Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote:And I will not fault McCain for attempting to provide assistance to Syrian rebels who are opposing the murderous and brutal regime of Assad who has used the chemical weapon sarin against his own people. We are even now witnessing the results of the murderous brutality of Assad and Putin as we see events unfolding in Aleppo today.

Brainwashed comes to mind here, never mind the double-standard of current US administration.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBqA7bbVe9M

McMuffin keeps bad company, can't be trusted.

In other words, McMuffin is just another neocon. Got it. Plenty of reason I won't have voted for him if he were to have actually run in the primary. So he knows he couldn't have, that the people would have rejected him, and now he's looking to sneak in through the back door.

Right. There's a trustworthy, stand up guy.

Typical neocon.

Jac3510 wrote:In other words, McMuffin is just another neocon. Got it. Plenty of reason I won't have voted for him if he were to have actually run in the primary. So he knows he couldn't have, that the people would have rejected him, and now he's looking to sneak in through the back door.

Right. There's a trustworthy, stand up guy.

Typical neocon.

Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Here's another reason not to vote for McMuffin.

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Gotta give credit where credit is due...
I believe you have made a factually accurate observation about Evan McMullin.

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Gotta give credit where credit is due...
I believe you have made a factually accurate observation about Evan McMullin.

Thanks, Jac pointed it out, but the word did allude me previously.

I'm guessing from your embracement of it that you see it as a good thing though.

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Gotta give credit where credit is due...
I believe you have made a factually accurate observation about Evan McMullin.

Thanks, Jac pointed it out, but the word did allude me previously.

I'm guessing from your embracement of it that you see it as a good thing though.

allude vs. elude

Your You're welcome.

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Gotta give credit where credit is due...
I believe you have made a factually accurate observation about Evan McMullin.

I'm guessing from your embracement of it that you see it as a good thing though.

I don't see it as either good or bad... just accurate...

And accurate is a good thing... considering some of the factually inaccurate nonsense that I have seen posted in this thread and others about McMullin and those who are choosing to vote for him.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Gotta give credit where credit is due...
I believe you have made a factually accurate observation about Evan McMullin.

Thanks, Jac pointed it out, but the word did allude me previously.

I'm guessing from your embracement of it that you see it as a good thing though.

allude vs. elude

Your You're welcome.

Thanks Rick, my words might be longer and yours shorter, but you know how to use them right.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Yes, neocon looks to be his stripe.

Gotta give credit where credit is due...
I believe you have made a factually accurate observation about Evan McMullin.

Thanks, Jac pointed it out, but the word did allude me previously.

I'm guessing from your embracement of it that you see it as a good thing though.

allude vs. elude

Your You're welcome.

Thanks Rick, my words might be longer and yours shorter, but you know how to use them right.

No. You do a fine job with proper grammar, usually.


I just like to correct other people, because it makes me feel better about my pathetic existence.

Evan McMullin fires back: 'What does the Republican Party stand for anymore?'
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

“It's interesting that these people, who consider themselves so-called conservatives, especially Sean Hannity, would so attack us," he said. "You have to ask yourself: At this point what do these men really stand for?”

“Why would they stand with Donald Trump if they're true conservatives as he attacks people based on their faith, their race, their gender?" he added. "And in fact, I think we have to ask ourselves, what does the Republican Party stand for anymore?”

DBowling wrote:Evan McMullin fires back: 'What does the Republican Party stand for anymore?'
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

“It's interesting that these people, who consider themselves so-called conservatives, especially Sean Hannity, would so attack us," he said. "You have to ask yourself: At this point what do these men really stand for?”

“Why would they stand with Donald Trump if they're true conservatives as he attacks people based on their faith, their race, their gender?" he added. "And in fact, I think we have to ask ourselves, what does the Republican Party stand for anymore?”

I don't know what hannity said to attack mcmullin. But I can make an educated guess. Mcmullin is attacked by conservatives because all his existence in this race does, is steal votes from Trump.

Mcmullin has no chance of winning. He is wasting people's money. That's a poor representative of conservatism.

RickD wrote: Mcmullin has no chance of winning. He is wasting people's money. That's a poor representative of conservatism.

Well not surprisingly I fundamentally disagree with your assertion here.
McMullin is as much better representative for Conservatism than Trump (who isn't even a Conservative)

There are times when people have to take a stand against dishonesty, corruption, bigotry, and immorality regardless of whether they are on the "winning side" or not.
And that is where the rubber meets the road for me this year.

I reject the false narrative that is a 'waste of time and money' to give the electorate a person who actually has morals and integrity to vote for.

Jesus does not call me to adopt the world's view of the "winning side".
If I was going to base my vote on the "winning side" criteria, I would vote for Hillary.

DBowling wrote:
I reject the false narrative that is a 'waste of time and money' to give the electorate a person who actually has morals and integrity to vote for.

I didn't say it's a waste of time. My point was that mcmullin running, and accepting campaign donations, is bilking people of their money, while getting them to believe he has a chance of winning. He has no chance. He knows it. You know it. And it's no different that Benny Hinn collecting money, and making false claims that he can heal people, when he knows he can't.

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote:
I reject the false narrative that is a 'waste of time and money' to give the electorate a person who actually has morals and integrity to vote for.

I didn't say it's a waste of time. My point was that mcmullin running, and accepting campaign donations, is bilking people of their money, while getting them to believe he has a chance of winning. He has no chance. He knows it. You know it. And it's no different that Benny Hinn collecting money, and making false claims that he can heal people, when he knows he can't.

That is a totally bogus comparison... and I think you know it.

McMullin admits that his election run is a long shot. He isn't making any false claims about his likelihood of winning.
The people voting for him are voting based on principle, not because of his likelihood of winning.

If people want to vote for immoral dishonest liars then they can vote for Clinton or Trump.
I'm glad to have a real Conservative candidate like McMullin to vote for, even if he (like Trump) is going to eventually lose to Clinton.