Evidence for God from Science

If you haven't been keeping up with the Wikileaks (since there is largely a blackout in our media), here is a top 10 Wikileaks people should know gone through by Steven Crowder:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFD4nQARR4c

PS. Yes, I'm doing a bit of posts on such stuff (US-Russia relations, US politics), but it's what currently has my attention at the moment. So I just post the best of what I find good.

There's not a media blackout here, although I guess it might seem that way if you get your info from garbage sources. I'm aware of the leaks. There's not much there, frankly.

Meanwhile, Trump is trying to distract us from the time he got caught bragging about sexual assault (and the 11 women now accusing him of practicing what he preaches) by calling our political system "rigged" and undermining the legitimacy of our political process.

edwardmurphy wrote:There's not a media blackout here, although I guess it might seem that way if you get your info from garbage sources. I'm aware of the leaks. There's not much there, frankly.

Meanwhile, Trump is trying to distract us from the time he got caught bragging about sexual assault (and the 11 women now accusing him of practicing what he preaches) by calling our political system "rigged" and undermining the legitimacy of our political process.

We should have free speech in this country regardless if you think they are garbage sources,not only that but Hillary said the alt-media will shut down if she is elected,so we know free speech only applies to liberals to them.

If its not rigged then how come our government is bringing in the UN to monitor our election?Alex Jones pointed out months ago elections can be rigged and he was called out by Obama,Hillary,the media and yet about a month or two later we find out they are allowing the UN to monitor our election. I thought they said there is no problem and he is a wacko conspiracy theorist?Surely they can be rigged,but also we know the primary was rigged for Hillary and it was stolen away from Bernie who really won.

Not only that the media worked with the DNC and Hillary's campaign to take out Bernie,so it was rigged from the get-go. Wikileaks confirmed this and yet now you say it can't be rigged against Trump? It already is with the media working with Hillary's campaign to take out Trump,just like they did Bernie. Not only this but the RNC was trying to rig it against Trump but because Trump faught back,it didn't work.

abelcainsbrother wrote:We should have free speech in this country regardless if you think they are garbage sources

We do have free speech. Your garbage sources are claiming that the media isn't reporting something that they are, in fact, reporting on constantly and extensively. That's a lie, and anyone who gets their information from alt-right garbage sources thinks that the lie is true. K is perpetuating a blatant lie being spread by alt-right liars.

abelcainsbrother wrote:not only that but Hillary said the alt-media will shut down if she is elected,so we know free speech only applies to liberals to them.

Hey, look at that, you took another alt-right lie and used it as the basis of your claim that "liberals" get special privileges. The speech of alt-right liars is, and will continue to be, protected by the 1st Amendment. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar with an agenda. If (when?) Clinton becomes President the alt-right liars will lie more loudly than ever, and she'll let them because they have the right to do it.

And ACB, if you were paying any attention to reality you'd know that the only candidate talking about clamping down on free speech is your guy. His goal is to limit freedom of the press because he doesn't like it when they report unflattering facts about him.

abelcainsbrother wrote:If its not rigged then how come our government is bringing in the UN to monitor our election?Alex Jones pointed out months ago elections can be rigged and he was called out by Obama,Hillary,the media and yet about a month or two later we find out they are allowing the UN to monitor our election. I thought they said there is no problem and he is a wacko conspiracy theorist?Surely they can be rigged,

Our government isn't doing anything of the sort, and Alex Jones is full of [poop]. Here's an article explaining what's actually happening. Apparently a bunch of American civil rights groups requested international observers in response to Trump calling for his supporters to go and hang out at polling places in "certain neighborhoods." They interpreted that as Trump calling for his supporters to engage in some voter intimidation. I think they have a point. There will already be observers from the RNC at the polling places, so the addition of angry Trump fans looking for evidence of election fraud is unnecessary and dangerous.

abelcainsbrother wrote:but also we know the primary was rigged for Hillary and it was stolen away from Bernie who really won.

No, it wasn't. Bernie lost on the regular delegate count. Yes, the DNC clearly favored their establishment candidate over Bernie, who wasn't even a Democrat, but the fact remains that Clinton got more votes. She won, even without the super delegates. I'll grant you that the super delegate system absolutely exists to allow the party to nudge things toward their preferred candidate. That's a system that should be changed, but it's nothing new and it doesn't violate any laws. And frankly, if Bernie had won the regular delegates then the super delegates would have fallen in line behind him - they'd have had no choice. Doing otherwise would have destroyed their party.

