Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[jasonnfree]

Which definition? A Constitutional Republic by definition is a Republic that governs within the confines of a constitution.

The senate and electoral college are institutions proscribed within our Constitution. So I don't know what you aren't seeing.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

Good lord, where is the supposed complexity?

The States are proportionally provided for as electoral constituents. It is "The States" who vote for the President... The State vote is determined by the popular vote within the state.

The basis for such is readily found in Federalist 10. Wherein Publius (Madison) speaks to the intrinsic danger of political factions. Factions are political animals which are supremely malleable, easily manipulated and as such can be used as a means to overwhelm the wisdom inherent in 'the people'.

Factions are subjective, 'the people' objective.

Objectivity lends toward benevolence, beneficence and greater wisdom, while Subjectivity leans toward greed, gluttony and foolishness.

Be assured, you will never be quoted in Bartlett's or any book containing thought provoking quotations. Maybe a book. if one is ever published cataloging the most non substantive and mocking posts on forums.

Give him an 'E' for effort though in trying to sound like an educated man. He studies his Roget's Thesaurus and other aides, and uses waaay more words than are necessary to try to get his point across. I usually get lost trying to understand him though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

Well, sure... Both were members of the US Federal Legislator, so they are intrinsically connected, but the fact remains that McCarthy was not, ever... a member of HUAC. He was not affiliated in ANY WAY with HUAC beyond HUAC being a function of the US Federal Legislature focused upon the eradication of the infection of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles (Left-think), from the US Culture.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Be assured, you will never be quoted in Bartlett's or any book containing thought provoking quotations. ...

Sweet Irony! Ya gotta love it!

 

[Skylar]

Religion is inherently objective... as it reaches beyond self; intrinsically setting life, beyond self; seeking truth, beyond self and finds for reality: beyond self.

No, it isn't. Its inherently subjective. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. It exists within you, perceived only by you. Which is as subjective as it gets. As for what 'God' is supposed to want, that too is a matter of subjective belief based on personal interpretation and what you emphasize. You can summarily ignore any part you want....by simply interpreting around it. Or make up whatever you want through the same process.

Let me demonstrate: do you believe that gays should be killed for sodomy?

Its a simple question. And it demonstrates my point. The Bible certainly picks a team on that, with the founders interpreting it literally. Hell, Pennsylvania used passages from Leviticus word for word as its law. And they killed anyone they caught based on their religious interpretations.

Do you similarly believe that gays should be killed for sodomy? You've avoided the question, which demonstrates that you recognize the weakness in your argument. If you agree, then wow. We'll talk in a minute. If you disagree, regardless of what scriptural interpretation you use, you demonstrate how you can quite literally ignore any 'law' even if they come straight from God in your estimation. And show us yet again how uselessly subjective religion actually is.

And of course, there are thousands of religions across millennia of time. And they disagree. They contradict each other. They have different laws, different beliefs. And this you call 'objective'?

I don't think objective means what you think it means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have no clue, nor interest. My observation (the more you post, the dumber you appear) was based on the body of your work (the Idiot-Gram), an example being this comment: "That's one of the many Progressive Big LIes about McCarthy".

Fact: McCarthy was a demagogues and a drunk. Fact: McCarthy was censored by his peers in the Senate. Fact: The more you post, the dumber and less than honest you appear. Fact: You're a partisan hack who parrots the extreme conservative talking points, sans any apparent critical thinking.

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

Good lord, where is the supposed complexity?

The States are proportionally provided for as electoral constituents. It is "The States" who vote for the President... The State vote is determined by the popular vote within the state.

The basis for such is readily found in Federalist 10. Wherein Publius (Madison) speaks to the intrinsic danger of political factions. Factions are political animals which are supremely malleable, easily manipulated and as such can be used as a means to overwhelm the wisdom inherent in 'the people'.

Factions are subjective, 'the people' objective.

Objectivity lends toward benevolence, beneficence and greater wisdom, while Subjectivity leans toward greed, gluttony and foolishness.

Be assured, you will never be quoted in Bartlett's or any book containing thought provoking quotations. Maybe a book. if one is ever published cataloging the most non substantive and mocking posts on forums.

Sweet Irony! Ya gotta love it!

(OH! And you're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.)

 

[Wry Catcher]

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

The more you post, the dumber you appear. Don't try to be glib, you're not smart enough.

Freddo, what did Joe McCarthy do to Lucille Ball?

