Total posts: 502
-->
@PressF4Respect
[CITATION NEEDED]
While this may seem like a biased source, it does list references that prove the claims.
Data shows that they're anywhere from 30-50 times more likely to molest children that those who don't carry homosexual desires. Taking this into consideration, it's completely legitimate and understandable why discrimination may happen in fields related to dealing with children.
Really? Because it seems like American conservatism has been further right than it has been in the past 50 years. For example, many conservatives today are for disbanding the EPA, a federal agency that Nixon (a conservative) established.
The Environmental Protection Agency? Your conservatism involves abolishing a department for preventing environmental damage? What are you trying to conserve here?
The definition of "conservatism" and "further right" is in line with the conservatism that corporate and elite interests are directly supporting - conservatism as a means of conserving the power of large corporations and big money. That type of "conservatism" is the legitimate worst type of conservatism you can come up with. Conservativism should be about preserving traditional values in America.
Conservative politicians, their allies, pundits, and supporters will staunchly come to the defense about enacting reforms preventing the rich from dodging taxes or whatever. But when it comes to social issues, yeah let the left completely be in control. Just be a moderate and support social liberalism from 20 years ago. 10 years ago they were contested to same-sex marriage but all of a sudden they accept it? The "conservative" Supreme Court completely ignores cases related to 2nd amendment violations but a case about queer pandering? Oh no that's what's important here...
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
you used the phrase "pander to queers". If you think that protecting people's basic rights is the death of conservatism, then you think "conservatism" is synonymous with "bigotry". That is the exactly what the KKK think too.
They already have basic rights, I'm not saying they should have that taken away. It is not, however, their right to be free from consequences. It is much less safe to keep children around adults partaking in LGBT lifestyles, which is why discrimination in some scenarios may be understandable.
Conservatives care more about pandering to queers than actually bother to conserve anything, let'a face it: American conservatism is a hilarious failure.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Created:
We have a "conservative" supreme court that almost denied everything case with gun laws, instead deciding to pander to queers. What a joke. Conservatism is dead, American "conservatives" are liberals from 2 decades ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
It's better to view "left" and "right" are mere categories of political affiliation rather than a scale of some sort, to map out political views on a one dimensional compass is an insane oversimplification of reality.
Neither the "left" or the "right" are unified groups, even if you removed one half people would still tear each other apart.
Created:
Posted in:
- Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Yes - Allow sharing of Private Messages?
No - Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
Yes - Require a reason when submitting a report?
No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
3) Please compare post 57 and post 46. Specifically the "definitely not for religious reasons" part of post 46. Please write a short (1-2 sentences) of how these posts compare and get back to me.
I stated that the reason for American support behind Israel was due to the CIA and power of the Israeli lobby. I stated that religion was not the reason behind US support for Israel. Never did I deny that it was the reason for garnering the support of individuals for Israel. All I simply said was that it was not the reason for the US itself backing Israel.
Attitudes of individuals =/= Actions of the US government
Nice pathetic attempt at semantics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nowhere did I deny that it was not for religious reasons. What I did say, however, was that those religious reasons were stupid and contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Can you account for the fact that supporters of Israel in the west tend to be more religious while their detractors in the west tend to be less religious?You can deny that Christians support Israel for religious reasons, the problem with this denial is that you would be incorrect.
Christians who support Israel in the west tend to be Evangelical Protestants for one, which is a denomination of Christianity known for its strong political ties to the GOP and CIA. Regardless, western Christians in general tend to be pretty lukewarm compared to eastern Christians. Moreover, they're pretty much ignorant of the situation where Christians in Palestine are displaced by Israeli settlement policies.
This is literally a zionist website dude, it even says it in their "About Us."
After reading the above you might say "Those people are supporting Israel for religious reasons but I disagree with those reasons". It would be perfectly valid for you to say that. In fact it is exactly what I would say.HoweverAfter reading the above you might say "Those people are supporting Israel for entirely non-religious reasons". This would not be logical to say because it is so clearly and blatantly untrue.Do you understand what I am saying?
