can just point to a few arbitrary passages in a book and interpret them in insanely incoherent/inconsistent ways to "prove" your demand for entitlements?
layman: i can lie to you, but its ok because i believe in allah fiercely.
That’s not a layman’s interpretation. I think it is actually very generous to claim that is any kind of interpretation at all, since it’s essentially a completely different statement in almost every conceivable way. The passage you quoted is basically about the true nature of faith. Its point is that what you say doesn’t ultimately determine what’s in your heart. One who is being persecuted and forced to renounce their faith verbally, it says, is not doing anything wrong if they still believe in their heart, but a person who willingly renounces their faith is genuinely turning away from God.
theres an arab word for it: taqiyya.
Yes, and what this word literally means is "caution." It is the practice of hiding your religious belief to avoid facing persecution. It is not about lying in general, it’s about not speaking up in a case where someone might kill you for your religious views. (Or, I figure many would interpret, deport you or ban you from seeking refuge in a safe country).
No, the Koran doesn’t say "it’s acceptable to lie to non Muslims." It essentially reassures you that if you are forced to lie by non Muslims threatening your life, God won’t regard this as you having rejected him.
please dont make me ever quote this book of shit.
I will demand specific quotations any and every time you make dubious claims about it. Either deal with that, or stop talking about things you don’t know anything about.
and i mean literal shit since i wipe my ass with pages of it. lasts me longer than 4 toilet papers. and they are cheaper.
No you don’t.
Kooshy’s into some pretty kinky stuff.
Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Pslam 137:9
———- Post added at 06:44 AM ———- Previous post was at 06:38 AM ———-
American Evangelical Christians generally know their arguments are a train wreck and just don’t care. At the end of the day, the Bible and Quran are just political tools for them. Why work hard to be successful in life when you can just point to a few arbitrary passages in a book and interpret them in insanely incoherent/inconsistent ways to "prove" your demand for entitlements?
Massive generalization of a huge amount of people; not especially helpful to anyone. Yes there are certainly Christians and Muslims who use their own religious passages WAY out of context, but that’s the thing – it’s out of context. Like your use of Psalm 137:9. I’m too lazy to type it out, but this guy has an interesting interpretation (https://www.quora.com/Does-Psalm-137-9-NRSV-Happy-shall-they-be-who-take-your-little-ones-and-dash-them-against-the-rock-mean-that-God-is-okay-with-killing-babies-under-certain-circumstances). Note that some translations use the word "happy" instead of "blessed", which of course entirely changes the meaning. My advice: don’t just cherry pick the most shocking verse you can find without looking at the SURROUNDING text. I’d say that goes for pretty much any book.
I’m pretty well aware of the passage’s historical context.
I’m pretty well aware of the passage’s historical context.
So we are in agreement, then? As I said, I don’t deny there are many who use passages out of context/
But perhaps not.
Man…
i think he means muhammeds documented wedding to a 6 year old. and consumating it when shes 9.
the sick fuck.
also, i didnt need to go look far, tk, all i had to do was was the muslim girl i know about the passage that says its ok to lie to muslims. and she posted that, as well as the layman.
i know, i know, asking muslim to post where it says its ok to lie to normal people? goog thing shes only a muslim by name as she doesnt care. otherwise i wouldnt have nueds of her.
the sick fuck.
also, i didnt need to go look far, tk, all i had to do was was the muslim girl i know about the passage that says its ok to lie to muslims. and she posted that, as well as the layman.
No she didn’t. Actually I doubt she exists.
This would not be a valid counterargument even if it was true though. Just because someone identifies as a muslim doesn’t mean they are automatically correct about what the Koran says, and I just explained in detail what the passage you quoted actually says and what taqiya means, all of which you ignored, presumably because you have no response to it that doesn’t expose your ignorance.
also, miam is real, but for obvious reasons i wont tell you her real name because you might end up stalking her on fb.
i believe i once posted a pic of her saying how shes my archetype for my arab girl. dont remember if it was on this forum or another. but i definetely posted a pic.
extra also: what i posted is not up for interpretation, it is what it is. you as a muslim should know. but then again, that very line says you can lie to normal people.
its like those scilons who deny the story of xenu, and will ferventently deny it…..until you pay 100k dollars and then they tell you the story. the story they denied to you before.
Your pretend Arabic girlfriend doesn’t exist just because you posted a picture of an Arabic girl somewhere once, and it doesn’t prove that she wrote your shitty post about things the Koran doesn’t say that was written entirely in your own distinctive "edgy 14 year old pretending to be a grownup" voice.
Okay, good, so I’m not the only one who thinks so. :p
———- Post added at 09:35 PM ———- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ———-
So…how about the pedophile thing.
Man…
Sigh… you’re not referring to that Milo guy, are you?
Okay, good, so I’m not the only one who thinks so. :p
You guys fall for b8 way too easily.
I’ve always thought he came off that way. It isn’t every instance, but I think it’s safe to say there’s a bit of superiority in there too. Or maybe that’s just me.
Who else would we be referring to? Any other notable pedophilia related incidents you know of?
Dude was an asshole anyway, so I’m not surprised.
Maybe I am.
Maybe I ain’t.
Gotta keep an air of coyness. 😉
Dude was an asshole anyway, so I’m not surprised.
I’m not surprised either, but for a different reason. This is a defamation attempt. The media is trying to take him down, and frame him, only because he’s a conservative, and advocate for ideas they don’t want in the circulation. He’s being held guilty for things he’s never done nor supported. He doesn’t promote pedophilia, he’s never promoted it. Especially being indeed a victim himself, I don’t know why he would ever. Think about that. Any questionable things he’s said have been blown way out of proportion. And though he’s sincerely apologized, and personally said he’s never supported this, the deceptive headlines persist. And you know, he’s in fact called out three other people who had actually done things related to child abuse and the act itself. What would exactly make him an individual who condones these perverted activities? Where exactly is the evidence of it? I mean footage that hasn’t been cut to misrepresent an individual. He’s been wrongfully accused, with not much of anything that actually backs it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Cb2KttkEo&feature=youtu.be
(a noteworthy moment here at 5:33 – 6:27 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Cb2KttkEo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m33s), particularly, and I don’t want to hear a damn thing about the nature of the channel. And another significant moment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Cb2KttkEo&feature=youtu.be&t=7m19s))
Here, he explains this pretty well. He puts rather succinctly what is happening. Try listening to the dude who’s trying to be straight and honest about this, not the controlled media. He is the victim here, of…basically a coordinated hit job. Somebody knows when they’ve been wrongfully accused of something they didn’t do. I think you can easily tell how he feels about this. But also, understand this, the media has no factual basis to these statements and claims. And the while ignoring and disregarding the actual evidence of many other real pedophile networks going on or that have gone on (Anthony Weiner… John Podesta…, etc), they are making very shallow claims and accusations against this guy.
All they have to do is quite simply call him a pedophile, or supporter of such activities, and people go crazy. This is why I’m not surprised.
