Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote:

It's also important to bear in mind that my objection to Trump isn't based on that conversation with Billy Bush. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Trump is a vile human being. He lies constantly, he's reckless and reactionary, and his so-called business success is littered with the wreckage of small businesses he killed, failed ventures he led, and needless catastrophes he created. The guy is brilliant at self-promotion, and he's an expert at walking away from disasters that he caused and leaving someone else holding the bag.

Everything you just said applies to politicians in both parties these are vile people who have in secret abandoned the US Constitution in secret and have sold out America and the American people to globalists.These are fake but polished politicians who say anything to get elected but sell out the country and are puppets for their lobbyists and donors.Politicians are brilliant at self promotion and walk away from disasters that they caused leaving the American people holding the bag whether or not they are Republican or Democrat.It is time to give a non-politician a chance who is not controlled by money from donors,globalists,etc but will put America and the American people first.All of US President's whether Republican or Democrat have embraced globalism for at least the last 40 years and so have ignored the US Constitution that they swear to uphold and defend. They have all lied and have not upheld the US Constitution and they all should be tried for treason.

edwardmurphy wrote :

That makes him potentially a good autocrat, but not a good president. He'd fit in a lot better in the Russian government than in ours. I think that he's temperamentally unfit to be president. I think that he'd be a disaster for our country. He wouldn't end the United States as we know it - there are enough checks on presidential power to prevent that - but he could do a whole lot of damage. And frankly, I don't think he has any real plans, or knowledge, or the work ethic to make plans or to learn what he'd need to know to be an effective president. Right now, as we speak, Trump is trying to distract us from his sex scandals by undermining faith in the legitimacy of our democratic processes. His recklessness and self-absorption is appalling.

Hillary has already restarted the cold war and made it clear in the last debate she wants war with Russia,so we get WW3 if she wins. Meanwhile Trump does not want war with Russia but wants to focus on taking out ISIS and possibly with Russia's help,so it seems you're accusing Trump for having a bad temperate when it really is Hillary who has accused Russia of things with no proof - a conspiracy theory.If you don't think Trump has real plans? You're ignoring him,he has not ran on nothing. It is because of his plans he has so much support. And despite what you think only applies to Trump but no politician,not even Hillary explains what they are going to do in detail,they all just tell you what they want to do and none get specific and Hillary does not get specific either. She says go to my web-sight. So it is a myth politicians get specific about what they want to do and it should not apply to only Donald Trump like you think it should.It is also a myth that a person must be a politician and be experienced in order to be a good President,experienced politicians have not helped America and put the American people first,but instead their donors. Donald Trump does not need their money and can't be bought off like they are so he is more likely to put America and the American people first,which they refuse to do. You can listen to Hillary's speeches and tell she is for globalism and this means not putting America and the American people first.

Forget how to use the quote function, ACB?

[quote][/quote] not Darn noobs!

The Drudge Report linked this article about shocking (if true) revelations, this evening: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebri ... ter-fixer/ Supposedly, documentation is imminent. We'll see.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Hillary stated that the alt-news sources have no right to exist and will be shut down at one of her rallies and she specifically mentioned Breitbart News.

So obviously there's video of her saying that, right? Can you post a link?

abelcainsbrother wrote:So you are a low information voter meanwhile Trump has never said anything about shutting down the media eventhogh he knows they are apart of this rigged election.

His threat to "open up the libel laws" is a direct attack on the freedom of the press, which you might recall is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. You've even posted about it. You thought it was a great idea.

I'm going to ignore the rest. Playing whack-a-mole with you is too time consuming.

Philip wrote:The Drudge Report linked this article about shocking (if true) revelations, this evening: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebri ... ter-fixer/ Supposedly, documentation is imminent. We'll see.

National Enquirer?

edwardmurphy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Hillary stated that the alt-news sources have no right to exist and will be shut down at one of her rallies and she specifically mentioned Breitbart News.

So obviously there's video of her saying that, right? Can you post a link?

abelcainsbrother wrote:So you are a low information voter meanwhile Trump has never said anything about shutting down the media eventhogh he knows they are apart of this rigged election.

His threat to "open up the libel laws" is a direct attack on the freedom of the press, which you might recall is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. You've even posted about it. You thought it was a great idea.

I'm going to ignore the rest. Playing whack-a-mole with you is too time consuming.

Yes,I could post the speech she gave talking about alt-news sources like Breitbart and how she thinks they have no right to exist and will be shut down,but you have a tendency to ignore the facts. What good would it do if I posted it? I doubt it will change your mind,but it is kinda old news.I bet you could Google it and find something written about.

The free press cannot slander Democrat political foes like they have many of times and this is why Trump wants to open up libel lawsuits. Plus how can you say it is the free press when we know it is working with the Democrat Party,I mean it is no longer a conspiracy we have proof that proves it. How come you ignore wikileaks?Are you afraid of truth or are you just so sold out to liberalism that facts don't matter? or do you believe the lies CNN put out saying only they can look at wikileaks but it is illegal for everybody else? Is it alright for them to lie like that?I used to defend Republicans but I don't now because of facts that have came out.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,I could post the speech she gave talking about alt-news sources like Breitbart and how she thinks they have no right to exist and will be shut down,but you have a tendency to ignore the facts. What good would it do if I posted it? I doubt it will change your mind,but it is kinda old news.I bet you could Google it and find something written about.

It's not that I ignore facts, it's that you almost never post any. Show me raw footage of Clinton saying what you claim she said and I'll believe that she said it. Show me an InfoWars article claiming that she said it and I won't. Seems simple enough.

So, link?

abelcainsbrother wrote:The free press cannot slander Democrat political foes like they have many of times and this is why Trump wants to open up libel lawsuits.

Slander and libel are different things, and if he could prove either then Trump could sue and win. There's no reason to attack the 1st Amendment.

BTW, are you aware that you just conceded that Trump wants to carve up the 1st Amendment because he thinks reporters shouldn't be allowed to say stuff he doesn't like?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Plus how can you say it is the free press when we know it is working with the Democrat Party,I mean it is no longer a conspiracy we have proof that proves it. How come you ignore wikileaks?Are you afraid of truth or are you just so sold out to liberalism that facts don't matter? I used to defend Republicans but I don't now because of facts that have came out.

It's actually the Democratic Party.

Link doesn't work? But search for "Cathleen Ann O'Brien rape", been around a while and little has been said.

Kurieuo wrote:

Ed wrote:K is perpetuating a blatant lie being spread by alt-right liars.

What lie? Wikileaks? Oh yes, if we believe your "middle" ground news sources, then it's illegal to read the emails at Wikileaks and it's all Russian controlled.

Ed, just wondering whether the Green Party's Jill Stein is an alt-right conspiracist who gets her information from "garbage sources" also?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8lD-RQ2AhQ

Dunno.

I'm going to say probably not, because she's not spouting crazy conspiracy theories. Or at least she's not spouting them in that clip. Saying that the Clintons are friends of Wall Street or that Obama didn't do enough about global warming is a far cry from claiming that Bill Clinton was a frequent passenger on pedo-flights to Thailand or that all the polls are fake and the entire election is rigged.

She's correct that declaring a no fly zone in Syria is dangerous, but I think she misses the larger point. The scarcity of resources is going to be a factor in the relatively near future, and the US and Russia both want to lock down the Middle East. Sharing a planet with Putin's Russia is dangerous, and it's delusional to imagine that they're not our adversary. That doesn't mean that they have to be our enemy, but they're clearly not our friend. As we speak they're directly opposing our goals in the Middle East while simultaneously trying to manipulate our political process in order to pick our next President. If we're going to continue to be a global superpower we're going to have to respond to that.

I think she's also correct that the Obama and Clinton administrations weren't especially progressive, and that another Clinton administration wouldn't be either (despite all of the voices from the right screaming that they're all socialists). Still, they're as progressive as we're likely to get any time soon. I guess that'll have to do.

As far as her conclusion that Trump is the safer choice, I disagree.

edwardmurphy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes,I could post the speech she gave talking about alt-news sources like Breitbart and how she thinks they have no right to exist and will be shut down,but you have a tendency to ignore the facts. What good would it do if I posted it? I doubt it will change your mind,but it is kinda old news.I bet you could Google it and find something written about.

It's not that I ignore facts, it's that you almost never post any. Show me raw footage of Clinton saying what you claim she said and I'll believe that she said it. Show me an InfoWars article claiming that she said it and I won't. Seems simple enough.

So, link?

abelcainsbrother wrote:The free press cannot slander Democrat political foes like they have many of times and this is why Trump wants to open up libel lawsuits.

Slander and libel are different things, and if he could prove either then Trump could sue and win. There's no reason to attack the 1st Amendment.

BTW, are you aware that you just conceded that Trump wants to carve up the 1st Amendment because he thinks reporters shouldn't be allowed to say stuff he doesn't like?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Plus how can you say it is the free press when we know it is working with the Democrat Party,I mean it is no longer a conspiracy we have proof that proves it. How come you ignore wikileaks?Are you afraid of truth or are you just so sold out to liberalism that facts don't matter? I used to defend Republicans but I don't now because of facts that have came out.

It's actually the Democratic Party.