I never denied they don't support for religious reasons. What I am saying is that those religious reasons are stupid, flawed, and baseless. It literally contradicts one of the basic presmises of Christianity, which is the fulfillment of the faith through the messiah (Christ). Anybody can simply take a Bible and cherry-pick things left and right to suite their agenda. Doesn't make it logical or coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Some of the more fanatical elements of Christianity have decided to fulfill some prophecy or other about gods chosen people returning to the promised land.
But that's literally antithetical to Christianity, I wouldn't be surprised if that notion was a plot by the CIA and/or Israeli disinformation campaigns. The basic premise of Christianity is that followers of the messiah (Christ) continued to be, or became, God's chosen people, while the rabbinical Jews who rejected the messiah had lost their status as God's chosen people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Definitely not religion, it has more to do with the power of the Israel lobby and the political establishment. Since when are Jews the majority of the US?
Created:
-->
@Alec
You're kind of delusional dude.
For some reason or another, abortion rates have been going down consistently year after year and I don't see them going up anytime soon. Panned parenthood has been reducing abortions in the form of making better contraception. I don't know any other causes of how the abortion rate has consistently gone down year after year.
Abortion rates reducing literally has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. If anything, resistance, activism, and abortion clinic bombings are part of what contribute to it. Planned Parenthood had absolutely no role.
When a democrat was in office, the abortion rates fell more than when a republican was in office, probably because the democrat was more willing to fund planned parenthood and planned parenthood used the money to make better contraception.
Correlation =/= causation. Where is your proof that Planned Parenthood played a role?
https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-21/abortion-rates-where-and-why-theyre-falling shows developed, pro birth control countries having more of an abortion drop than developing, anti-birth control countries.
That's lumping a crap ton of countries with varying situations. Doesn't say sh1t about anything.
So, lets give planned parenthood more money, let them use it to make better contraception, and let the abortion rates fall on their own.
Lol. Abortion is a much larger and more profitable industry than cheap $5 contraceptives. There's no way Planned Parenthood would want abortion rates to drop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I literally don't care about a stupid and corrupt organization, injustice is injustice. What makes the UN flawless? Why should injustice be permitted simply because the UN says so? Is the UN God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
A "non-member observer state" is NOT sovereign, as you have admitted. That is a useless distinction to you, but not to me. The distinction is that 30% of the UN does NOT recognize Palestine. It takes a few more than 70% to offer Palestine a recognized sovereign statehood. Sorruy, that's the rules.
Never did I say it was sovereign. Congrats on finding the problem that the entire Palestinian resistance is founded upon, the fact that they are denied a sovereign nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Show me the UN-recognized State of Palestine. Yes, resolutions to talk about it ad nauseam, but show me the State. Until you have a political sovereignty, you don't have a pot to piss in.
From Wikipedia: "The State of Palestine is recognized by 138 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations"
Tell me, genetically, let alone culturally, what distinguishes Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians, Lebanese, et al, from "Palestinians." It's like comparing "Native American" tribes, only "Native American" is a term they've applied to themselves, like "Palestinian," and have done so only since the 1960s
If you don't think there's several cultural and genetic differences between several middle eastern groups, I'm sorry to say but you have absolutely no understanding of the middle east.
[about the same as "Palestinians" -yes, I'm off by a few years,], and without regard for the fact that "American" happens to be a European term, not indigenous, so whose culture is appropriating whose? Show me the document that declares "Native American" sovereignty. Or, for Palestinians. So, just who is being hilariously stupid?
Nowhere did I say that Palestine has sovereignty. That's literally the entire issue behind the Palestinian resistance. Palestine deserves to be its sovereign state but is not fully sovereign over its lands because of Israeli occupation.
Also why are you bringing up Native Americans? Lmao. I never mentioned them.
Created:
-->
@Alec
If we skyrocket funds to planned parenthood, they would use the money for contraception which can reduce abortions by up to 98.9%. Because of this, I'm pro life, and would punish abortion, but I would skyrocket funds to planned parenthood so they develop much better contraception.They deleted their account.
Hilarious take. There's no evidence or reason, whatsoever, to believe an increase in funds to an organization where 95% of their services are abortion would accomplish anything.
Abortion is also considerably more profitable as an industry than contraception. Planned Parenthood has no incentive to reduce abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
On what? Purchased land? Purchased by someone else, and never sold in three thousand years? Just occupied?