I'd be willing to bet that A LOT of Republicans are wishing they had a super delegate system right now. Alas, they didn't, so now they have to sit back and watch Trump blow up their party for his own selfish reasons. And seriously, if you think that Trump gives a damn about you or your faith or your issues you're fooling yourself. He doesn't share any of you values and the only person he cares about is himself. You should have picked a better candidate.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Not only that the media worked with the DNC and Hillary's campaign to take out Bernie,so it was rigged from the get-go. Wikileaks confirmed this and yet now you say it can't be rigged against Trump? It already is with the media working with Hillary's campaign to take out Trump,just like they did Bernie. Not only this but the RNC was trying to rig it against Trump but because Trump faught back,it didn't work.

Show me the proof that the media was rigged against Sanders. I'll grant you that they didn't initially take him seriously, but once it became clear that the voters did they gve him a lot more coverage. And just so we're clear, if it comes from InfoWars it's going to need to be independently confirmed before I'll take it seriously. Alex Jones makes his living peddling lies and conspiracy theories to people too angry and gullible to think clearly.

edwardmurphy wrote:There's not a media blackout here, although I guess it might seem that way if you get your info from garbage sources. I'm aware of the leaks. There's not much there, frankly.

Meanwhile, Trump is trying to distract us from the time he got caught bragging about sexual assault (and the 11 women now accusing him of practicing what he preaches) by calling our political system "rigged" and undermining the legitimacy of our political process.

So we get out news from garbage sources

Sounds so Alinsky like...

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Therefore the only news sources that are not garbage are those that extol to left and all speak glowingly of the left and donate large amounts of money to the Democrats - they are the legitimate sources then

So the approx 80-85 percent of the pro democrat media reporting is the only true news source and that is considered free speech but if you report the truth than that speech must be regulated?

Ed advocates the death of free speech and is a true Alinsky-est
-
-
-

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.

B. W. wrote: So we get out news from garbage sources

I say that having researched literally dozens of claims that you've made based on your garbage sources, almost all of which have ended up being lies. So yes, it is my carefully considered, well-informed position that you personally, along with ACB and apparently K, get your news from garbage sources.

B. W. wrote:Sounds so Alinsky like...

I'd never read a thing from Alinsky until I joined this forum and you tried to throw him in my face. Obviously some of the things that I say will match up with Alinsky's suggestions, but that doesn't mean that he's my inspiration. You frequently make claims that are blatantly false and frankly ridiculous. So yes, I often ridicule your ridiculous notions. But I also fact check them, prove that you're wrong, and post the proof - a fact that you've never once acknowledged. Alas, constantly being wrong never puts a dent in your misplaced confidence.

By the way, am I really the only one who finds it hysterical that you see Alinksy's hand in every word spoken by someone with whom you disagree, but you somehow don't notice when Donald Trump checks off every single item on that list on a daily basis?

B. W. wrote:Therefore the only news sources that are not garbage are those that extol to left and all speak glowingly of the left and donate large amounts of money to the Democrats - they are the legitimate sources then

Nope. Not being garbage isn't based on political leaning, it's based on intellectual rigor and proper journalism. For example, I tend to disagree with the Wall Street Journal's editorial staff, and I hold the paper's owner in complete contempt, but I don't regard the paper as a garbage source because it's not.

B.W., I think that your sources are garbage because you constantly post articles from them and their claims almost always end up being false.

B. W. wrote:So the approx 80-85 percent of the pro democrat media reporting is the only true news source and that is considered free speech but if you report the truth than that speech must be regulated?

You quoted from a post in which I clearly said exactly the opposite of the words that you're putting in my mouth. This is why I don't take you seriously. Once you get going I cease to be a part of the argument and you just start talking to yourself.

B. W. wrote:Ed advocates the death of free speech and is a true Alinsky-est

B.W. makes false claims about me, despite the proof that his claims are false being in the post he quoted, and I'm the troll...

The question I have for Ed is, does he think that ALL of this avalanche of known facts of the HillBillies is made up? And if even key portions of them are true, would that not greatly concern him? ANYONE asserting that one side of the political aisle is all demonic while asserting nothing but positives and meritorious actions of the other - really, they have no credibility. Because these are human beings which all have various motives and agendas. And last time I checked, no humans - particularly when it comes to obtaining and wielding high offices - are immune from the seductions to gain and use it in nefarious ways. It's merely a matter of degrees, with many. And yet, some would appear FAR worse in the past actions, sensibilities or personal agenda.