I have no clue, nor interest. My observation (the more you post, the dumber you appear) was based on the body of your work (the Idiot-Gram), an example being this comment: "That's one of the many Progressive Big LIes about McCarthy".

Fact: McCarthy was a demagogues and a drunk. Fact: McCarthy was censored by his peers in the Senate. Fact: The more you post, the dumber and less than honest you appear. Fact: You're a partisan hack who parrots the extreme conservative talking points, sans any apparent critical thinking.

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

McCarthy only became a drunk, after the media destroyed him... .

My guess is that, once a guy realizes that he was unable to save his nation from the subversion that HE SAW taking place, the impotence to prevent the impending catastrophe, wherein the greatest nation on earth is being sacked and you're a helpless witness, watching it go down, but unable to stop it... is one of the best reasons ever for drinkin' one's self to death.

I mean if there was ever a 'good reason to drink one's self to death' that has got to be among the best.

There is never a good reason to drink oneself to death, and in retrospect the entire Red Baiting was for not. Though McCarthyism is an ism still practiced today by conservatives and today in the shadow of the Bush II failures, it has manifested itself once again as hate and fear; seemingly the only strategic plan available to a movement lacking ideas and pragmatic solutions to serious problems.

 

[Skylar]

And still, you haven't told us why morality requires religion. Or how the rejection of religion is the rejection of morality. Even Stein acknowledged it was perfectly possible to be moral without being religious. Taking the wind out of your rhetorical sails. And demonstrating the absurdity of equating the vehicle (religion) with the information (morality). Religion isn't even *the* way to transmit moral systems. Its simply a way.

You insist it can't be so. But you can't give a logical or rational reason why.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Religion is inherently objective... as it reaches beyond self; intrinsically setting life, beyond self; seeking truth, beyond self and finds for reality: beyond self.

No, it isn't. Its inherently subjective.

Is it?

Well let's test that... .

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Woman; Self: "Johnny got me all hot and bothered, I my nethers were on FIRE... I could have drowned a toddler in my panties... I NEEDED JOHNNY ... I WANTED JOHNNY, so I let him inside me, to satisfy my needs.

Well, we conceived a baby and I went to religion and religion said: "You set yourself into temptation, by subjecting yourself to the intrinsic nature of your body. These are natural urges, which bring tremendous responsibilities, consequences that change your life entirely, requiring great sacrifice on your part. You should have never allowed yourself to get into such a position, until you had found a man that loved you enough to marry you, to care and provide for you and your child. You've now conceived a child and it is your responsibility to raise that child, to care for it and do so before your own needs are met. And now, because you failed to bear your responsibilities, you will most likely have to do so alone, as Johnny is a jackass who doesn't love you and will never amount to anything."

Well THAT didn't help, so I went to Planned Parenthood, who told me that I have a right to murder this baby because, if I don't, I will never fit into my prom dress and I NEED to GO TO PROM, because Johnny asked me and if I don't go, he'll find someone else. I killed the baby and now Johnny and I are going to the Prom, and all I have to do is to keep Johnny out of my panties, because I am one bloody mess down there and if he finds out, he will ask someone else... ."

Now.. again: Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Anything gettin' through here?

The Product of Socialism is only concerned with itself... because that is it's nature and it rejects any reality beyond itself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

The more you post, the dumber you appear. Don't try to be glib, you're not smart enough.

Freddo, what did Joe McCarthy do to Lucille Ball?

I have no clue, nor interest. My observation (the more you post, the dumber you appear) was based on the body of your work (the Idiot-Gram), an example being this comment: "That's one of the many Progressive Big LIes about McCarthy".

Fact: McCarthy was a demagogues and a drunk. Fact: McCarthy was censored by his peers in the Senate. Fact: The more you post, the dumber and less than honest you appear. Fact: You're a partisan hack who parrots the extreme conservative talking points, sans any apparent critical thinking.

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

McCarthy only became a drunk, after the media destroyed him... .

My guess is that, once a guy realizes that he was unable to save his nation from the subversion that HE SAW taking place, the impotence to prevent the impending catastrophe, wherein the greatest nation on earth is being sacked and you're a helpless witness, watching it go down, but unable to stop it... is one of the best reasons ever for drinkin' one's self to death.

I mean if there was ever a 'good reason to drink one's self to death' that has got to be among the best.

There is never a good reason to drink oneself to death ... .

ROFLMNAO! My goodness, you are quite the philosopher, aren't ya?

I mean with all that experience, having worked yourself into the ground, witnessed the insurgency of crippling ideas infiltrate your nation, done everything you could do so stop it, failed in disgrace and realized that your country is doomed... and despite all that, ya managed to not drink yourself to death.