You're telling me the entire legitimacy of the Israeli claim to Palestine is based on it being Jewish 2000 years ago? That's hilariously stupid. You're punishing millions of people who call Palestine their home, with ancestral roots dating back several centuries, simply because a long time ago they were conquered by another Empire.
Tell you what, I'm coming over to occupy your residence tomorrow. Free me.
Nice analogy, as that's precisely what's been happening to the Palestinians for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Palestine? What Palestine are you talking about?The Palestine governed by the......’Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Judeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, ancient Greeks, the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdon, Parthians, Sasanians, Byzantines, the Arab Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphate seems, Crusaders, Ayyubibs, Mamluks, Mongols, Ottomans, thé British, and modern Israelis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Palestinians?’
The Palestine as in the Palestinian Arabs who currently occupy the land. Having a history of switching occupations between several Empires is nothing unique.
Pre-1948, Palestine referred to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river (roughly what is considered modern day Israel). But today it refers to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What are you referring to, geographically speaking? Do you agree with the UN’s 1947, partition proposal?
The UN's 1947 partitional proposal was heavily lopsided in favor of the Israelis. The Jewish side of the partition was 45% Arab and 55% Jewish while the Arab side was 99% Arab. I wouldn't agree with that one bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
One of the worst ideologies in existence,
Free Palestine
Created:
Posted in:
The economy is built upon debt, it can't simply be removed with a simple national plan because debt and usury are structually entrenched. Attempting to eradicate this issue would require radical economic and financial reform, along with a return to the gold standard. This would be extremely difficult to do and would have be at odds with global financial oligarchs and banks.
JFK's attempt to get rid of the federal reserve and institute a silver-backed national currency resulted in his assassination.
Created:
Honestly, the nationalism and populism of Trump was pretty overstated and grossly over-exaggerated by the media. Trump ascribe to some of the sentiments but much of it was for the intentions of political gain. I would not consider his policies to necessarily be along those lines, besides maybe his trade policy and stance against China (among one of the few good things to come out of his Presidency). At best, Trump hasn't really shaken up the establishment that much. I'm not sure Trump necessarily subscribes to a certain set of ideas, he's an opportunist at best and a careless loudmouth at worst. That being said, at least he isn't among the lines of Reagan-Bush neoconservatism. The single best thing about his presidency was shaking up the political atmosphere and challenging the legacy of Bush conservatism.
Ideally, I'd like to see a populist conservative run for 2024. Someone who holds on to socially conservative views while embracing populism and nationalism, especially in the economic sphere - against the corporaticratic capitalism promoted by neocon/neolib types. I'm really not sure in what likelihood that's bound to happen though.
Created:
Posted in:
Inb4 all of the evangelical neocons on here rush to defend Israel as our "greatest ally" and how its aggression is justified.
Created:
Posted in:
Being affiliated with Turning Point USA is already the best way to make fun of yourself, cut her some slack.
Created:
Posted in:
I think the false assumption people have here is associating worker-owned companies as some communitarian structure. Worker cooperatives still have a hierarchy and management, the difference refers to a greater deal of self-management to workers and more worker ownership of stock shares. There's several examples of successful worker cooperatives. The end result is typically better working conditions and more equitable ownership of shares and company profits, I really don't see any problems with this.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
A lecture about personal responsibility to dodge the topic at hand is not an argument. Never did I once imply or state that people should be freeloaders. However, what I did state was that there was a significant problem with income inequality. Did you directly address that? No, you simply ignored it and stated "ahh stop complaining" and proceeded to rant about personal responsibility.
Did I ever state that people should be irresponsible and that the government should take care of them? No I did not, quit being an idiot. What I did state was that income inequality and lowering taxes in the rich is problematic. As I stated earlier, it's absolutely stupid to create a tax plan that benefits those with tremendous amounts of wealth while failing to decrease the burden on middle class Americans.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Am I entitled? No. I simply believe that the system should be designed to ensure the prosperity for the majority of Americans. You would, rather, neglect their needs and perpetuate a system that's ripe for abuse, cronyism, corruption, abd decadence. Government should be by the people, for the people, of the people. Not by the few, for the few, of the few. I don't believe in entrenching an already privileged class to become even more privileged when there's plenty of people beneath them in need.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You're welcome for the lecture, burt you styill don't get it. I paid for my college education, 2 PhDs. Well, actually, not to brag, but I had scholarships because I applied myself in high school. I wasn't after a "job." I knew what I wanted to do, planned how to do it, and executed. I have money today because of it. Complain all you want about the inequality of income. That's on each individual for their lack of ambition. period.
