Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:39 am There's nothing wrong with desiring regime change in Iran AS LONG AS it doesn't involved attempting to destabilize it by creating either civil war or attacking and occupying it. Severe sanctions are good, etc. Discouraging other countries - even penalizing them - for doing business with Iran - fine. But creating a power vacuum or civil war - VERY bad!!! The people of Iran need to bring the old Mullahs' rule to an end - and we should be supportive of that. But even so, it is unlikely to occur without massive bloodshed. Believe me, the people absolutely hate their rulers - particularly the young!

I'm not convinced that the Iranian people hate their government as much as you think they do. Remember how the current government came to power:

1- Iran had a corrupt, authoritarian government under the Shahs.

2 - That government was overthrown and a Muslim government was voted into power. That government tried to nationalize Iranian oil reserves and invalidate terrible deals made by the previous government.

3 - The US responded by using the CIA to destabilize Iran, overthrow the democratically elected government, and put the corrupt, repressive Shahs back in charge.

4 - The Iranians responded with a revolution against the Shahs, which brought the current government into power.

Even if the people do hate the current regime as much as our propaganda would have us believe, I can't imagine that they trust us much either. After all, they have cause to question the sincerity of our desire to see them free from tyranny. There were strings attached last time, and "free to be an American proxy state" isn't quite the same as "free."

In any case, here are John Bolton's thoughts on Iran. I don't get the sense that he favors a cautious, measured approach using sanctions and international pressure.

The other thing that I think needs to be considered is that there's just no possible way to take down a totalitarian regime in the middle of an unstable region without increasing the amount if instability. Civil war, chaos, and massive bloodshed would be virtually guaranteed.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:51 pmWhy are the leaders of the Democrat Party trying to send foreign aid to foreignors but will not fund a wall to protect the American people?

This is what I'm talking about.

In your mind we desperately need a huge wall to protect the American people because Trump says it's true, Trump says he knows more than anybody, and Trump says he would never tell a lie. You're a big fan of loudmouthed blowhards using circular reasoning to support unsubstantiated claims so you believe it.

Foreign aid versus building a wall isn't an either/or question. We could do both. The question is whether or not we should.

Foreign aid is useful to us. It gives us international prestige and goodwill, which makes American citizens safer when they go abroad and gets us more cooperation from foreign governments when we need it. Foreign aid is what we use to show that we're the good guys. Beyond that, once a country is dependent on our aid we have them over a barrel and we can use the promise of increasing, decreasing, or suspending that aid to nudge them to behave the way we think they should. And we do that, because frankly Uncle Sam and Don Corleone have a lot in common. International relations is chess, Abe, not tic-tac-toe.

The Wall is a different matter. If Trump wants his wall he needs to stop BS-ing and give us a clear, rational explanation for why a wall is needed, and he needs to support it with data. He needs to provide a plan for how the Wall will be built and precisely how much it will cost to build it, staff it, and maintain it. In other words, he needs to act like a [love] grownup acts when he wants people to entrust him with a buttload of money. All Trump has done so far is make threats and emotional appeals. It's almost as if the Wall was a thoughtless, throw-away line that just caught fire. Now Trump knows that he needs it, but he still hasn't taken the time to prove that the rest of us need it, too.

For you to claim that paying foreign aid while declining to fund a new border wall is treasonous shows that your mind has the depth of a mud puddle on a sunny afternoon. There is plenty of evidence that giving foreign aid benefits our country and very little evidence that the Mexican border is a threat to our national security. One of Congress's duties - as spelled out in the Constitution you're always harping about but have clearly never read - is to act as a check on the President. One of the ways that Congress can fulfill that duty - also explicitly stated in the Constitution - is by declining to fund Presidential plans that are stupid or incomplete.

Oh, and it's the Democratic Party, Dunce Cap. You fixed the spelling on FIZA, so I live in hope. Maybe you're an adult after all.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Philip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:39 am There's nothing wrong with desiring regime change in Iran AS LONG AS it doesn't involved attempting to destabilize it by creating either civil war or attacking and occupying it. Severe sanctions are good, etc. Discouraging other countries - even penalizing them - for doing business with Iran - fine. But creating a power vacuum or civil war - VERY bad!!! The people of Iran need to bring the old Mullahs' rule to an end - and we should be supportive of that. But even so, it is unlikely to occur without massive bloodshed. Believe me, the people absolutely hate their rulers - particularly the young!