I'd like to know why you don't like Alex Jones but choose the biased media that we know is working with the Hillary campaign because Alex Jones gives articles,etc to back himself up,and a person can look the articles themselves up also if they don't believe him and alot of things he has been saying for years has been confirmed,yet the media never does,they just report stuff without evidence.Akex Jones is doing the job the media should be doing,feeling in the vaccum.How can you say Alex Jones is a wacky conspiracy theorist when he backs himself up with evidence and articles,yet you believe Russia hacked our system,etc which is a conspiracy theory with no evidence or proof.Or that Trump is a Russian agent working with the Russians which is another conspiracy theory with no evidence.It is liberals accusing Alex Jones of what they do.Just about everything they report is a conspiracy theory.And when Hillary includes Alex Jones in her campaign ads when she is running against Trump it shows that he must be doing something right and is getting to her.And when President Obama responds to Alex Jones? He is making an impact.

It is Hillary who has said she will shut down alt-right news sources,not Trump,so you accuse Trump of what Hillary has said she will do. You somehow think because Trump wants people to be able to sue the press when they slander somebody that this is like what Hillary has said she will do. It seems you don't mind Trump being slandered just because you don't like him,yet I'm against slander on both sides,even when it comes to Hillary who I don't want to be President. Telling the truth about the scandals and corruption that surrounds her and Bill is not slander. I would be against it if Trump said he wanted to shut down the liberal media if he wins because I know that liberals cannot compete on a fair political field.Being able to sue the press if they slander somebody will deter it and take away much of liberal tactics when it comes to politics.It would apply to all sides also as long as you can prove you were slandered,so it is fair.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'd like to know why you don't like Alex Jones

I'd like to know why you aren't just posting the raw video of Clinton saying that she's going to shut down Breitbart and InfoWars.

abelcainsbrother wrote:And when President Obama responds to Alex Jones? He is making an impact.

Jones said that Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur because they're both literally demons from Hell. Obama used the comment to get a laugh. I'm not sure that being a punchline at a rally qualifies as "making an impact."

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is Hillary who has said she will shut down alt-right news sources,not Trump,so you accuse Trump of what Hillary has said she will do.

Here's Trump threatening to undermine our free press. And just so we're clear, you already can sue a media outlet for publishing slanderous and libelous stories. Trump's problem is that the unflattering stories that the Times and the Post are publishing are true. See, unlike Breitbart and Info Wars, those guys have fact checkers who vet the stories before they're published, as well as lawyers who go over them to ensure that they're not slanderous or libelous. What Trump wants is to slant the law in his favor so that he can decide what gets reported and what doesn't, regardless of whether or not the stories are true. You know, like Vladimir Putin gets to do - because he's a dictator.

I just proved that Trump said what I claimed he said. Now it's your turn. Both campaigns send multiple people to videotape their opponents' campaign events, so if Clinton said it then Trump's people should have it.

So where's the link?

edwardmurphy wrote:Dunno.

I'm going to say probably not, because she's not spouting crazy conspiracy theories. Or at least she's not spouting them in that clip. Saying that the Clintons are friends of Wall Street or that Obama didn't do enough about global warming is a far cry from claiming that Bill Clinton was a frequent passenger on pedo-flights to Thailand or that all the polls are fake and the entire election is rigged.

She's correct that declaring a no fly zone in Syria is dangerous, but I think she misses the larger point. The scarcity of resources is going to be a factor in the relatively near future, and the US and Russia both want to lock down the Middle East. Sharing a planet with Putin's Russia is dangerous, and it's delusional to imagine that they're not our adversary. That doesn't mean that they have to be our enemy, but they're clearly not our friend. As we speak they're directly opposing our goals in the Middle East while simultaneously trying to manipulate our political process in order to pick our next President. If we're going to continue to be a global superpower we're going to have to respond to that.

I think she's also correct that the Obama and Clinton administrations weren't especially progressive, and that another Clinton administration wouldn't be either (despite all of the voices from the right screaming that they're all socialists). Still, they're as progressive as we're likely to get any time soon. I guess that'll have to do.

As far as her conclusion that Trump is the safer choice, I disagree.

You were propagandized Ed. Remember how I told you to not trust the media and you defended them but I want you to know there is no evidence Russia interfered in our election that the lying liberal media reported lying trying to claim Trump was a Russian agent and Russia was trying to help him win. All while claiming Trump was wacked out claiming the election is rigged when they themselves were claiming Russia was rigging it for Trump.They were talking out of both sides of their mouth claiming the election is not rigged while claiming Russia was rigging it and you believed it.But watch Tucker Carlson destroy this lying Democrat Congressman claiming Russia interfered in our election helping Trump win.Lies and slander just like I said that liberals use against political foes and now they have no credibility and its getting worse for them.The alt-media was right there is no evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKkWFYL7FY

It's beginning to all make sense Abe. Come on, admit it. You're paid by the Kremlin.

The most shocking thing that came out of Wikileaks was probably that whole "pizzagate" affair. That owner of Cosmic Pizza is a grade-a C R E E P. Posting images of kill floors on Facebook, sharing them with similar weirdos, some with criminal backgrounds involving children. And I'm not even a parent and I find that particular rabbit hole they found disturbing.