BRAVO! You're a better man than Joe McCarthy! Unless... you didn't do any of those things. Which would sorta leave ya to be a partisan hack, who needs to cast baseless dispersions on someone who you've absolutely no means to understand.

So, tell me, did you witness an insurgency of Foreign Ideas hostile to the Principles that define your nation, work to stop it, fail in disgrace and manage to not drink yourself to death?

 

[kaz]

I said the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense. Which you

You did not say interracial sex, you said interracial marriage. You're still wrong, but quote yourself correctly. And I am addressing that point. I am saying you are full of shit. Show that in 1967 the majority of people supported the "criminalization" of interracial marriage. You stated ... sans evidence ... that the majority of people in a country where the majority of people could enter into a legal interracial marriage wanted interracial marriage to be a crime.

Stop begging the question, deflecting and evading and address the point. Back up what you said.

 

[Skylar]

Religion is inherently objective... as it reaches beyond self; intrinsically setting life, beyond self; seeking truth, beyond self and finds for reality: beyond self.

No, it isn't. Its inherently subjective.

Is it?

Well let's test that... .

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Woman; Self: "Johnny got me all hot and bothered, I my nethers were on FIRE... I could have drowned a toddler in my panties... I NEEDED JOHNNY ... I WANTED JOHNNY, so I let him inside me, to satisfy my needs.

Well, we conceived a baby and I went to religion and religion said: "You set yourself into temptation, by subjecting yourself to the intrinsic nature of your body. These are natural urges, which bring tremendous responsibilities, consequences that change your life entirely, requiring great sacrifice on your part. You should have never allowed yourself to get into such a position, until you had found a man that loved you enough to marry you, to care and provide for you and your child. You've now conceived a child and it is your responsibility to raise that child, to care for it and do so before your own needs are met. And now, because you failed to bear your responsibilities, you will most likely have to do so alone, as Johnny is a jackass who doesn't love you and will never amount to anything."

Well THAT didn't help, so I went to Planned Parenthood, who told me that I have a right to murder this baby because, if I don't, I will never fit into my prom dress and I NEED to GO TO PROM, because Johnny asked me and if I don't go, he'll find someone else. I killed the baby and now Johnny and I are going to the Prom, and all I have to do is to keep Johnny out of my panties, because I am one bloody mess down there and if he finds out, he will ask someone else... ."

Now.. again: Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Anything gettin' through here?

You went to WHICH religion? Which sect? Quoting which holy words? Interpreted by whom? And when? And how do you know your interpretations are correct and accurately reflect 'god's will'?

You're stuck, as at every stage, from which religion to chose to what part of your faith you arbitrarily ignore to how you interpret it, you're bound to hopelessly subjective processes. Worse, you know you're stuck....as you won't touch my question about homosexuality with a 10 foot pole.

Do you believe gays should be killed for sodomy? This is what, the third..or fourth time I've asked you this question. And you keep running.

The Bible certainty has something to say on it. But you avoid my question like it were on fire. Homosexuals were executed during the era of the founders, demonstrating tragically that the literal interpretation of your religion has been used before. Do you subscribe to the founder's interpretation, or do you have your own. Either you admit you believe homosexuals should be killed.....or you demonstrate how you can ignore anything you wish, even 'god's word' from your subjective beliefs. As anyone can, and most people do...as religion is inescapably, inevitably and hopelessly subjective.

.....or you could continue to run and show us that you recognize the weakness in your own arguments. Any of the above serve my purpose.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

Good lord, where is the supposed complexity?

The States are proportionally provided for as electoral constituents. It is "The States" who vote for the President... The State vote is determined by the popular vote within the state.

The basis for such is readily found in Federalist 10. Wherein Publius (Madison) speaks to the intrinsic danger of political factions. Factions are political animals which are supremely malleable, easily manipulated and as such can be used as a means to overwhelm the wisdom inherent in 'the people'.

Factions are subjective, 'the people' objective.

Objectivity lends toward benevolence, beneficence and greater wisdom, while Subjectivity leans toward greed, gluttony and foolishness.

Be assured, you will never be quoted in Bartlett's or any book containing thought provoking quotations. Maybe a book. if one is ever published cataloging the most non substantive and mocking posts on forums.

Give him an 'E' for effort though in trying to sound like an educated man. He studies his Roget's Thesaurus and other aides, and uses waaay more words than are necessary to try to get his point across. I usually get lost trying to understand him though.