I'm not convinced that the Iranian people hate their government as much as you think they do. Remember how the current government came to power:

1- Iran had a corrupt, authoritarian government under the Shahs.

2 - That government was overthrown and a Muslim government was voted into power. That government tried to nationalize Iranian oil reserves and invalidate terrible deals made by the previous government.

3 - The US responded by using the CIA to destabilize Iran, overthrow the democratically elected government, and put the corrupt, repressive Shahs back in charge.

4 - The Iranians responded with a revolution against the Shahs, which brought the current government into power.

Even if the people do hate the current regime as much as our propaganda would have us believe, I can't imagine that they trust us much either. After all, they have cause to question the sincerity of our desire to see them free from tyranny. There were strings attached last time, and "free to be an American proxy state" isn't quite the same as "free."

In any case, here are John Bolton's thoughts on Iran. I don't get the sense that he favors a cautious, measured approach using sanctions and international pressure.

The other thing that I think needs to be considered is that there's just no possible way to take down a totalitarian regime in the middle of an unstable region without increasing the amount if instability. Civil war, chaos, and massive bloodshed would be virtually guaranteed.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:51 pmWhy are the leaders of the Democrat Party trying to send foreign aid to foreignors but will not fund a wall to protect the American people?

This is what I'm talking about.

In your mind we desperately need a huge wall to protect the American people because Trump says it's true, Trump says he knows more than anybody, and Trump says he would never tell a lie. You're a big fan of loudmouthed blowhards using circular reasoning to support unsubstantiated claims so you believe it.

Foreign aid versus building a wall isn't an either/or question. We could do both. The question is whether or not we should.

Foreign aid is useful to us. It gives us international prestige and goodwill, which makes American citizens safer when they go abroad and gets us more cooperation from foreign governments when we need it. Foreign aid is what we use to show that we're the good guys. Beyond that, once a country is dependent on our aid we have them over a barrel and we can use the promise of increasing, decreasing, or suspending that aid to nudge them to behave the way we think they should. And we do that, because frankly Uncle Sam and Don Corleone have a lot in common. International relations is chess, Abe, not tic-tac-toe.

The Wall is a different matter. If Trump wants his wall he needs to stop BS-ing and give us a clear, rational explanation for why a wall is needed, and he needs to support it with data. He needs to provide a plan for how the Wall will be built and precisely how much it will cost to build it, staff it, and maintain it. In other words, he needs to act like a [love] grownup acts when he wants people to entrust him with a buttload of money. All Trump has done so far is make threats and emotional appeals. It's almost as if the Wall was a thoughtless, throw-away line that just caught fire. Now Trump knows that he needs it, but he still hasn't taken the time to prove that the rest of us need it, too.

For you to claim that paying foreign aid while declining to fund a new border wall is treasonous shows that your mind has the depth of a mud puddle on a sunny afternoon. There is plenty of evidence that giving foreign aid benefits our country and very little evidence that the Mexican border is a threat to our national security. One of Congress's duties - as spelled out in the Constitution you're always harping about but have clearly never read - is to act as a check on the President. One of the ways that Congress can fulfill that duty - also explicitly stated in the Constitution - is by declining to fund Presidential plans that are stupid or incomplete.

Oh, and it's the Democratic Party, Dunce Cap. You fixed the spelling on FIZA, so I live in hope. Maybe you're an adult after all.

Really? President Trump set up both the liberal media and the Democratic Party.He knew what they were going to do and say before they did it and fell right into his trap.Trump is simply exposing both the media and the Democrat Party with this.He is showing everybody that the Democratic Party puts foreignors first over the American people.After the media and Democrats tried to make the case for why the wall is stupid,it then dawned on the media that Trump can call for a National Emergency anytime he needs to and build the wall.Let that caravan paid for by George Soros come up to the border again and Trump can declare a national emergency.The wall will be built,Trump already has the funds to build the wall already.This was a brilliant political strategy from President Trump to set up the media and Democratic Party to show everybody how anti-American people they are.
Now the Democrats look bad to the American people. I'm not saying it is treason because they won't fund the wall,but it is treason that they put foreignors first over the American people. I hope you wake up!

1) You mostly said Democratic Party! Good work.

2) Set them up how, exactly?

3) Who's putting foreigners over the American people? In what way?

Be specific, Abe. I'm not in your head and I don't watch the YouTube pundits. If you want me to know it you have to say it.