Ignoring all of my other points now and reiterating "uhhh just work harder lmao"? That's not an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
So, after Democrats stalled a stimulus relief bill over the virus fiasco to blab about political topics irrelevant to the crisis, it appears a settlement has been reached to provide $1200 to every American below a certain income bracket along with $500 for each child under 17. However, adults within the age bracket of 18-24 (or was it 26?) are not eligble to receieve $1200 if they are listed as a dependency to an adult. Typically, this includes college students.
So roughly everybody in America except for college students (or those wealthy enough) are receiving TrumpBux.
Thoughts? Could this be to increase the profits of usurous lenders over student loans?
Created:
More complaining. I repeat: instead of complaining, be rich. I repeat: what's stopping you? Stop complaining, get to work. Are you stuck in a loop working for money? Put it to work for you. Break the mirror.
Can everybody be rich? No. Am I working to become rich? Perhaps, that's irrelevant. I'm talking about a reforming a system to benefit the majority of Americans. Not everybody can be rich. It is immoral to have a majority of the population suffer while the minority enjoy continued increases in wealth. Additionally, as I stated earlier, a larger wealth gap inherently makes it more difficult for commoners to rise in mobility and become wealthy.
You're not so much of a Christian now, are you? Are charity and assistance to the poor not part of Christianity? We have the ability to create en economy that can work for the majority of people and provide basic needs to many. Yet, we have an economy that enriches a minority of people. You willingly reject reform to benefit the majority of Americans under some stupid buzzword such as "Socialism."
Lol? We didn't use that excuse, bud. Your generation seems adept at it, but not much else. We appear decadent, etc, because you don't seem to get the paradigm I just described above. We put our money to work, and you feel entitled to it. Make you own! Money is not made by entitlement, and those who believe it is are just socialists who don't get it that Marx left you nothing but. You complain that SS and Medicare are just socialist programs. Ever hear of FICA taxes. Do you have a clue what they are? It's on your paystub. It's your money paid on every paycheck to fund you SS and Medicare. You employer matches your payment; money you never see, but it's yours. By the time you have worked a full career, you've paid enough to fund over 90% of your SS and Medicare, Your money. Not anybody else's. The balance of of the ~10% is earned interest on your FiCA account. Not socialist. A capitalist investment plan. of curse, you're meant to invest more of your money so that by the time your retire, you have a nest egg to depend on so you don't have to be entitled. Get t? Nope. Not yet. You're not finished laughing and complaining, yet.
Hmm, typical boomer mentality. Baby boomers grew up in the American zenith. Back then, income inequality was significantly less than it was now. Opportunities and social mobility were plentiful. That's why high school flunkouts in the 50s to 70s could still attain a decent-paying job and support a family of 6 with a single income. That doesn't happen nowadays, the middle class is nowhere near as prosperous as it once was. Baby boomers are spoiled brats that grew up in great times, only to be careless and decadent consumerists and ruin things for future generations. They then complain about younger generations while not understanding reality.
Thanks for the lecture old man, it wasn't something I don't know. I'm not denying many Americans are irresponsible, but it's still pretty stupid when the spoiled generation of boomers grew up in better times and complain about younger generations for not being as successful because times aren't as great as they once were.
Oh, and let's not forget that Boomers were behind the counterculture revolution of the 1960s...