Jason,

Thank you SO much for the "E". I'll treasure it always.

And please know that I also appreciate your latest concession.

Such is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

I said the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense. Which you

You did not say interracial sex, you said interracial marriage.

Oh, I believe you buddy. But this Kaz guy? He says you're a hapless liar:

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...


Kaz
Post 2151
Hitler Fascism and the right wing Page 216 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You lie without thinking. And it wasn't a misstatement or a misunderstanding. You already told us you know exactly what I said and exactly what I meant.

You intentionally lied. AGAIN. And stupidly, as its not like we just read what was said and see that your argument is nothing but foolish, awkward, inept attempts at deception. You can't even show an ounce of integrity in verb tenses. As contrary to your claims, I didn't say that Americans want to criminalize interracial sex. I said that the majority supported the criminalization of interracial sex. Past tense.

Which of course you know. But really hope we don't.

Now....back up your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Show us the polls indicating as much. As you put it, 'back up your crap'. With sources, as you simply can't be trusted.

 

[toxicmedia]

A constitutional republic is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed: and is controlled by Law; and is representative in its nature.

Is there any part of the constitution that cannot be changed?

The Constitution can be amended, but no one disputed this. In fact I mentioned the high vote threshold for the amendment process in my previous post. What is your point of contention exactly?

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

I disagree somewhat on this...despite so called disproportianate influence..."flyover" country still gets little attention from presidential candidates and from the washington establishment. Smaller states could use even more influence, I think they are generally less corrupt than the big staes so it would benefit most americans too.

I'm really exhausted by a lack willingness to discuss the topic, from others, and that's not your fault.

But what I'd like to research more...was why the founders thought the electoral college was needed, then compare those needs with our reality today.

I still have some reading to do though, and after that I'll maybe start a thread focusing on that one question.

I think part of it was just making it easier to organize/count votes. But it also supported state power, power of state legeslatures.
does sound like a good thread to start.

Okay, here are a few arguments I found, both for, and against, the Electoral College.

I started out against it, but I'm now on the fence.

What do you say?

For:

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation

The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,

• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will

The Electoral College was a compromise adopted by the Founding Fathers, some of whom wanted the President elected directly, while others preferred selection by Congress. The Electoral College allowed for the election of a President who has support of the national electorate. But, if several candidates split the national vote, the election is sent to the legisature. Since the Founding Fathers thought this would happen often, the Electoral College was the least minimally acceptable to everyone involved.

Other reasons seem less outdated. The Electoral College allowed the 3/5ths compromise to be carried over into the election. The FF thought the American people wouldn't be able to make an intelligent decision

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Religion is inherently objective... as it reaches beyond self; intrinsically setting life, beyond self; seeking truth, beyond self and finds for reality: beyond self.

No, it isn't. Its inherently subjective.

Is it?

Well let's test that... .

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Woman; Self: "Johnny got me all hot and bothered, I my nethers were on FIRE... I could have drowned a toddler in my panties... I NEEDED JOHNNY ... I WANTED JOHNNY, so I let him inside me, to satisfy my needs.

Well, we conceived a baby and I went to religion and religion said: "You set yourself into temptation, by subjecting yourself to the intrinsic nature of your body. These are natural urges, which bring tremendous responsibilities, consequences that change your life entirely, requiring great sacrifice on your part. You should have never allowed yourself to get into such a position, until you had found a man that loved you enough to marry you, to care and provide for you and your child. You've now conceived a child and it is your responsibility to raise that child, to care for it and do so before your own needs are met. And now, because you failed to bear your responsibilities, you will most likely have to do so alone, as Johnny is a jackass who doesn't love you and will never amount to anything."

Well THAT didn't help, so I went to Planned Parenthood, who told me that I have a right to murder this baby because, if I don't, I will never fit into my prom dress and I NEED to GO TO PROM, because Johnny asked me and if I don't go, he'll find someone else. I killed the baby and now Johnny and I are going to the Prom, and all I have to do is to keep Johnny out of my panties, because I am one bloody mess down there and if he finds out, he will ask someone else... ."

Now.. again: Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Anything gettin' through here?

You went to WHICH religion? Which sect? Quoting which holy words? Interpreted by whom? And when? And how do you know your interpretations are correct and accurately reflect 'god's will'?

ROFLMNAO!