Everyone has their hotbutton words - for Ed it has to be "Democrat Party." Probably because of Rush Limbaugh using it.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:17 pm 1) You mostly said Democratic Party! Good work.

2) Set them up how, exactly?

3) Who's putting foreigners over the American people? In what way?

Be specific, Abe. I'm not in your head and I don't watch the YouTube pundits. If you want me to know it you have to say it.

Re-read what you wrote and what I just wrote.Read it again.You even explained why sending foreign aid is a good thing,you are admitting the Democratic Paryty puts foreignors first over the American people.You somehow justify it though implying it is no big deal. Before this Government shutdown the Democrats who just took the House proposed a bill for billions and billions of dollars to foreign countries but would not fund just 5 billion for the wall Trump proposed.This is putting foreignors first over the American people.This is treason,as you cannot put foreignors first over the American people.Them Democrats swear to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and yet have abandoned their oath.

Trump already has the funds for the wall though,already and had it long ago in a military budget.But he knowing what the liberal media and Democratic Party would do and say set them up to expose them. While they have been arguing against the idea of the wall and making a case for why it won't work.It exposes both the media and Democratic Party. Meanwhile Trump already had the funds for the wall,already. So the media and Democratic Party have been putting on a show for Trump,when he already knows the wall will be built. He is stringing them along and they did not even realize it. When the media bashes ypu 24/7 it gets pretty predictable and Trump set them up.I hope this helps you understand.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:34 pm Everyone has their hotbutton words - for Ed it has to be "Democrat Party." Probably because of Rush Limbaugh using it.

"The Democrat Party" is a phrase that perfectly encapsulates most of what's wrong with politics in America today. It's stupid, petty, and childish, and it's a denial of objective reality. A few years ago I only ever heard "Democrat Party" from hyper-partisan, right-wing pundits like Limbaugh and from the inbred morons that think "Rush is right" is a motto to live by. Since Trump came into power it's gone mainstream. "Democrat Party" signals that the speaker regards Democrats as the enemy. The enemy is necessarily evil. One cannot compromise with the enemy, and anyone who does is suspect. The enemy must be opposed on all things, and that which the enemy values must be destroyed.

That mentality is a threat to my country. Politics isn't a [love] kids' cartoon. It's not pro wrestling. It's not an epic battle between good and evil. Politics is a bunch of people with different ideas trying to figure out how to use the resources they have available for the good of the nation. This zero sum, winner take all mentality that's being pushed by guys like Limbaugh. Gingrich, Hannity, and Trump is toxic to our democracy.

So yeah, it bugs me.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:37 pmRe-read what you wrote and what I just wrote.Read it again.You even explained why sending foreign aid is a good thing,you are admitting the Democratic Paryty puts foreignors first over the American people.You somehow justify it though implying it is no big deal.

I read it, Abe. What I said was that we give foreign aid for the same reason that Don Corleone did favors for people. It makes us look strong, and wise, and good, and it puts the recipients of that aid in our debt. Those things are good for America. Know who else gives foreign aid? Russian and China. They do it for the same reason that we do - it's good policy. The problem with Trump's plan to pull back and look inward is that it cedes our position as a global superpower to the Chinese. It's a position that Americans worked hard to acquire and maintain, and it's not something that we should just surrender in order to save a few bucks in the short term. Giving foreign aid is putting Americans first.

Also, foreign aid is hardly a Democratic Party policy. It's been standard operating procedure since WWII.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:37 pmBefore this Government shutdown the Democrats who just took the House proposed a bill for billions and billions of dollars to foreign countries but would not fund just 5 billion for the wall Trump proposed.

Abe, the shutdown happened before the Democrats took over the House. Oh, and they just tried to do a partial reopening of the government. Mitch McConnel said no. So yeah, totally the Democrats fault.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:37 pmThis is putting foreignors first over the American people.This is treason,as you cannot put foreignors first over the American people.Them Democrats swear to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and yet have abandoned their oath.

This is where you're confused.

1) As I've said, giving foreign aid provides tangible benefits to the United States. Yay, America first!

2) Trump has yet to provide any evidence that we need his wall. He just keeps saying "Trust me," but most of us don't.

3) Trump has yet to provide a clear plan for how his wall would be constructed or a detailed analysis of what it would cost. Steel? Concrete? A fence? Abe, if I told you that for a thousand dollars I'd build you a fence of some sort made of something with the details TBD at some point in the future would you write me a check? Trump is literally saying "Give me the money and we'll sort out the details later" and you're falling all over yourself in your haste to open your wallet.