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
As if Christians were supposed to be at odds with judaism. They are of closer relationship than the two are with Muslims, although all three claim Abrahamic origin. There is not the schism between the two as you suppose, and here's why: "The Law," as understood by Judaism, is more than just the 10 commandments of Exodus. Indeed, a full read of Exodus beyond the 20th chapter reveals more than strictly "the ten commandments." Ancient Jews considered the entirely of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, as "The Law." In later years, Judaism accepted not just the Pentateuch, but "The Prophets" - the later books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc, as "The Law." AS a whole it cmprised not just 10, but over 600 commandments. However, by the early first century, "The Law" was dwindled to acceptance of just Mosaic Law of the Pentatech again. So, when Jesus taught concepts outside of Mosaic Law, they rebelled against him. For example, while "The Law" taught that the act of adultery was a sin [Exodus 20: 14], Jesus taught that the very thought if the act, looking upon a woman in lust was as if committing it [Matthew 5: 28] Consider Matthew 5: 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus is declaring that the Prophets are to be accepted, which the Pharisees and scribes had dismissed. And, "For I say into you, That unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5: 20] In Jesus Christ, not in the Law of Moses, or the Prophets added to it, is the fulfillment, by righteousness to the Law as decreed by Jesus Christ, which is greater than "The Law" of all the Old Testament, of the kingdom of heaven. It requires more than devotion to 600 commandments. It requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit, being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hunger and thirst after righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, persecuted for righteousness, love your enemies. More than that, even. I am not belittling the Jews, here. I'm only saying they do not yet accept the fulfillment of Jesus Christ. However, in many respects, they are more dedicated than a lot of Christians in following their law, and blessed are they for it.
Wrong, there is a crystal clear schism between Judaism and Christianity provided that Jews do not accept the Messiah of Jesus Christ while the Christians do. The Talmud literally states that Christ is burning in hell in excrement while Mary was a whore (untrue statements of course, but these are beliefs in the Jewish Talmud). There is no way you can not describe such a discrepancy in beliefs as a schism not existing. God's people are thus, the Christians, not the current Jews of today. The Jews reject Christ and have some nasty things to say about them in their book of the Talmud.
I don't need a lecture. I'm aware of basic theology and history, The Law was a pedagogical instrument to eventually bring about the New Covenant. Parts of it are outdated towards Christians (but not all of it of course), such as wearing mixed fabrics and prohibiting pork consumption because such were cermonial laws of the Israelites.
Because the Law was a pedagogical instrument to eventually reveal the New Covenant, the Jews are fallen behind and stubborn for not progressing to the New Covenant. As an analogy, imagine education. Christians have been educated in primary to secondary school and have thus went to college. Jews remain stuck in secondary school and refuse to acknowledge college. Instead, they insult and spit on it - contrary to God's will. They are not of the same faith what so ever.
Now that that's out of the way, let's go back to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Israeli settlements, land theft, and apartheid in Palestine is based on Jewish Supremacy and Zionism. This is contrary to the Christians who have lived in Palestine that have been hurt by such Israeli policies. Therefore, it is absolutely stupid for a self-proclaimed Christian to side with Israeli Jews (who spit on their Lord and Saviour) rather than their bretherin in Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
Don't you know that to ensure a fair and just society, we need to ensure all positions of power are precisely proportionate to the current racial makeup of the United States? While simultaneously giving a seat to each of the 70 disenfranchised genders? Don't be a bigot. Why aren't you in favor of open borders already?
Diversity is our greatest strength!
Created:
Well, there is some evidence that it may have been engineered in a Chinese biowarfare lab. I doubt they intentionally released it though, China was just garbage at handling it.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I will have you recall that II Samuel and I Chronicles chronicle the story of David's purchase of King Araunah's threshing floor and surrounding land [Araunah was a Jebusite - look him up] for 50 shekels of silver. The land belonged then to David, and on that threshing floor his son, Solomon built the Temple. No one has ever purchased the land from David's descendants, but occupied it all the same, so let's not quibble over who owns the land.
You state in your profile that you're a Christian, am I correct? In that case, you contradict yourself. While the land belonged to the Jews back then, the Messiah has since come and the new Israel is that of Christendom. The claims by current "Jews" are illegitimate from a Christian standpoint, considering that they reject the Messiah and follow the Talmud. God's people are the Christians now, those who inherit the tradition of old Judaism while embracing the final truth of the Messiah.
Palestinian Christians identify more with Palestine because of their ethnicity, and because the Israelis hold no sympathy for them as they orchestrate their racist apartheid system.
Trump cancelled the deal. Too bad Oba'a was afraid to make it a treaty - far more difficult to erase a treaty, isn't it? Oba'a was not after a long-term deal; just to get through his presidency, and I'll guarantee he didn't care a farthing after that. But it was a pathetic deal that would hand nukes to Iran in ten years. That's a deal? For whom? What did WE get out of the deal. Its a figure south of one. Actually, given the cash given to Iran, it's south of zero.
