You have our headline. In other words, it is entirely possible that the Evangelical base (some 16 million, potentially) plus normal Independent support, can win the 2016 election. If elected, Cruz will undo all unConstitutional decisions made by H Obama, and that is what makes the man to be feared by the subversives. If Cruz brings in 8 million non-voting Evangels, he wins the typical election cycle. I am not saying I support him during the primary cycle, but I would certainly vote for the man if he was the non-Progressive candidate.
Announces at Liberty U. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
ReplyDeleteHow appropriate.
Get a degree in creationism and science denial from Liberty.
Go to Harvard pretending to be a black man or an American Indian; learn the art of lying per Saul Alinsky; take a crash course on manufactured crisis and applied anarchy; compare Marxism to modern day Utopian/One World governance; master the rhetorical strategy of racialization; study applied Constitutional limitations and authority in order to overwhelm the Constitution; study the strategy of plausible deniability; learn the critical importance of charismatic leadership and its use in subversive domestic reform ("i.e. "fundamental transformation." ). Learn to pronounce "corps" and "fundamental transformation."
DeletePlaces like Liberty U. are what is wrong with America. Science deniers - using religion to justify their denial - show a callous disregard for the truth. Why do so many unconsciously resist or rationalize evidence when it contradicts the things they believe? Why are people less interested in what's really true about the universe than they are about their personal interpretation of it? Why to some people is it less important to understand reality than it is to not offend people by pointing out that their beliefs are inconsistent with the evidence? The religious welcome vigorous public debate over politics, science, medicine, economics, gender, sexuality, education, the role of government, etc… and then get appalled and insulted when religion is treated as just another hypothesis about the world, one that can be debated and criticized like any other.
DeleteThere are actually important differences between religions — how do you decide which one is true? If there’s no way your belief can be proven wrong, how do you know that it’s right? The fact that mankind can’t come to any consensus about religion isn’t a point in favor of religion — it’s actually one of the strongest points against it. What reason do any you have to think any of this is true ... just because so many believe the same shit? Ever think about having a mind of your own and considering humbly that you might be wrong?
And with the above comment, the reader is given a typical argument against religion. Understand that the comment's author, is, himself, someone who chooses to believe "consensus science" rather than test-tube, results oriented science. Our anonymous guest has his own religiously held belief system that includes a belief that Bush brought down the Twin Towers, that men can simply say they are "woman," and BAM, they are woman, and refuses to believe, or fails to grasp, the fact that "consensus science" is philosophical drivel and not science, at all.
DeleteI leave you with this definition of "science" taken from the online version of Webster: : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
The "big bang," for example, may be true, but it certainly is not science as defined properly. In fact, true scientists have many theories about the origins of our universe, but that is not important to our opposition. the fact remains, that without religion, and I dare say "true religion," there is no corporate basis for morality or civil law. Morality, to such people, is personal preference, only. The opposition has no grounds for condemning Hitler, or Stalin or that moron kid in North Korea. No wonder so many of these people are anarchists, at heart. Case closed.
This is a classic example of a 'straw man argument' ... a lie... and a patented conservative 'persistent response pattern':
Delete"Our anonymous guest has his own religiously held belief system that includes a belief that Bush brought down the Twin Towers, that men can simply say they are "woman," and BAM, they are woman, and refuses to believe, or fails to grasp, the fact that "consensus science" is philosophical drivel and not science, at all. "
And this is an argument via false analogy - comparing all non traditionally religious with oppressive dictatorships:
"without religion, and I dare say "true religion," there is no corporate basis for morality or civil law. Morality, to such people, is personal preference, only. The opposition has no grounds for condemning Hitler, or Stalin or that moron kid in North Korea."
As we can see, Smithson's thinking in inherently flawed, beyond repair, and beyond rationality and without a balanced and accurate perception.
I wrote:
Delete"without religion, and I dare say "true religion," there is no corporate basis for morality or civil law. Morality, to such people, is personal preference, only. The opposition has no grounds for condemning Hitler, or Stalin or that moron kid in North Korea."
My opponent objected but via being objectionable. He did not argue his point, but, only resorted to what debate champions call (ad hominen) statements. In debate, an ad hom counter is a rhetorical trick that allows the opponent (in a debate) to continue to talk when he/she has nothing to say.
I ask, "What IS my opponent's argument for rejecting Hitler's radical and hate filled nationalism, or Stalin's repressive form of required compliance? Alas, after reading my opponents "response," we still have no clue what his reasons are in view of his rejection of religion . . . . . and make no mistake, he is an atheist. Understand this: I have no doubts that my opponent, educated and competitive, rejects the Hitlers of the world, but by what authority? His own premonitions about "good and evil," if, in fact, he even believes these two issues exist.
Finally, he really does not like being painted with a broad brush, yet, that is his debate tactic when it comes to me. What's good for the goosed, is good for the gander, no?
Hitler was a fervent christian who based his extermination of the jews on christian principles. So therefore should we conclude that Smithson also shares the same values as Hitler? That is an example of how Smithson thinks.
Delete"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - A. Hitler
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. " - A. Hitler
“Today Christians stand at the head of this country. I pledge
that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy
Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian
spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in
literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to
burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole
life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years.” - A. Hitler
You don't know the difference between bullshit and truth? Hitler a fervent Christian???? Good grief. Never get married, dude, because you have no sense when someone is feeding you a line or telling you the truth, they say "I love you."
DeleteActions always define truth, especially persistent and consistent action. I learned that back in the day when I was studying to be a marriage counselor . . . . can't help a couple, as a counselor, if you cannot get to the truth of the matter.
No wonder you are an atheist: Hitler apparently deeply disappointed you.
Canadian born Cruz is eligible to be president under the Constitution.... father from Cuba, mother from Ireland? Check out videos of his father Raphael, railing against communism as the “real racism” in America.
DeleteThere is an example of how Smithson resists / rationalizes evidence when it contradicts the things he believes. Hitler's statements, hundreds of them, show he was guided by christian principles. Hitler outlawed of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany. Hitler was a conservative christian and christian symbols are all over Nazi germany.
Deletehttp://catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith-1.html
http://catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/NaziCrosses.html
and so we are left to deal with the continuing problem of words and symbols over substance. Never mind that Hitler was not driven by any Christian principles; it is his words that matter to Mr Bill. I can give you around 12 million reasons for rejecting this fantasy of yours, beginning with the deaths of 7 million Jews.
DeleteYou simply will never win the argument as to Hitler's faux Christianity. He was no more "Christian" than is Obama.