4) Trump hasn't shown us that he's looked at any alternatives to his vague plan of building a wall somewhere out of something. A lot of the areas where we need walls already have walls. A lot of areas where we don't have walls are inhospitable desert. Do we need walls in the desert? After all, if we build a wall in the middle of nowhere we obviously have to include cameras, drones, and patrols around it. If we don't then people will just go over it, under it, or through it. So if we're definitely going to have cameras, drones, and patrols scouring areas of inhospitable desert is the additional cost of a wall really necessary?

Congress is responsible for allocating funds and for acting as a counterbalance to the executive branch. Therefore, by putting a check on Trump's vague notion of how to deal with something that he has yet to establish is actually a problem, Democrats in Congress are doing precisely what the Constitution says they're supposed to be doing. If Trump is able to provide solid evidence that the wall is needed and there are no viable alternatives that are less costly and if he's able to show a detailed plan of exactly when, where, and how the wall will be built, how long it will take, and how much it will cost (including maintenance) it then he should have no trouble convincing people to call their Congresspeople. If all he can manage is appeals to fear and emotion followed by vague promises and "Trust me" then I think he's got an uphill battle.

For Christ's sake, Abe, start thinking like a fiscally conservative Republican already.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:37 pmTrump already has the funds for the wall though,already and had it long ago in a military budget.But he knowing what the liberal media and Democratic Party would do and say set them up to expose them. While they have been arguing against the idea of the wall and making a case for why it won't work.It exposes both the media and Democratic Party.

Abe, please, for the love of God, think a bit! Trump knew all along that he could just use DoD discretionary funds for his wall, be he put on a show of frustrated ignorance to make the Democrats expose themselves? Expose themselves as what? The opposition party? Most of us already knew about that. Abe, this is an outright ridiculous explanation for Trump's behavior. "Stupid like a fox" just doesn't cut it if you have to say it repeatedly.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:37 pmMeanwhile Trump already had the funds for the wall,already. So the media and Democratic Party have been putting on a show for Trump,when he already knows the wall will be built. He is stringing them along and they did not even realize it. When the media bashes ypu 24/7 it gets pretty predictable and Trump set them up.I hope this helps you understand.

Here's the thing, though - we have rules in America. We also have expectations of how our leaders will behave. Declaring a national emergency over immigration - at a time when illegal immigration is down and there's no evidence of an emergency - and then using that declaration to strip the DoD or, as I more recently heard, the dedicated disaster relief funds, to pay for a project that has yet to be shown to be necessary is not the kind of behavior we expect. Nonsense like this got the GOP shellacked in the midterms and a lot of men in red ties are starting to fret about 2020.

Looks like Trump hoodwinked us all. US aren't moving out of Syria, they're just going to start annexing parts of it onto Israel. (i.e., Golan Heights)

DB, you don't like Trump, but I expect you'd approve? Oh, and Pompeo saying Trump may have been sent by God to save Jews from Iran, that he is "confident that the Lord is at work here." Perhaps Abe was right. I find it disgusting and dangerous when governments start using "God" or "the Lord" as a tool.

K: I find it disgusting and dangerous when governments start using "God" or "the Lord" as a tool.

I'd say that when God IS using someone as a tool - especially one not particularly following and trying to obey Him - they are likely not aware of it.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:09 pm Looks like Trump hoodwinked us all. US aren't moving out of Syria, they're just going to start annexing parts of it onto Israel. (i.e., Golan Heights)

DB, you don't like Trump, but I expect you'd approve? Oh, and Pompeo saying Trump may have been sent by God to save Jews from Iran, that he is "confident that the Lord is at work here." Perhaps Abe was right. I find it disgusting and dangerous when governments start using "God" or "the Lord" as a tool.

The troops are coming out of Syria though,actually Trump hoodwinked the Neocons who love endless foreign wars for profit and not protecting America.Trump allowed neo-con John Bolton to go out there and claim we are leaving troops in Syria to make the neo-cons and Deep State think so,to throw them off. Trump did the same thing with North Korea too.He let the media,neo-cons and Deep state think there is going to be war and yet behind the scenes he was negotiating peace.Trump fools the Deep state sometimes and even those who don't understand his strategy.

I'm really not sure how I feel about the Golan Heights. At first, it felt wrong. Then, it was kind of annexed many years ago in 1967, and I haven't explored the history about such, so have no position. It's really between Israel and Syria, but 50 years on...