So, to defend from the assertion that you're entirely bent around subjectivity, you return to query, 'which religion', indicating that one may or may not serve your interests. You further query as to the specific 'holy words', indicating that the words are 'holy', thus run in opposition to your needs... . You go on to ask, 'who interpreted the words?' Because, one person may interpret: Do not engage in sex out of marriage, because if ya do, you'll not fit into your prom dress and you will then have to raise your child alone which is harder than you can hope to imagine, stripping you of so many opportunities... OR it may be lead to murder your child, which will lead you to a life of depression and grief and which will make it harder to find peace, thus to fulfill your life.... to mean that it's ok to screw Johnny, as long as ya love him.

Ya see Sally, when your floatin' in your own panties, it 'feels' like ya love Johnny. The body is built to make it feel that way, because the thing is, Nature wants you to procreate... (to have children), because that is sorta how the species perpetuates itself... the problem is that if ya just follow your natural instincts, outside of sound, sustainable reason, not only does Johnny screw ya, but ya screw yourself... . Meaning that you make bad choices which lead to chaos, calamity and catastrophe, such as massive, uncontrollable over-population of the planet, the destruction of the environment and the inevitable collapse of civilization... (That's BAD!)

If you use sound, sustainable reason or "God's way", you're lead toward sustained happiness and sustainable prosperity. And it is through THAT, that we know it is God's will.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

The electoral college has never elected a minority President. As the vote by the Electoral College, represents the will of the MAJORITY OF THE STATES, which elects Presidents.

That a majority of people wanted one guy over another is, quite irrelevant. And that is because of the nature of factions, which, by virtue of it's nature, factions are readily manipulated, thus the 'will' of those people, often runs counter to the best interests.

Take Detroit, DC, NYC, California... . Please.

 

[Skylar]

So, to defend from the assertion that you're entirely bent around subjectivity, you return to query, 'which religion', indicating that one may or may not serve your interests.

More accurately, I recognize that theist beliefs differ radically based on which religion you're citing, which sect of that religion, and which holy book you claim to be citing and from what era. If religion is 'objective' then how do you account for these wild discrepancies and utterly comic self contradictions between theist beliefs.

Almost all of them are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH a pantheon of Greek God AND Jesus. Nor does it have to be either. Thus, if you believe in any exclusive religious beliefs, you must logically conclude that all other religious adherents are wrong and self deluded.

But what are the odds that of all the interpretations of all the religions of all the sects across the entire world and the long expanse of time, that you happened to believe in the one set of religious beliefs that were accurate? Those are some slim odds....especially when your own logic mandates that virtually all theists that have ever lived had devout faith in self deluded nonsense.

And this you call 'objective'? I don't think you understand what the term means

 

[toxicmedia]

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

The electoral college has never elected a minority President. As the vote by the Electoral College, represents the will of the MAJORITY OF THE STATES, which elects Presidents.

That a majority of people wanted one guy over another is, quite irrelevant. And that is because of the nature of factions, which, by virtue of it's nature, factions are readily manipulated, thus the 'will' of those people, often runs counter to the best interests.

Take Detroit, DC, NYC, California... . Please.

I did ask how people felt, didn't I........

Did you miss the part about how I said I'm on the fence now, after reading more?

But if rude people like you are for it...it just does a disservice to your side.

 

[Skylar]

And of course, there's the question that just explodes your entire argument so completely that you go into every quote you reply to and remove it:

Do you believe gays should be killed for sodomy? This is what, the third..or fourth time I've asked you this question. And you keep running.

The Bible certainty has something to say on it. But you avoid my question like it were on fire. Homosexuals were executed during the era of the founders, demonstrating tragically that the literal interpretation of your religion has been used before. Do you subscribe to the founder's interpretation, or do you have your own. Either you admit you believe homosexuals should be killed.....or you demonstrate how you can ignore anything you wish, even 'god's word' from your subjective beliefs. As anyone can, and most people do...as religion is inescapably, inevitably and hopelessly subjective.

.....or you could continue to run and show us that you recognize the weakness in your own arguments. Any of the above serve my purpose.

Keep running. It makes me giggle.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So, to defend from the assertion that you're entirely bent around subjectivity, you return to query, 'which religion', indicating that one may or may not serve your interests.

More accurately, I recognize that theist beliefs differ radically based on which religion you're citing, which sect of that religion, and which holy book you claim to be citing and from what era. If religion is 'objective' then how do you account for these wild discrepancies and utterly comic self contradictions between theist beliefs. ...

What wild discrepancies? What religion is it that teaches one to adhere to their base desires? You make these crazy-assed claims, then just drive on out as if there is some truth to them. Which FTR: is ENTIRELY: subjective.