———- Post added at 11:48 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ———-
Maybe I am.
Maybe I ain’t.
Gotta keep an air of coyness. 😉
I mean, I guess. But I don’t see the point. :p
———- Post added at 11:57 PM ———- Previous post was at 11:48 PM ———-
But guys, I’m not just ranting. I’m literally fed up. I’ve been fed up for a while. It’s an aggravation when you know what’s happening, you know the real story, you’ve seen no indication of what activities claims bear, yet the media’s biased reporting insists otherwise. Any individual from the left, having said anything related or similar whatsoever, or having done or supported even the things Milo’s being accused of, they would blatantly disregard it. It bothers me. They’re going to target anybody who disagrees with them whatsoever.
I’m more referring to what I’ve actually heard him say before this incident and his general views to judge. So I guess I’m biased in that aspect.
Still, I’m just glad that guy still got a comeuppance of sorts.
———- Post added at 10:07 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ———-
Dude, we’re not accusing you of ranting. Conisdering the way you talk, I do genuinely believe you think and conform to the ways you currently follow.
It’s just we all think and believe certain things differently here. And this topic is just what really proves it.
———- Post added at 10:09 PM ———- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ———-
And we’re all biased to a certain extent. There’s no denying it.
and thats something i wont nor dont lose sleep over. believe whatever fantasy you want to believe. meanwhile ill be in the real world.
thats the perk of being a realist i guess.
bunch of radical muslims kill innocent normal people with prejudice just because they dont believe in their pedo leader, then the more they do it, the more they themselves cement the fact muslims are dangerous.
its a social experiment. pavlov cruelly trained dogs to salivate by ringing a bell then give food, until eventually the dog would salivate just by ringing the bell.
likewise, there can be no more murders in 10 years, but the hate and mistrust for muslims is already permanently ingrained in the minds of people. centuries will be needed to destroy that hate.
and seeing we are not any closer to eliminating this cancer that is islam, the hate will continue. thanks to those same muslims who continue to proliferate their hate and mistrust.
when muslims stop:
letting local imams preach hate against western way of life
abusing muslim women (ie, eliminate sharia law)
harrass normal women because they dont do sharia.
kill innocent people with suicide bombers
impose their will on those who extended a helping hand.
have 6 year olds forcefully marry some 50 year old fat fuck just because he wanter her.
make lying to normal people one of their beliefs.
kill those who dont believe in their pedo leader.
resisting to be civilized.
then and only then will I stop hating and mistrusting muslims.
ONLY THEN.
when mexico sheltered haitians, they were grateful, they followed mexican law, and didnt cause trouble.
as soon as muslims locusted their way into europe, crime rates went up 200%.
i went to france last year. i wont return until they are driven out. ive seen cleaner streets in red light districts.
Don’t worry, I genuinely believe in the existence of your fictional Arabic girlfriend who’s a learned Muslim scholar but agrees with you about everything ever and writes exactly like you do.
Just sat through it in full and yeah, he’s pretty straight-up defending pedophilia. lol me
Quiet. Grownups are talking.
Someone’s gotta chaperon you.
anyway, just googled this milo. oh.. that guy? never heard of him.
after reading 3 pulls pages of google results, the only thing i cared about everything he said was his approval of boys having sex with women.
everything else, ewww.
also, an unnatural AGAINST unnaturals? SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN AN AWARD.
No you’re not.
I’m more referring to what I’ve actually heard him say before this incident and his general views to judge. So I guess I’m biased in that aspect.
Still, I’m just glad that guy still got a comeuppance of sorts.
I was just bothered that this guy’s views of pedophilia were widely misrepresented, especially with he himself having been a victim, something he’s openly admitted, and since he’s a conservative his being a target by the left’s media makes a lot of sense. As I’ve said, even after the apology of anything questionable he’s said, even after his insistence that he doesn’t support pedophilia, the falseness persists.
Dude, we’re not accusing you of ranting. Conisdering the way you talk, I do genuinely believe you think and conform to the ways you currently follow.
It’s just we all think and believe certain things differently here. And this topic is just what really proves it.
This topic is one of the most complicated out of any. It’s a very sensitive, unnecessarily controversial, time-consuming subject. As I’ve said before, it’s basically an endless debate, but I’m very glad there’s a thread for it. Thank you for making one.
I didn’t necessarily mean that I was accused of ranting, though it’s exactly what I’m doing, or I at least feel that way almost every time I start talking about it. And almost every time I start talking about it, it turns into a wall of text.
I understand that almost every one of us has a very strong belief or opinion about the current political happenings, and how it’s thought of Trump in his behavior, and such and such, and so and so. It’s only natural, but it’s problematic when an individual is not being free-thinking about the information they take in, and process as opinion of something or fact about what’s going on. The mainstream media is not trustworthy, but it doesn’t help when anything far-right is already looked at as wrong. There’s the preconceived notion that any conservative website, talk-show host, YouTube channel – anything, independent media in general, is biased and automatically wrong or irresponsible to follow as a credible source for information. I’ve gotten flak for posting a link to something like O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, or any article that supports my point in the first place, and it’s gotten to really bother me.
It bothers me, because I’ve seen how the majority of conservative websites don’t intentionally twist information whatsoever, or purposely misrepresent material. Whenever they have, they’ve almost always corrected themselves. Rather, they just report what’s really happening, they don’t want to lie to you, they don’t look at you as you’re stupid, or that you need to be told what to think about something or someone, they know that an individual is an independent free-thinker, and they’re well aware of that person’s right to know what’s going on, not be lied to about it. They, very clearly along with Trump, also try to expose the media when they report dishonestly. They call them out, they hold them accountable for their dishonesty, their bias for the globalist left, and liberal-democrats, and ultimately, their refusal to, and their disregard for their professional obligation to report the truth on most occasions. They try to expose the corruption of the whole Washington establishment – everything.
I don’t really like it when conservative values are wrongfully criticized, I don’t like it when I post a link to an article that’s automatically chastised for supporting Donald Trump and or being apart of the conservative group, as if there’s any good reason exactly why it must it be immediately believed that it’s biased and slanted, for that exact preconceived notion alone, and for no other real, substantial reason. Especially when conservatism and republicanism is the only way to go; it’s the only way things will work, and the conservative system by itself has proved this time and time again. It’s never been explained, or proven, in a convincing manner, why conservatism is wrong in any way, shape, or form.