I don't think you understand the technology behind nuclear if you believe that nuclear energy automatically opens up the potential for nuclear weapons.
And so you complain that Trump's tax cut favored the rich. Who pays more in tax volume, forget percentage. You want to complain about the rich? What's stopping you from joining them? The mirror is your answer. Change that.
No sh1t dude, the rich have more money and pay a higher volume of taxes.
Perhaps one can join the ultra-wealthy, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people are middle class or working class. To inherently privilege a few people with more than enough luuxury while disenfranchising the vast majority of Americans is immoral. Moreover, a lesser wealth gap inherently makes it easier for the poor to accumulate more wealth, a larger wealth gap makes it much more difficult. It certainly isn't hard to tax those holding on to insane amounts of wealth, from hundreds of millions to billions of dolllars, in order to make life for the 99% of Americans more prosperous.
I'll wager you were not alive then. I was
Lol. Don't tell me I'm dealing with a boomer here. The most stubborn, decadent, immoral, spoiled, and selfish generation in American history.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Done something for an apartheid state that disenfranchises and steals the land and property from Palestinians? Okay.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy made tax cuts. Also, Trump's tax cuts were inherently flawed as they favored the wealthy. Proper tax cuts would apply more towards commoners rather than the wealthy.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Black unemployment has declined under several other presidents.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
What has Trump done positively regarding Iran? He escalated tensions to nearly starting a war with them.
Obama could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
The economy recovered in 2008. Also, you're overestimating the amount of power the President has over the economy.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
Fair point.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.
Excluding the negative social implications of large scale immigration, too much immigration depresses the wages and incomes for the majority of Americans. I don't want people to die crossing the border, but we can't simply allow unchecked migration into the country. Deportations should be as humane as possible.
Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.
I'm in favor of universal healthcare.
Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.
This implies that gun rights inherently lead to an expense of life. Yet, look at the trends. Gun restrictions have increased since the 1950s while homicide rates and mass shootings have also increased. People who want to murder will do it regardless, I could care less what falsified and BS statistic predicts that background checks will prevent that many murders given that current gun regulations have not made a dent.
Also, it's not like a black market for guns can't spring up. Illegal drug use is rampant despite the war on drugs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
How dare they! Don't they know that only the Church officials are allowed to distort centuries of sacred tradition and biblical interpretation for their own purposes?! Prideful indeed!
This has not happened in the Orthodox Church. Prove to me otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There's 3 churches within a reasonable driving distance, the one I'm going to is OCA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm sorry to hear about your wife, good luck in your spiritual journey.
I haven't seen you in a while from my inactivity, but I figured you would be happy to know that I've decided I will convert to Orthodoxy.
Created:
Posted in:
"Communist-ruled Cuba Holds First Transgender Ceremony"
A great example demonstrating the flaws of Protestant Christianity. Western Christianity has been on a slow departure from holy truth and has descended into all kinds of lows. This is especially prevalent among the Protestants, who have a prideful notion of taking centuries of sacred tradition and biblical interpretation, among countless saints, into something any laymen can distort for their own purposes. As a result, you get a Church that simply blends in with the world. You don't get a Church that rejects the wrong-doings of modern society. Now, you get a Protestant Church holding "transgender ceremonies." The notion one can simply change their biological gender is a stupid one antithetical to Christian teaching.
The Orthodox Church in the east has remained true and unchanged for centuries. The religious life of the early Christians, medieval Christians, modern-day Christians, etc, has always been the same in the Orthodox Church. As Catholics and (even more so) Protestants fall into error, the Orthodox Church remains faithful and unchanged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I asked for an example of the paradox of tolerance and you failed to give it. Your response instead is to incite a religious argument.
Abstractions are pointless if they are irrelevant
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Really? That's your defense? To dodge the question at hand and resort to starting a debate about religious beliefs (or lack there of)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The ideas don't matter more so the structure.A rule is antithetical to freedom. That is pretty much it.
Give me an example or else your point is moot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What specific ideas do you not want to show tolerance for?
Created:
Posted in:
Out of every opportunity we get, we literally barely do anything right in the middle east.
Created: