Political Memes.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

I tried to post this, but it wouldn't

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Yes, To be honest it isnt the way I would have gone. But he needs to keep momentam, more needs to be do to secure America. To be honest, I disagree with a lot of his policies, but still rather him, than any liberal, socialist or commie

He is an idiot, and his followers are bigoted morons.

He took out the favourite, A Bush, Jeb bush early on. He then took out Rubio and managed to finish of Ted Cruz, one of the stupidest repulbicans in the party to be fair, but eitherway he spent less than all of them..

He isnt actually an idiot, his followers are not stupid, just smart enough to realisize what a shit selection they have, and take the obvious choice Donald. J. Trump, why would anyone every vote for a liberal lol?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Lol. Beat you, then!

oceanhawk wrote:

Some idiot, if he managed to win the nomination.

He took out the favourite, A Bush, Jeb bush early on. He then took out Rubio and managed to finish of Ted Cruz, one of the stupidest repulbicans in the party to be fair, but eitherway he spent less than all of them..

He isnt actually an idiot, his followers are not stupid, just smart enough to realisize what a shit selection they have, and take the obvious choice Donald. J. Trump, why would anyone every vote for a liberal lol?

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Some idiot, if he managed to win the nomination.

He took out the favourite, A Bush, Jeb bush early on. He then took out Rubio and managed to finish of Ted Cruz, one of the stupidest repulbicans in the party to be fair, but eitherway he spent less than all of them..

He isnt actually an idiot, his followers are not stupid, just smart enough to realisize what a shit selection they have, and take the obvious choice Donald. J. Trump, why would anyone every vote for a liberal lol?

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

So much for "freedom=fairness", huh, Diabolical?

Freedom does equal fairness in a capitalistic free economy. But I have separate arguments for morality and religion than economics and immigration. While my faith influences economics and immigration, my arguments for those are strictly economical and/or logical. My faith colors my choices. But when it comes to social issues, my faith has much more to say.

Because the choice of whether to have minimum wage or not isn't really a faith-based issue except in the morality of being forced to overpay workers versus paying them just exactly what their labors are worth and allowing them to have the choice to change their lot in life through changing their choices.

But, social systems are much more important to morality since a society (or individuals within that society) can choose whether or not to honor God in their actions. And since God blesses people (corporately) for their societal choice to honor Him rather than to reject Him, I would say that it is far more important that individuals that live in that society should work to change the society's chosen path if it deviates from the holy path.

In other words, you would accuse me of forcing my religion on others. I say no to that, but rather I urge others to step into the light and do the right thing. And since you can't have moral absolutes without the creator of morality, which is God, the Christian way is obviously the only way that works for the betterment of society since Christianity doesn't get it's absolutes from public opinion which can sway with the times. God's word is a solid foundation that does not change. The secular opinions of an unguided crowd are like the excrement that sheep leave behind as they are swayed to and fro by the meandering wind. Such non-absolute morality goes all over and there is no consistency in it.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

I love how nobody hear understands the definition of proof. So far everything that has been presented as 'proof' is far from proof.

Why don't you define "proof" for us ignorant clods. For that matter, what is the definition of the word "science" and how is science conducted in terms of actual proof?

oceanhawk wrote:

That is the only thing I hate about American conservatives, they give conservatives a bad name, because of their huge religious things when real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what religion you are or the government is. You are free to do what you want, how you want provided you respect others right to do the same, and operate within the law.

There is more than one type of conservative. There's the economic conservatives. the social conservatives, the government conservatives, the military conservatives, and so on. I for one am a social conservative most of all. I consider myself an economic conservative but with a few moderate tendencies in economics. I'm a military conservative but I'm also more of a dove than a hawk when it comes to war (I'd prefer peace when it's possible).

Kehsct wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, me too. But we always end up going OT.

Blame Diabolical this time. I bet he's a Mormon

I honestly don't care what he is, besides religious. (obviously fanatical)

Oh yes, I am fanatical! That's a great thing to be in this world. A fanatic is one who is wholly dedicated to their cause. Sure, some are fanatics for cut-your-head-off pagan belief systems. But that doesn't mean that fanaticism is in itself a bad thing. What you are fanatical about is really a description of what's most important in your life.

If you are extremely emphatic about protesting against Wall Street and the G8 economies and the like, then you are likely fanatical about redistribution of wealth and you likely hate rich people. If you are extremely emphatic about atheism and you think that Christians are dummies who are too stupid to understand the "reality" of science, then you are a fanatic about the pagan religious system of agnosticism. If you are absolutely convinced that when you die, your spirit will be reincarnated as a mongoose or a chicken, then you are probably fanatical about Hinduism. And if you are absolutely convinced that the the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God, then you are probably a fanatic about Christianity.

Truthfully, everyone is fanatical about something. If you absolutely have to drive exactly one mile under the speed limit on every road, you are fanatical about obeying speed laws. So I fail to see why anyone could every really find any fault with the concept of fanaticism since it's usually an indicator of one's devotion to that which they care about most.

oceanhawk wrote:

To be fair, Diabolical doesnt represent religion @Kehsct

His views dont make sense, what so ever. Its really a joke, what he says.

But God is real, and there is more in this world. The Beatles I believe left Christianity for it

You are entirely correct in that I don't represent religion -- not in today's contextual definition of the word "religion". Today, religion means pretty much any form of spiritual practice. No, I'm not religious by modern definition of the word. I am religious by the classic definition of that word.

I am a Christian through and through. I'm a Bible-thumping, old-school style, no-nonsense, born-again, God-worshiping, apologetics-wielding, witness of the Christian faith. One does not LEAVE Christianity to find the one true God. Because Jesus is the ONLY way TO God. "...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12b KJV)

Do my views make sense? To any non-believer out there reading this? Of course not! The Bible is simple to read, easy to understand, and does not require mystics to explain it. But to anyone not willing to accept the words of the Bible as the Word of God, it is horribly confusing and their minds are shut to it. Truthfully, a person must accept the Gospel testimony of the Holy Spirit before he or she can really open their eyes to the Word of God. For all the scripture that I quote in these forums, most of it falls on deaf ears (so to speak) because the reader is not capable of grasping even the simplest realities of the Word until they are willing to put their trust in the Lord.

****************

Don't read on unless you wish to see the mystery of the faith. And only the truly-seeking can even begin to understand it in its fullness.

@Diabolical no once cares.

Diabolical wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

That is the only thing I hate about American conservatives, they give conservatives a bad name, because of their huge religious things when real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what religion you are or the government is. You are free to do what you want, how you want provided you respect others right to do the same, and operate within the law.

There is more than one type of conservative. There's the economic conservatives. the social conservatives, the government conservatives, the military conservatives, and so on. I for one am a social conservative most of all. I consider myself an economic conservative but with a few moderate tendencies in economics. I'm a military conservative but I'm also more of a dove than a hawk when it comes to war (I'd prefer peace when it's possible).

oceanhawk wrote:

To be fair, Diabolical doesnt represent religion @Kehsct

His views dont make sense, what so ever. Its really a joke, what he says.

But God is real, and there is more in this world. The Beatles I believe left Christianity for it

You are entirely correct in that I don't represent religion -- not in today's contextual definition of the word "religion". Today, religion means pretty much any form of spiritual practice. No, I'm not religious by modern definition of the word. I am religious by the classic definition of that word.

I am a Christian through and through. I'm a Bible-thumping, old-school style, no-nonsense, born-again, God-worshiping, apologetics-wielding, witness of the Christian faith. One does not LEAVE Christianity to find the one true God. Because Jesus is the ONLY way TO God. "...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12b KJV)

Do my views make sense? To any non-believer out there reading this? Of course not! The Bible is simple to read, easy to understand, and does not require mystics to explain it. But to anyone not willing to accept the words of the Bible as the Word of God, it is horribly confusing and their minds are shut to it. Truthfully, a person must accept the Gospel testimony of the Holy Spirit before he or she can really open their eyes to the Word of God. For all the scripture that I quote in these forums, most of it falls on deaf ears (so to speak) because the reader is not capable of grasping even the simplest realities of the Word until they are willing to put their trust in the Lord.

and for the record, Religion is Knowledge

oceanhawk wrote:

he went to India in the missing period

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

he went to India in the missing period

Do you actually have proof for this?

oceanhawk wrote:

Mountains upon mountains of evidence

I have more, but I cant get to it right now, gimme a few days

That looks shady AF.

Quasi-duck wrote:

That looks shady AF.

oceanhawk wrote:

haha, trust me on this. Wait till I get back home, on other pc..