Articles from Media Matters, a news outlet funded by many socialists and the like, such as George Soros, (I mean, he’s such a horrible, evil person, who’s invested and funded awful things, and operations; he’s all up in this conspiracy. Only some adequate research is to be necessary to understand why he should not be regarded well, at all) anyway, articles from Media Matters that falsely claim that James O’Keefe (Project Veritas) edits his (their) videos to misrepresent evidence is not helping. Once more, there is just nothing to prove such claims, and the only thing he’s out to do is expose corruption in ‘trusted’ areas of government or elsewhere. But of course it can be easily claimed that O’Keefe ‘brings his dishonest, doctored videos to the world of political campaigns’, but not proven. And I mean except for simply saying in a more analysis-sort-of-way that it’s so. It’s an attempt to discredit him, because he’s exposing things they do not want being exposed. Media Matters would of course claim otherwise than the truth because they’re funded by these same biased, socialist, globalist, yada yada yada, individuals at certain positions, who are in it for special interest(s) and financial gain or compensation; who are gradually pushing this political correctness and control of everything, and other criminal operations…and of course they wouldn’t want any of that exposed. That’s why they would frame or discredit him.
But likewise, I don’t like it when Breitbart and Infowars and the like are criticized for being fake news, and Alex Jones and others as fear-mongers, by the fake news, and of course also by the people who believe them. It’s the independent media, aka alternative/conservative media, that reports the facts, the truth, about what is really happening. They have done the research to know this information, they have contact with the sources, they will cite the sources, and they won’t usually withhold information.
I mean, how is a site like this (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/) with Andrew Breitbart on the site’s banner, a red flag to anybody? Or this (http://rickwells.us/)? How would any of those be considered slanted or biased in any way?
By the way, these are both two very trustworthy sites to listen to. Not wrongfully biased, in other words. I think this is one of the major issues here. The conservative sites, and the individuals, Hannity, Jones, Limbaugh, etc need to stop being looked it in this bad light. They don’t deserve the flak that they get. There’s no reasonable explanation for these false claims of bias, either. I don’t criticize the media because I don’t like them, (although, at this point…) I criticize them, because they are dishonest, and they are deceitful in their reporting. And we need to understand that, in order to understand what is happening, and what they mean to accomplish by their systematic bias against Donald Trump and the White House, and the administration, and anybody or anything they don’t like. (you see, that’s what they accuse Trump of doing) We need to understand the liberal-democrat’s goals, objective, and desired outcome in order to understand many, many things. and I can’t explain it all at once.
It’s very hard to believe a controlled media that almost entirely puts out negative stories and material on our president – almost nothing ever positive. They wouldn’t want you think about him positively, they want you to think of him as an unhinged president who’s mentality we need to judge; who’s administration we need to ‘keep in check’. Compare their news coverage of President Obama, in comparison with President Trump. It’s a forced slanted view of whomever they wish to control your opinion about.
It’s entirely from the mainstream media, and all other outlets that follow their leftist agenda, that the idea that conservative sites do exactly what we’ve accused the media for doing, has come from. Nowhere else. All they have to do to make it seem wrong is act like it is wrong. All they have to do is tell you that Infowars and Alex Jones are the propagators of ‘fake news’, and that we are the real news, we will tell the truth, always. It’s the only thing they need to do to keep their undeserved credibility. A certain amount of the population would never question them. They can all sit at a table and act concerned about the ‘fake news’, and act concerned for the president’s stability all they want. That doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it the truth, or the fact. It’s a very big problem; they don’t represent the people, they will lie to you, daily, and push a systematically planned agenda on the population, whether we know it or not, whether we want to believe it or not, and the independent media outlets, the ones that they’ve convinced you are the enemy, are the only ones at this point in time, who are willing to be straight and honest with you, and represent we, the people. And it’s crucial that we understand this. At some point, this will all blow up in our faces, and those who hadn’t will wish they had.
I’m not fear-mongering. It’s not my place to incite fear, nor is it the media’s place to (but that’s exactly what they’re doing; notice their intended view of the administration). I’m not trying to lie, I’m trying to explain what is happening, and why we should acknowledge, and realize it.
But of course, I’m the indoctrinated, crazy, irresponsible-about-logic conservative conspiracy theorist, who’s trying to explain this whole insane prism of evil government control. But I just can’t do it that well because it’s seriously nearly impossible for any one person to handle. ‘Cause then you get people like Alex Jones (not that there’s anything wrong with that lol), who are very hard to believe with the whole cliche of a government conspiracy existing closely with all of this, and so am I apparently for the same similar reason.
Understand this, it isn’t about being right about everything. It’s never my intention to. It’s about knowing the truth and the fact about vital happenings and events and such in Washington; things that can be proven by non-fabricated evidence, not taking a mainstream news media outlet’s word when they say they have ‘multiple sources’, but that never really have any real source to cite, and it’s important to have faith in the right places and outlets to be delivered this information, by an honest demeanor. And if that isn’t enough, I think there’s always unbiased websites or other places in general to get the non-agenda-driven fact, ’cause that’s where the conservative sites get their information most often anyway, if not by their own research endeavors, or even just by simply looking at with their own eyes at what’s happening.
Take notice how the mainstream media has taken it upon themselves to act as the warriors to discredit their numerous convicted of fake news; Infowars, Breitbart, etc. It’s literally only a deflective strategy of our own exposition attempts of their own wrongdoings. That’s it. That’s all they have to do. Is make the same, by their meaning, false claims back to the their accusers. But also take notice of how offended they act when they are rightfully criticized. ‘It’s un-American! It’s unconstitutional! It incites violence.’ They only have to say it’s wrong, they never have to say why. Or they may, but it sounds the most ridiculous. They just expect you to believe their bald-faced lies. They purport an entirely different reality from the one we all actually live in, by continuing to make the conviction, for example, of Russian contact and involvement in the election and such. While there’s absolutely no evidence to back those phony claims up, and while there’s absolutely no way it’s possible, it still deserves the headline as the truth, because they say so.
Is that not a red flag to anybody?
But I don’t really see why you shouldn’t believe the president when he tells you something, for real. All he’s done, is kept his promise(s). He’s inherited a mess, (his own words) and he’s been doing everything he can to fix it. For the first time in years, great things are really happening. And you know, people believed Obama, that he’d keep his word for what he supposedly meant to do, and then he didn’t. It’s not as if he did what he said he’d do, but he lied to all of us. Such a disrespectful display from an untrustworthy politician. And you can tell how this was, for an example, there was a huge turn-around at the time of the second election of 2012 when people realized this; though Mitt Romney wouldn’t have been right for the position either, that’s beside the point.
The point, yeah… well, one of them, is this whole thing, what the media does, the news points they push, the way they talk to us, is so reprehensible, unbelievably outrageous, and so abusively biased, it’s just…. dammit.
And I’m sorry for almost always taking on the same ‘tone’ while explaining things like this, like "they want you to believe this and that, but everything you’ve ever know is wrong! It’s the government! It’s the globalists!", stuff like that, but it’s hard (for me) to do it any other way. I’m just always afraid that it’s started to sound all the same, and everything. But I’m working on that. On top of that, I see it as beneficial for me to be making these long posts, but the only time I ever really get the time of day is right now, late at night.
Edit: And not to mention the immense censorship that has been done recently to Infowars, Natural News, and Breitbart by the likes of Google, Twitter and such, and sponsorship being taken away over their conservative place. For another example, Breitbart’s app was removed from the app store. They’ve as well been recently taken off AdRoll. Amongst other means of banning the conservative voice, it is ridiculous.
A spoken example, from David Knight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbvbSEjRuV4&feature=youtu.be&t=40m4s)
And we’re all biased to a certain extent. There’s no denying it.
Yeah, it’s just important that truth not be sacrificed while being biased. Though that may go against the word’s definition, it’s only an individual’s choice to believe whatever they please. It’s their own responsibility. And especially as of the current, it’s important for one to keep from falling from the popularized deceitful claims about what Trump is doing as president, or how he’s acting.
However, I still very much see bias present, even if it’s not as noticeable as a more common news site would. Being that they’re very conservative, it’s probably the most immediate thing I can gather from the place, as well as primary focus on political affairs (which should be obvious). Yet, at least it still feels very genuine in way I wouldn’t really feel regarding conservatives in other places (though that’s probably because they’re actually believers).
Thus, it’s unfortunate when someone’s beliefs are being blocked in general (unless it’s very questionable), so these guys shouldn’t be an exception really.
Still, in the I’ve been raised and taught, I just can’t follow the conservative beliefs. It’s clear that the people of my world are very much anti-Trump and are pretty much against the way America is being run. And I have seen a lot of actual legitimate evidence for it that others here have recognized as well. It’s just what I’ve come to accept and believe. Thus, it’s hard for me to really argue much when I know that there wouldn’t be any shift in one’s beliefs whatsoever. It feels very pointless to me after a while (which is why I don’t write as much here). I can very well recognize when something is well written, but that’s it. I’d much rather let them believe what they believe until nothing can be denied if a viewpoint has notable and definitive changes. I’m just more inclined to believe the people I know than the ones that are far and distant from me.
I’ll be the judge of what’s real and fake, as it’s my own opinion that’ll matter most in personal life.
The thing is, a biased source isn’t necessarily always one that is inherently bad, but it depends on what you’re looking for. I read/watch Democracy Now! and The Intercept a lot, both of which are very obviously politically left sources. But the entire reason for their existence is as activist media. I know perfectly well that I read them because I’m generally in agreement with them on most issues and so they often bring things to my attention that are specific to my interests. But I would never use these sites as my sole source of information, nor do I think they’d want me to.
Ultimately there’s an issue of principle even if you trust the source to be accurate. It’s the same reason why, for example, a "study" done by a religious organization on a topic related to their own beliefs would not be widely considered reliable evidence for anything – as long as a potential motive exists to run things in such a way that it helps make your own views look supported by the results, people are skeptical about whatever conclusions are drawn. Thus we have processes where research is peer reviewed, checked by professionals in the related field to ensure that its methodology was sound and that the group conducting it isn’t doing so under any kind of ideological banner.
What you call "fake news" mostly includes organizations that in their reporting strive for neutrality. (Like we talked about before, this doesn’t include editorial writing, in which the whole point is that the author is expressing personal views). To this day, I’ve yet to see a single example of something that CNN, for example, lied about even though Trump and his followers go around claiming they do it constantly.
———- Post added at 09:01 AM ———- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ———-
Example: you recently claimed that during the Milo debacle the media lied about him and called him a pedophile. I see no evidence of this at all. Here’s CNN’s report on the story:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/index.html
"Milo resigns from Breitbart amid child sex comments" is the headline. It happened in a "firestorm over unearthed comments in which he seemed to endorse sex between ‘younger boys and older men.’"
These are completely accurate comments and don’t accuse Milo of pedophilia. In the video he does indeed seem to endorse such relationships. Milo himself essentially agreed with this in his resignation statement, saying he used a "poor choice of words." The word choice was poor because it seemed to defend pedophilia when he says that is not what he meant to express at all. Okay, fair enough. Some might doubt the sincerity of what he’s saying, some will believe him. The point is that this article just presents the facts.
In the United States we have a legal concept called libel. Trump has said he wants to expand it so that anything someone says about him he doesn’t like can be legally punished, but as of now, what it means is that you’re not allowed to knowingly publish false information about a person that negatively impacts them. If CNN or any other major media source published something that says, "Milo Yiannopoulos proven pedophile, resigns in disgrace" he could and I assume would sue them for insane amounts of money and he’d most certainly win it. The fact that he isn’t suing anybody should tell you all you need to know. There’s no libel here.
However, I still very much see bias present, even if it’s not as noticeable as a more common news site would. Being that they’re very conservative, it’s probably the most immediate thing I can gather from the place, as well as primary focus on political affairs (which should be obvious). Yet, at least it still feels very genuine in way I wouldn’t really feel regarding conservatives in other places (though that’s probably because they’re actually believers).
Thus, it’s unfortunate when someone’s beliefs are being blocked in general (unless it’s very questionable), so these guys shouldn’t be an exception really.
Still, in the I’ve been raised and taught, I just can’t follow the conservative beliefs. It’s clear that the people of my world are very much anti-Trump and are pretty much against the way America is being run. And I have seen a lot of actual legitimate evidence for it that others here have recognized as well. It’s just what I’ve come to accept and believe. Thus, it’s hard for me to really argue much when I know that there wouldn’t be any shift in one’s beliefs whatsoever. It feels very pointless to me after a while (which is why I don’t write as much here). I can very well recognize when something is well written, but that’s it. I’d much rather let them believe what they believe until nothing can be denied if a viewpoint has notable and definitive changes. I’m just more inclined to believe the people I know than the ones that are far and distant from me.
I’ll be the judge of what’s real and fake, as it’s my own opinion that’ll matter most in personal life.
Okay, well, exactly. It’s entirely up to each and every one of us to believe whatever we believe, for whatever reason. It’s our responsibility (to think for ourselves), and we shouldn’t be told what to think about someone or something, without being allowed the opportunity to observe all sides of the story. That’s especially where the censoring of the conservative media is very wrong, and most definitely unconstitutional. But I think one of the most proving factors here; one of the defining lines, is how it all ends up affecting our lives and at which point it does so. After Trump’s first term, many things will have changed, and improved, the country and economy will be in better shape, etc, and no matter what they media says about it, it doesn’t change that, and it won’t change that. In some cases, this is the only way anything will be ever proven to anybody. On some occasions, this is only way the truth will be believed. And we always have to keep in mind that there is only one, there’s never an alternative to the reality.
Haha, no. I don’t buy that I’m just ‘flat-out wrong’ on my belief that conservative news sites all just strive to present plain facts. That isn’t good enough for me. They often enough cite sources. CNN et al. have pretended they have sources, not usually citing any actual names. They’ve proven how they can never be trusted, except for like, 2-5 % of the time. Believe it or not, they have delivered upon their professional obligations every once and awhile, Trump has praised them for that, when they do it, but they haven’t proven they can be trusted. Especially now more than ever.