I happen to have a most cynical view of humans and whats they are capable of. But I try hard to hold that cynicism at bay until I am given evidences that justify it. I want to be open to people with good motives and hearts - whatever their past. Sometimes those you can't stand surprise you with good ideas. Sometimes there is truth from unexpected people. It's not common, mind you, but sometimes this is the case. But I've realized that you have to watch your back from people of all kinds of self-declared political and other backgrounds. Evil is an equal-opportunity employer! So there is little credibility in those asserting one group so pure and the other to be only immersed in muck. Because both groups and individuals have their own baggage. I so often see people unwilling to criticize their favorites people or groups, whenever they do the very same things they would otherwise be so quick to criticize those that oppose their favorites.

Philip wrote:The question I have for Ed is, does he think that ALL of this avalanche of known facts of the HillBillies is made up?

Nope.

Slick Willie's various sex scandals are public record. The Juanita Broaddrick episode is troubling, but at the end of the day it's a case of he said, she said. If it could be proven that Bill Clinton committed rape and his wife helped cover it up then that would be a deal breaker for me, but nobody has been able to do that. In an environment where some on the right were, and continue to be, willing to say and do virtually anything to discredit the Clintons I think that skepticism is reasonable. He settled with Paula Jones, although that was never proven, either. Again, it's troubling, but again, I have yet to see any evidence that Hillary Clinton acted to cover it up. And the fact that the Jones case was initially dismissed is also a factor in my skepticism. My biggest issue with Bill Clinton is the Lewinsky affair, although I don't care as much about the sex as about the perjury and the lying. He should have just fessed up, said that it was a personal issue for him to work out with is wife and his pastor, and left it at that. Instead he dragged us all through the mud. That was selfish and it did damage to our ability to have a civil political dialogue.

Having said all that, none of it is Hillary Clinton's fault, any more that Melania Trump is responsible for Donald Trump bragging about his ability to commit sexual assault with impunity.

Regarding the more recent scandals, I don't buy many of them. Benghazi, for example, is mostly political hackery. Yes, an ambassador was killed - not for the first time, but it's still a big deal - but there were 9 hearings about it and none of them showed that Hillary Clinton was either personally negligent or responsible. The email scandal didn't impress me much, either. Apparently using a personal email was standard practice for lots of Secretaries of State. The Wikileaks releases fall under the same category. So far I haven't seen any bombshell revelations. Mostly what comes across is that Hillary Clinton is a cold, calculating, cautious politician. I knew that already. If something awful does come out then I'll reevaluate my position, although literally nothing will push me toward Donald Trump.

Philip wrote:ANYONE asserting that one side of the political aisle is all demonic while asserting nothing but positives and meritorious actions of the other - really, they have no credibility.

I agree. I've never claimed that Hillary Clinton was the ideal candidate, much less a perfect human being, but I think that she's intelligent, educated, and informed. I think that if she's elected she'll work her ass off for our country. I think that she's far too cozy with Wall Street and the big banks, and far too hawkish on foreign policy, but I think that she has the best interests of the nation in mind.

And frankly, apart from all of his idiotic sexual escapades, Bill Clinton was a very good president. When he left office we were prosperous and at peace, and the budget was actually balanced, and he accomplished that by working with Republicans in Congress. It's hard to criticize that. I think that he'd be an asset in a Hillary Clinton presidency.

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. 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.

Long story short, I think that Hillary Clinton is the best choice that we have available, and I think that, given the chance, she'd probably be a pretty good president.

Ed wrote:
Long story short, I think that Hillary Clinton is the best choice that we have available, and I think that, given the chance, she'd probably be a pretty good president.

I'd love to know how the liberal mind can actually look at everything, and still conclude this.

Are you completely blind to the facts?

edwardmurphy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:We should have free speech in this country regardless if you think they are garbage sources

We do have free speech. Your garbage sources are claiming that the media isn't reporting something that they are, in fact, reporting on constantly and extensively. That's a lie, and anyone who gets their information from alt-right garbage sources thinks that the lie is true. K is perpetuating a blatant lie being spread by alt-right liars.

abelcainsbrother wrote:not only that but Hillary said the alt-media will shut down if she is elected,so we know free speech only applies to liberals to them.

Hey, look at that, you took another alt-right lie and used it as the basis of your claim that "liberals" get special privileges. The speech of alt-right liars is, and will continue to be, protected by the 1st Amendment. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar with an agenda. If (when?) Clinton becomes President the alt-right liars will lie more loudly than ever, and she'll let them because they have the right to do it.

And ACB, if you were paying any attention to reality you'd know that the only candidate talking about clamping down on free speech is your guy. His goal is to limit freedom of the press because he doesn't like it when they report unflattering facts about him.

abelcainsbrother wrote:If its not rigged then how come our government is bringing in the UN to monitor our election?Alex Jones pointed out months ago elections can be rigged and he was called out by Obama,Hillary,the media and yet about a month or two later we find out they are allowing the UN to monitor our election. I thought they said there is no problem and he is a wacko conspiracy theorist?Surely they can be rigged,

Our government isn't doing anything of the sort, and Alex Jones is full of [poop]. Here's an article explaining what's actually happening. Apparently a bunch of American civil rights groups requested international observers in response to Trump calling for his supporters to go and hang out at polling places in "certain neighborhoods." They interpreted that as Trump calling for his supporters to engage in some voter intimidation. I think they have a point. There will already be observers from the RNC at the polling places, so the addition of angry Trump fans looking for evidence of election fraud is unnecessary and dangerous.

abelcainsbrother wrote:but also we know the primary was rigged for Hillary and it was stolen away from Bernie who really won.

No, it wasn't. Bernie lost on the regular delegate count. Yes, the DNC clearly favored their establishment candidate over Bernie, who wasn't even a Democrat, but the fact remains that Clinton got more votes. She won, even without the super delegates. I'll grant you that the super delegate system absolutely exists to allow the party to nudge things toward their preferred candidate. That's a system that should be changed, but it's nothing new and it doesn't violate any laws. And frankly, if Bernie had won the regular delegates then the super delegates would have fallen in line behind him - they'd have had no choice. Doing otherwise would have destroyed their party.

I'd be willing to bet that A LOT of Republicans are wishing they had a super delegate system right now. Alas, they didn't, so now they have to sit back and watch Trump blow up their party for his own selfish reasons. And seriously, if you think that Trump gives a damn about you or your faith or your issues you're fooling yourself. He doesn't share any of you values and the only person he cares about is himself. You should have picked a better candidate.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Not only that the media worked with the DNC and Hillary's campaign to take out Bernie,so it was rigged from the get-go. Wikileaks confirmed this and yet now you say it can't be rigged against Trump? It already is with the media working with Hillary's campaign to take out Trump,just like they did Bernie. Not only this but the RNC was trying to rig it against Trump but because Trump faught back,it didn't work.

Show me the proof that the media was rigged against Sanders. I'll grant you that they didn't initially take him seriously, but once it became clear that the voters did they gve him a lot more coverage. And just so we're clear, if it comes from InfoWars it's going to need to be independently confirmed before I'll take it seriously. Alex Jones makes his living peddling lies and conspiracy theories to people too angry and gullible to think clearly.

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 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. The fact that we know for a fact the mainstream news media,all of them are working to help Hillary.will report anything she tells them to and will ignore anything she tells them to means that we cannot trust anything they report.They helped Hillary take out Bernie and are now trying to help her take out Trump. You ignore the facts of the Wikileaks and this makes you a low info voter. You deny the system is rigged. This is exactly what Hillary wants you to be according to wikileaks - a dumbed down American so that she can get her agenda passed.


No voter fraud? The how come lawsuits have been filed then?
I don't care if you ignore Breitbart.I'm posting this for others who want to know the facts.
How to Commit Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... n-network/

We have on video proof it was stolen away from Bernie,plus wikileaks that prove the Hillary campaign, DNC and the news media were all working together to steal it away from Bernie,plus we saw during the primaries that Bernie won atleast 10 states by large margina yet the delegates still went to Hillary,so you have amnesia from only months ago.But not only this but every report you heard by the media about violence at Trump rallies were all lies because it was Hillary's campaign who paid and sent out the protestors to Trump rallies to stir up violence and shut down Trump rallies,they were dressed as Bernie supporters to make both Trump and Bernie look bad and it was all a set-up by Hillary and the media.You ignore the facts and believe the propaganda news media that is paid to help Hillary and they donate to her campaign.

Great news for you ACB,

Donald Trump believes in the Gap theory.

Omg Ed, I thought you were a lefty with a brain until that last post of yours. Seriously deluded on Hillary. She'll work her ass off for herself, and probably end up flushing the US down the toilet taking two-thirds of the world with it.

Kurieuo wrote:Omg Ed, I thought you were a lefty with a brain until that last post of yours. Seriously deluded on Hillary. She'll work her *** off for herself, and probably end up flushing the US down the toilet taking two-thirds of the world with it.

You can't say "lefty". That's offensive. He's a progressive liberal. And you can't say, "lefty with a brain". That's a contradiction.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Code: Select all

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 :

Code: Select all

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.