Poor trump - Page 20

I am not mixing things up. I speak from first hand knowledge of Christians and organized religion. So, yes you called me ignorant. I will be the first to admit my knowledge of the bible is limited but I do have experience with people from different religions and especially Christianity. No matter how much you go to church or if you are saved or not, you go one place when you die and that is in the ground.

@Noitsyou. I didn't bother with the nitpicking on grammar for two reasons.

1.) I needed to shower.

2.) It only serves as a deflection to your original statement, which again you want me to forget. You never concerned yourself with any time period except that which is implied simply by being included within the time period of the Nobel Peace prize being an award. Where have you, originally, and still, made it clear what we are supposed to consider as the "present". Is it only today? Was it yesterday, too? Was it the ten years not included in the cut and paste I used?

Now, that would be convenient. If you did, I seem to have missed it trying to catch up on all your posts. Barring that, I can't see you winning this point, either.

I am slightly amused with your preoccupation with the cannibals, but it wasn't me who made the Christian faith the barometer for comparison to atheism's supposed intelligence advantage.

You are making a gross miss-assumption thinking that faith and science must not be mutually exclusive. They exist as different conversations. Unobservable does not make something automatically unreasonable, because there does indeed exist, the possibility of duality in thought.

I like how the parameters just keep growing. So tell me, how or who is supposed to be judged now, to be considered a scientist within the general public? This ought to be very interesting. Now that we know we don't want to include the Nobel Peace prize scientists.

You also neglect to acknowledge that to be truthful to your premise, "atheists are smarter", which I guess you must now remember— that you did say that, that for real truth to be found in such a claim, one must acknowledge that different intelligences exist besides the scientific one. There was a distinct absence on your part to acknowledge that, and that it is the more modern view being taken, this present day.

I agree.

 

 

"Veteran Republican consultant Rick Wilson says it’s not enough for Democrat Hillary Clinton to win the presidency in November; she must beat Republican candidate Donald Trump “like a drum.”

In an epic column in the New York Daily News last week, Wilson seemed to be urging conservatives to vote for Clinton:

“Those of us who believe, who know, that Trump is dangerous can’t just settle for him being beaten in November. We need to ensure that he is on the business end of a decisive, humiliating defeat — so that the terribly divisive forces he has unleashed are delivered a death blow.”

If Trump is trounced, Wilson argues, that will destroy his ability to undercut the election by whining that it was rigged. He has already floated that fiction, as have his Fox News pals. A YUUGE loss would also deny Trump any role as a future movement leader:

“We can’t have four or eight or 12 or 16 years with an irresponsible almost-President gleefully undermining everything the next two or three Presidents and Congresses try to accomplish — while selling socks made in Vietnam branded with his logo, and probably reverse mortgages to boot.

He needs to be put as far into exile as is humanly possible so that the country can heal from the deep wounds he’s inflicted upon it.”

Wilson went on to say that while he hates the thought of Hillary Clinton as president, Trump is “far worse.”

“He’d be more dangerous to our safety and our republic. And since I know his loss is coming, I pray to God that it is total. You should, too.”

That call to arms was published on August 7, 2016. But the very next day, Wilson seemed to endorse Republican Evan McMullin as an independent presidential candidate.

I can understand a conservative preferring to vote for McMullin over Clinton, but there’s only person who can truly whomp Trump in November – and that’s Clinton.

 

And this https://www.yahoo.com/news/evan-mcmullin-donald-trump-cia-000000164.html

@beetree, of course you don't bother to actually address my grammar argument because it proves I was speaking in the present tense. What does that mean? For most people if they read the phrases "these days" or "nowadays" for example, they would think the present. That would include yesterday and last week. It would mean last month and even last year. It wouldn't mean 100 years ago.

And again you take things out of context to prove a point. I didn't say atheists are smarter than believers but that as a group they are smarter. Are you saying that you forgot that you commented when I said that not all atheists are smarter than all believers?

Even if you are right with those details you cling to, it doesn't change the fact that as a whole atheists are smarter than believers. It doesn't change the fact that scientists are more likely to be atheists than non-scientists. Maybe this bothers you as a Christian. It shouldn't and you shouldn't allow it to reflect upon you or your beliefs. Here is a surprise for you: I, as a Christian, have no problem with admitting that atheists, on average, are smarter than not only believers in general but Christians as well. I believe, so this is opinion, that the average atheist put more thought into his non-belief than the average Christian, or any believer, has put into his belief. The average atheist came to his non-belief rationally whereas the average Christian, or any believer, came to believe what he believes irrationally. I know that's how I came to it.

@Noitsyou. I hope you read the new thread I started. You might realize then, that whether or not you want to continue to nitpick on a tense error, (or maybe it was a typo), or you feel I am simply clinging to "my details", (which I do happen to think are more important than a grammar tense), it doesn't matter, because there is current science that refutes your newly stated fact, "atheists, on average, are smarter than not only believers in general but Christians as well". If you accuse me of taking your words out of context, I will counter that I was being succinct. If something was left out for brevity, it did not change the core meaning or point. I really don't find it satisfying to win anything by deception. It provides no joy!

Yes, though, and thank you for admitting that your stated stance about rationality vs irrationality thought, as opinion is "based on a quantity of thought" and I would think you also mean, to include the quality of that reflection, and is not fact and therefore remains unproven.* That has been my point all along. 

None of this conversation bothers me, and I agree, none of it changes my core beliefs. That you think your faith belief was irrationally founded, really is not how I perceive my own. Certainly, I am not a lazy thinker in quantity or quality, but of course that is my own opinion about myself!

I hope you take the time to read some of the more current research and thoughts from the collection of articles I have posted on a new thread. I had hoped to divorce this subject from the politics of Trump, but it seems that I wasn't entirely successful!

Still, I think it makes for a truer picture on what matters when one considers how people think, what is determined as intelligence, and understanding how people in general are perceiving truth in the physical and metaphysical realms. Fascinating stuff, really! IMHO

 

*edited to add, "remains unproven".

Oh, here's a good one.  The Cons are trying so hard to see who can be the biggest asshole.  Trump is usually at top of the heap, but Rudy won today!

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rudy-giuliani-appears-forget-9-11-happened-article-1.2752166

The sad thing is, one has to assume that Rudy's sentence was deliberate; and that if the speechwriters are cynically drafting this stuff, presumably they think a sizeable enough proportion of the US electorate will swallow it.

Until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration — and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.
Khan used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. The government of Saudi Arabia has donated heavily (over $25,000,000) to the Clinton Foundation over the past several years.
The firm also handles Hillary Clinton's taxes. A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Now, aren't you glad that you listen to the mainstream media to get your daily dose of DNC propaganda disguised as 'news'?

"USED" to work @ Hogan Lovells ? Do we know as WHAT, and how high in the Co., and until when ? Do we know how many OTHER current and past employees of the Co. have sons in the military ? Jeez, you are SO naive if you automatically extrapolate some nefarious goings- on from the info that someone USED to work somewhere ! Or expect anyone else to do so.