Sean Hannity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDcnD4-Zdo&feature=youtu.be&t=6m52s) and Newt Gingrich (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRGmFnJS9DM&feature=youtu.be&t=54s) explaining some of this better than I ever could.
Yes, I know, woo-hoo, Fox News. But they’re almost one of the only of the mainstream media that’s proven they can be much more trustworthy than most other outlets. They were also not colluded with the Clinton campaign as most other outlets were; Wikileaks has proven this. Yet nobody, not even anybody here, has ever mentioned the blatant corruption they have exposed, which proves a lot of my claims, and a lot of others. But Fox also has some great people; Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, etc, but they also have some ‘eh’ people; Shepard Smith, no others I can think of at the moment. And one of the other things I appreciate about them is often having individuals of both sides on to debate; it displays both sides of the story. Hence ‘fairly balanced’ to the some degree.
The thing is, a biased source isn’t necessarily always one that is inherently bad, but it depends on what you’re looking for. I read/watch Democracy Now! and The Intercept a lot, both of which are very obviously politically left sources. But the entire reason for their existence is as activist media. I know perfectly well that I read them because I’m generally in agreement with them on most issues and so they often bring things to my attention that are specific to my interests. But I would never use these sites as my sole source of information, nor do I think they’d want me to.
Even with you bearing that in mind, and even with you not utilizing them as the sole source of information (no one should ever do that, I for example almost daily do the ‘Donald Trump’ Google search to see what’s going on in the mainstream media), what you regularly watch/listen to has an immense effect on one’s belief system, a heavy influence, i.e. what you’ll generally believe and how you will view certain things, topics, places, or people. It makes particular things more or less believable.
I will say this; the liberal-democrat left and the conservative right (or rather, alt-right) have each proven how they can be and how they operate, so there’s a difference between the two and each of their media(s) and how they handle topics and reports.
But just keep in mind; there’s something about being biased, and there’s something about being wrongfully biased. There’s a difference.
Ultimately there’s an issue of principle even if you trust the source to be accurate. It’s the same reason why, for example, a "study" done by a religious organization on a topic related to their own beliefs would not be widely considered reliable evidence for anything – as long as a potential motive exists to run things in such a way that it helps make your own views look supported by the results, people are skeptical about whatever conclusions are drawn. Thus we have processes where research is peer reviewed, checked by professionals in the related field to ensure that its methodology was sound and that the group conducting it isn’t doing so under any kind of ideological banner.
There have been way too many cases of individuals taking part in these ‘peer reviewed’ research studies that are paid or told to say certain things, or have a certain opinion about something, and check in/whatever to provide the conclusive results that they would want to be broadly put out in the circulation and provided as the ‘un-biased’ truth and research that we should base facts upon, when in truth it’s more liberally-biased than anything.
Here’s an interesting passage(s) from the New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/);
"A forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, describes this problem in detail.
The article, whose lead author is New York University’s Jonathan Haidt, finds that academic psychology has lost nearly all of its political diversity in the last 50 years and that the validity of the discipline has been “undermined” as a result.
And while the authors note that greater political diversity would improve things, nonliberals face a “hostile climate and discrimination.”
Just how bad is the problem? It’s not just that few academics voted for Mitt Romney. At a recent meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Haidt asked the audience by show of hands to identify themselves by their political orientation.
He estimates the resulting ratio of liberals to conservatives at 267:1. If anything, it was probably worse, since many conservatives don’t want to be “outed” to their colleagues.
This ideological one-sidedness, according to Haidt and his co-authors, has consequences far beyond the common bullying of conservative students.
They cite, for instance, a paper about the “denial of environmental realities” by some of their colleagues in the British Journal of Social Psychology.
When subjects exhibit the “denial of the possibility of an ecological crisis” or the “denial of the danger of disrupting balance in nature,” the authors characterize them as tapping into a “primitive” belief system.
In other words, if you don’t subscribe to modern environmentalist propaganda, you might as well be Caveman Og, swinging your club at wooly mammoths. Haidt and his colleagues patiently explain how terms like “balance of nature” and “crisis” are vague.
Since they are not “facts,” it’s not possible to be “in denial” about them. “Disagreement,” they write, “is not the same … as denial.” Such concepts are skipped over in grad school, apparently."
You can of course question the article all you want, but I think it provides a well enough explanation and, uh, uh, citing of sources to explain why there might be wrongful bias in a lot of peer reviews.
Even so, the peer review system has its own deep flaws anyway. It isn’t to be utilized as the sure-fire way for proving anything.
What you call "fake news" mostly includes organizations that in their reporting strive for neutrality. (Like we talked about before, this doesn’t include editorial writing, in which the whole point is that the author is expressing personal views). To this day, I’ve yet to see a single example of something that CNN, for example, lied about even though Trump and his followers go around claiming they do it constantly.
Rightfully.
Examples of actual fake news stories;
-Trump’s comments about Sweden (‘last night in Sweden’) are false
-Russia’s involvement in the election or anywhere else in any wrongful manner
-Trump’s criticizing the press and mainstream media is unconstitutional and un-american, and incites violence
-Executive order/travel ban is unconstitutional
These are examples of widely-pushed ‘real’ fake news stories that misrepresent facts and / or actual happenings or events, by the mainstream, *ahem*, excuse me, fakestream media outlets. This is a bunch of bullshit.
Often enough, it’s the literal saying of otherwise than what really happened. I don’t believe for a second that they strive for neutrality; or even follow their obligatory ‘ethical standards’… anymore, if I’m to be generous. Reality, and truly debunked fake news stories and subjects have proven this; and even quite possibly somewhere in the ‘over 200 hours’ of leaked audio from CNN (or, who I, and many like to call, the Communist News Network) in Atlanta may as well prove their overall deceitfully-purposed agenda, but I’ve not had to time to sift trough any of that. But even so, ‘Aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ does not fucking sound right for any ‘factual’ and ‘non-biased’ media reporting I’ve ever heard of.
Let me tell you something right now, ya never going to find any ‘leaked audio’ of Alex Jones or Mike Adams, or Jon Rappoport explaining their allegedly wrongfully-biased agenda or intentions to lie to people, because there is none, and they don’t have one, and you’d be damn sure that the liberal-democrat left is doing everything they can to possibly find any footage or audio alike to that. Meanwhile, insiders or contacts from CNN provide O’Keefe and Project Veritas with inside audio that, at some points, most likely exposes a lot of the shady stuff they discuss behind closed doors. And uh, their biased agenda/intention to misrepresent information, because there is one, and they do have one.
Example: you recently claimed that during the Milo debacle the media lied about him and called him a pedophile. I see no evidence of this at all. Here’s CNN’s report on the story:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/index.html
"Milo resigns from Breitbart amid child sex comments" is the headline. It happened in a "firestorm over unearthed comments in which he seemed to endorse sex between ‘younger boys and older men.’"
These are completely accurate comments and don’t accuse Milo of pedophilia. In the video he does indeed seem to endorse such relationships. Milo himself essentially agreed with this in his resignation statement, saying he used a "poor choice of words." The word choice was poor because it seemed to defend pedophilia when he says that is not what he meant to express at all. Okay, fair enough. Some might doubt the sincerity of what he’s saying, some will believe him. The point is that this article just presents the facts.
In the United States we have a legal concept called libel. Trump has said he wants to expand it so that anything someone says about him he doesn’t like can be legally punished, but as of now, what it means is that you’re not allowed to knowingly publish false information about a person that negatively impacts them. If CNN or any other major media source published something that says, "Milo Yiannopoulos proven pedophile, resigns in disgrace" he could and I assume would sue them for insane amounts of money and he’d most certainly win it. The fact that he isn’t suing anybody should tell you all you need to know. There’s no libel here.
I think you misunderstood me, I never claimed he was accused of pedophilia or of being a pedophile, and if that’s what your point’s based off, then it isn’t really valid, because I did not say that. (Although I unintentionally said ‘All they have to do is quite simply call him a pedophile’, but that was really more of an explanation of how out-of-hand things can become, I didn’t meant that’s what was reported) I said that the media is lying about him by the overall tone and persisting implication that he supports and promotes pedophilia, once again, even after his apology, as well as more importantly his being clear that he doesn’t support pedophilia. Saying his comments ‘seemed to defend pedophilia’ (even though it wasn’t even very direct enough) the while having the sections of the press conference or quotes of his saying he doesn’t, is like essentially lying. Even if directly, or by implication, which it mostly seems to be, there exists the misleading belief in the article that he supports pedophilia. The overall idea is misleading.
For a nit-picky sort of example, they don’t even provide the whole press conference, only a selected section of it. They don’t even show or provide the alleged clips either; a site like Breitbart News or Constitution Rising would most definitely do so.
His comments do not directly indicate that ‘he seemed to endorse sex between "younger boys and older men."’. That is not a fact. He does not promote pedophilia, or ‘sex with 13-year olds’. These are not facts. This is mostly blown out of proportion.
The source for this ‘witch-hunt’, which is the Reagan Battalion, a pretend-conservative activist group that is ‘linked to progressive activists and far left movement “Indivisible.”’, who have ‘have indirect links to far left George Soros groups.’. They were behind disruptions at GOP Town Hall rallies, for example. They were purposely out to defame Milo, and they being of the left, the while supposedly stating they’re of the conservative right, makes complete sense, and the media picked up on their story fast. I speculate they even already knew about it beforehand, but that’s only my suspicion.
"BREAKING: Organizers That Took Out Milo Linked to Far Left George Soros Groups" (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/breaking-organizers-took-milo-linked-left-leaning-george-soros-groups/)
This article cites sources of two other articles/reports;
"Behind Reagan Battalion: The group that took down Milo Yiannopoulos has ties to Democratic activists" (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/reagan-battalion-milo-yiannopoulos-never-trump/)
"‘Indivisible,’ With Ties to George Soros, Sows Division Against Trump, GOP Lawmakers" (http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/10/indivisible-with-ties-to-george-soros-sows-division-against-trump-gop-lawmakers/)
So, the Reagan Battalion, who pretends to be conservative, but really has both direct and indirect ties to the left, has set out to destroy Milo’s reputation/misrepresent/blow out of proportion his views on pedophilia. I do believe that the video(s) were deceptively edited to support their claims, especially with Milo having said such after he’s reviewed his comments and the footage. It’s also like saying ‘this man supports pedophilia/child abuse’ the while providing the evidence they already expect you to look at with the implication of how that is what he means with the sensitive statements he made, while providing the preferred context and most likely editing out moments where he most likely makes clear what he means, or what doesn’t put him in as much a guilty light, though I don’t disagree that he used a poor choice of words. And I understand how it could be misunderstood, but it was widely misrepresented. The context it was all provided within wasn’t the deserving context. But he knows what he meant, and he’s made clear what he meant, and that’s what really matters.
"Let us pray for our brothers & sisters who are being rounded up & kept in fema like camps to be returned back to Mexico. All they wanted was the American dream & a better life while making money & providing for their families, while running from poverty & corruption."
I don’t want to hear any of this "Trump made the right choice" bullshit. This is just fucked up.
Call me when there’s an actual legal way to get them to stay here.
What do you think?
Again, if you tell me on how people can legally get here, then I might shut up. I won’t guarantee it though.
For the record, just because I voted for him does NOT mean I always support him 100% of the time nor agree on what he does. This whole immigration thing could be handled much more humanely.
At the same time, he said he was going to work on it, and he’s trying. I don’t know the details, just that he changed his tune on his immigration policy during his speech last night. Apparently for the better.
Lastly, if people would LEGALLY come in to this country, there wouldn’t be this clusterfuck of an immigration problem. If you were born here, great. If you’re migrating from another country and go through the proper steps and get your citizenship, I’m so happy for you. If you come in to the country illegally and reap the benefits of American citizens, that’s a different story.
I also noticed how the original Facebook post makes them look more like victims to an oppressive presidency. I don’t really like that.
Trump supporters need to answer this.
For the record, just because I voted for him does NOT mean I always support him 100% of the time nor agree on what he does. This whole immigration thing could be handled much more humanely.
At the same time, he said he was going to work on it, and he’s trying. I don’t know the details, just that he changed his tune on his immigration policy during his speech last night. Apparently for the better.
Lastly, if people would LEGALLY come in to this country, there wouldn’t be this clusterfuck of an immigration problem. If you were born here, great. If you’re migrating from another country and go through the proper steps and get your citizenship, I’m so happy for you. If you come in to the country illegally and reap the benefits of American citizens, that’s a different story.
The problem with treating human beings like categories and statistics should be more obvious than it apparently is. I think a lot of Americans must envision immigrants as sort of old west drifter types who thought they could make it big in the world living as outlaws. But a huge chunk of them came here to provide better lives for their children, many came here as children and have absolutely no better control over their origin than you or I, and quite a few came here as illegal refugees whose alternative option was death. Our "legal process" is a petty technicality to them by comparison to any of this.
We look at immigration in an ass-backwards way, like the lawful process is a right of passage or something, when we really ought to conceive of it as a regrettable national security necessity. Focus should be on controlling the causation, not punishing the consequences.
———- Post added at 02:12 AM ———- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ———-
That’s an irrelevant question. Any crime is disturbing.
You’re an irrelevant question.
———- Post added at 02:14 AM ———- Previous post was at 02:12 AM ———-
"POTUS said something that makes me uncomfortable but I am a POTUS fan so I’ll just pretend it never happened." Talk to me when your testicles descend.
a legal inmigrant is as american as the bald eagle.
You commit a crime every time you download music from here, genius. Am I to be disturbed by that?
Unless you happen to be from a banned country, if Trumpy had his way.
———- Post added at 12:45 PM ———- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ———-
That’s an irrelevant question. Any crime is disturbing.
The American Revolution was a crime.
I simple adore this GIF. I’m going to save it. I shall be using it a lot :laugh:
if they were legal they woudnt be there. simple as that.
a legal immigrant is as American as the bald eagle.
That’s a very different crime from the sort that was at question. Y’all know what I meant.
———- Post added at 07:00 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ———-
Unless you happen to be from a banned country, if Trumpy had his way.
Even in this case, vetting or ‘extreme’ vetting is conducted before they’re allowed into the country.
The American Revolution was a crime.
Sure… to the oppressive British government of the 1700s. :whatever:
I simple adore this GIF. I’m going to save it. I shall be using it a lot :laugh:
I love it too. One of my favorite things about it is how fed up he looks, and the expression of outright disapproval he gives. It well describes my reaction to many, many things. :p
The point is that "a crime is a crime" is a black and white, one-dimensional way of looking at an issue that is complicated and many-faceted. In fact there are many cases where acts that are unlawful are still morally justified, as you have just acknowledged by agreeing that the American Revolution was justified despite being illegal. Therefore to claim any illegal action is disturbing isn’t sufficient. You need to show that that act is not just illegal but justifiably illegal and therefore immoral.
The point is that "a crime is a crime" is a black and white, one-dimensional way of looking at an issue that is complicated and many-faceted. In fact there are many cases where acts that are unlawful are still morally justified, as you have just acknowledged by agreeing that the American Revolution was justified despite being illegal. Therefore to claim any illegal action is disturbing isn’t sufficient. You need to show that that act is not just illegal but justifiably illegal and therefore immoral.
becuase theres law, and then theres justice.
one is not the same as the other.
(btw im agreeing with you)
I don’t have the time right now, but I’ll be sure to do some serious contemplating as to what I did wrong when I can.
———- Post added at 12:21 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ———-
I simple adore this GIF. I’m going to save it. I shall be using it a lot :laugh:
Here, I have another one for you that I’m sure would also appropriately represent your views.
https://s2.postimg.org/6jcfkk11l/totallywasntmockingadisability.gif
-refers to the US government of 2017 as oppressive
But, yes, to a large extent, this has been true, as for example much of our current governmental structure is corrupt and outright broken; the deep state, etc, and has been for quite some time, especially in the past eight years (you know what and whom I’m referring to), but given that Trump’s administration follows through with, and is even allowed to make the proper choices and decisions that advances this country towards the right path; it’s originally-intended future state, there’s no such thing as calling it oppressive, as even at this moment, this current crisis is improving every day, as a result of many of his actions or executive orders having a direct effect on what they were intended for, and it’s entirely because of our president, and his administration, and I have never been so damn proud to have a president in office than I am now.
The point is that "a crime is a crime" is a black and white, one-dimensional way of looking at an issue that is complicated and many-faceted. In fact there are many cases where acts that are unlawful are still morally justified, as you have just acknowledged by agreeing that the American Revolution was justified despite being illegal. Therefore to claim any illegal action is disturbing isn’t sufficient. You need to show that that act is not just illegal but justifiably illegal and therefore immoral.
Well, to address, I was way too candid and succinct with my response of ‘any crime is disturbing’. What I should’ve said, is any crime (like hate crimes) committed by or against a demographic, group of people, race – whatever, is disturbing.
Here, I have another one for you that I’m sure would also appropriately represent your views.
https://s2.postimg.org/6jcfkk11l/totallywasntmockingadisability.gif
https://media.giphy.com/media/l46C5RvfKLFtlR0pG/giphy.gif
Come on, TK. Why use that totally shallow example to disparage support of Donald Trump? And actually, this is another example of a ‘fake news’ story. CNN’s headline is ‘Trump mocks reporter with disability’, when, looking back, we see how many other individuals he’s mocked who weren’t disabled, (like Ted Cruz, for example) and it was the same hilarious tactic with the flailing of the arms and such. And on top of that, from his remarks, he was not even aware that reporter was disabled. And the mainstream media really had a field day with that one.
"The True Story: Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/)
"Even MORE Video Evidence Trump Did Not Mock Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/even-more-video-evidence-trump-did-not-mock-reporters-disability/)
This is very much in line with the media’s tendency to jump on any little thing they could use to their advantage to smear his reputation. It’s stupid. We know he wouldn’t do that.
Um. You pretty much confirmed what TK was trying to go for here. :p
Trump: I can keep complaining about the false media, but really, what’s the point when you’ve already won?
———- Post added at 12:54 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ———-
Because of shit like this, for example.
"Morning Mika Calls Trump Administration A Dictatorship – Twice" (http://rickwells.us/morning-mika-calls-trump-administration-dictatorship-twice/)
I’d honestly be outraged at our ‘free press’ or ‘free media’ for spreading misinformation about my administration.
———- Post added at 12:59 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:54 AM ———-
Or, I mean, like, this guy in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLAzAZXi2A) puts fairly well plenty examples of their complete bullshiting everybody. I’d personally recommend a watch of its entirety to anybody, because I think their hypocrisy and bullshit needs to be made more aware of.
By the way, I’ll be linking to a lot of articles/videos and commentating on them in the very near future.
"Even MORE Video Evidence Trump Did Not Mock Reporter’s Disability" (https://www.catholics4trump.com/even-more-video-evidence-trump-did-not-mock-reporters-disability/)
That sure wasn’t fun, but I did watch all these videos, and in none of them is he making the same hand gestures or vocal noises.
Obviously, no one knows precisely what he was thinking and feeling when he made those gestures and sounds. But maybe there’s a generational issue here. When I was a kid, before it had started to become socially unacceptable, we used to mock retarded people all the time. It was like calling things "gay" when you meant they were stupid or shitty. We didn’t think about the fact that it was actually cruel and insensitive – it was a socially normal thing, so we did it. One of the ways you implied someone was retarded was putting your arm in that position, and moving it from side to side. Sometimes you’d hit your chest with it. You’d make noises like "duuuuhh duuuuh" while you were doing it. It had nothing to do with any kind of specific implication about a specific disability – I doubt any of us knew what Kovaleski’s disability was at the time (and I still don’t know much of anything about it). It was just the general "I’m a retard" motion for mocking people. It looked (and sounded) pretty much exactly like what Trump was doing in that video, and not at all like what he’s doing in all those other videos that supposedly "prove" he wasn’t mocking a person’s disability.
Does anyone really believe that Trump knew the exact nature of this guy’s disability? The idea that he made hand motions Kovaleski doesn’t make and therefore couldn’t have been mocking his disability is a pretty enormous stretch. All I see here is more attempts to demonize the media for reporting what he actually did and what it actually looked and sounded like.
Trump supporters need to answer this.
Obviously, no one knows precisely what he was thinking and feeling when he made those gestures and sounds. But maybe there’s a generational issue here. When I was a kid, before it had started to become socially unacceptable, we used to mock retarded people all the time. It was like calling things "gay" when you meant they were stupid or shitty. We didn’t think about the fact that it was actually cruel and insensitive – it was a socially normal thing, so we did it. One of the ways you implied someone was retarded was putting your arm in that position, and moving it from side to side. Sometimes you’d hit your chest with it. You’d make noises like "duuuuhh duuuuh" while you were doing it. It had nothing to do with any kind of specific implication about a specific disability – I doubt any of us knew what Kovaleski’s disability was at the time (and I still don’t know much of anything about it). It was just the general "I’m a retard" motion for mocking people. It looked (and sounded) pretty much exactly like what Trump was doing in that video, and not at all like what he’s doing in all those other videos that supposedly "prove" he wasn’t mocking a person’s disability.
Does anyone really believe that Trump knew the exact nature of this guy’s disability? The idea that he made hand motions Kovaleski doesn’t make and therefore couldn’t have been mocking his disability is a pretty enormous stretch. All I see here is more attempts to demonize the media for reporting what he actually did and what it actually looked and sounded like.
I actually had a reply typed up days ago, but I ended losing it, and said ‘fuck it’. And I haven’t really had the time to type anything up recently anyway. But what I was going to attempt to explain is already better explained in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc
One of the main points is that, if Trump really intended to mock the reporter for his disability, he would necessarily have to be standing more still with his wrist in limp position, as that would reflect the usual behavior of Kovaleski when he himself is speaking, which is shown in the video at this point (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc&feature=youtu.be&t=7m48s). The thing is, the media sported this around as if he acted with intent and had already been aware of the nature of Kovaleski’s disability, and because of this, that makes him a bad person, and that would make him an ‘improper’, or rather ‘inappropriate’ president, according to the MSM.
———- Post added at 01:07 AM ———- Previous post was at 12:21 AM ———-
"CNN Cuts Feed of Congressman After He Reveals Facts About Refugees" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hkHraAaW-0)
Perfect set of examples for how CNN handles the situation when actual truth – and not a controlled narrative – is being spoken on their network.
*snicker*
At some point what something was and what something is can’t be denied.
The Dems WERE the party of the KKK, now the GOP is.
The GOP WAS the party of smaller but better government, now they’re just whores to the elitists whose cocks they gleefully suck.
The GOP WAS the party of morality, now they keep electing & promoting the most morally corrupt people see in an age.
The GOP may been a beacon of light and good and stood for that something, somewhere, some when…but now they do not.
The GOP of my grandparents is dead.
In it’s place is Mos Eisley Spaceport.
The Dems WERE the party of the KKK, now the GOP is.
The GOP WAS the party of smaller but better government, now they’re just whores to the elitists whose cocks they gleefully suck.
The GOP WAS the party of morality, now they keep electing & promoting the most morally corrupt people see in an age.
The GOP may been a beacon of light and good and stood for that something, somewhere, some when…but now they do not.
The GOP of my grandparents is dead.
In it’s place is Mos Eisley Spaceport.
90% or more of major political office holders in this country for the past decade or so are either leftists who believe in hard left policies or leftists who believe in hard left policies but think that if a republican was in charge of imposing those identical hard left policies, it would somehow succeed. The latter are referred to as "RINOs", and they make up the bulk of the current GOP whereas conservatives are the dwindling minority. With that in mind, much of what you just said is unfortunately true. The part about GOP being KKK is unadulterated nonsense, but I’ll allow it. The problem today is that the majority of people who vote for the GOP don’t know the difference between the RINO and the conservative, because there are 20 RINOs for every one conservative. The whole system is diluted with them. Ever since 2000, every man who received the R nomination was a RINO. Many of those who ran in the primaries were RINOs. Still, if I had a choice between Romney and Obama, I’ll take Romney. It doesn’t mean I think Romney is a conservative. It doesn’t mean I think Romney is the best man for the job. But we have to deal with the cards we are dealt, however shitty they may be. Trump was nominated because this time around, the majority of voters were tired of politicians in general. However, the majority of GOP voters still do not see the difference between a RINO and a conservative, they only see the difference between a career politician and someone who is clearly not. So among Fiorina, Trump, and Carson, Trump stood out as the most bombastic. I didn’t vote for him in the primary. But was he a better choice than Clinton? I say yes, and so do many in America. We had to deal with the cards we were dealt. Trump is by no means a conservative. In fact, I would probably have preferred both of the non-politician candidates mentioned above over him. But what’s done is done. I have to agree with you on most of what you said, but the first thing you said indicates to me that you are characterizing the GOP as conservative ideology, when a conservative views the things you have said, taken literally, to be a condemnation of the left. The GOP and its true values are not what conservatives vote for. If you are intending to condemn conservative ideology, you should amend your statements to specifically condemn *conservative* ideology, not the d̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶t̶i̶c̶ republican party.
Yes. Yes she would have.
It’s more complicated than that. Republicans hold the largest House majority since 1928 in an election where Democrats got the most votes. The Republican President lost the popular vote. Republicans suspended the law to shut down the ninth supreme court seat for over a year in a literal if non-violent coup. Voting is becoming increasingly less relevant as we cease to be a democracy.
Still important, obviously, but if we complacently sit back and assume we can just take all the power back in 2018, it’s not going to happen.
The Michigan Football Stadium holds 107,601 persons. If that number of people had voted for Clinton, she’d be president. So voting matters. When almost half the country doesn’t vote, it matters.
Yes. Yes she would have.
What the fuck did I just read.
———- Post added at 03:22 PM ———- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ———-
Voting is becoming increasingly less relevant as we cease to be a democracy.
*Democratic-Republic
We should really stop saying ‘democracy’, because we aren’t one. The ‘republic’ part of a democratic-republic is such a vital one as it by law limits what government is allowed to do and what measure of involvement they hold.
———- Post added at 06:40 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ———-
Because Clinton winning would’ve been so much better.
It does not matter who wins. Clinton, Obama, Trump.including the european ones…. etc. they are all puppies controlled by 3 Corporations: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City, that run the World.
———- Post added at 06:40 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ———-
http://wakingtimesmedia.com/3-corporations-run-world-city-london-washington-dc-vatican-city/
———- Post added at 06:48 PM ———- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ———-
Most people are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program which plans to depopulate 95% of the world.
While the mainstream media has ignored the freedom-infringing nature of Agenda 21, the world’s leaders and the United States have passed another “biodiversity” plan which many are calling the current program’s “evil twin.”
According to the United Nations website, Agenda 21 is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment”.
http://humansarefree.com/2015/12/obama-and-un-just-passed-agenda-21-on.html
decryted 🙂
http://humansarefree.com/2016/04/agenda-2030-aka-new-world-order.html
and plant trees too.
http://pa1.narvii.com/6139/68fc27f343e46a309703d87f486b9174e4afd05f_hq.gif
He’s also got a touch of Damien.
He’s also got a touch of Damien.
Online Casino South Africa
Online Casino New Zealand
Online Casino India
Online Casino Australia
Online Casino UK
Online Casino Canada
