Page: 1 2
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
A little while back, I declared that I have come to view the Democrat party, at least collectively, as being genuinely evil. My case seems to be much easier to make in light of what just happened with the tweet about Hong Kong and recent revelations about Hillary Clinton.
I mean, seriously, NBA players saying that they support everything that China does! They didn’t write those lines. They meekly recited them. That kind of cowardly hypocrisy comes from a deeper place. That is real spiritual contempt for all that is decent. It reeks of putrefaction. It is vile. It is the smell that emanates from the bowels of hell.
Now that we know Hillary Clinton sought to protect Harvey Weinstein, it is clear that Democrats really are what I made them out to be: people who have accepted cynicism as a lifestyle. Hillary Clinton believes in less than nothing. She believes in amplifying her own name and position at the expense of any larger good.
When Joe Biden says that China is not a threat, he is expressing his own brand of cynicism. He knows better. He just doesn’t want to be caught flat-footed like the NBA players.
And Kamala Harris, as we all know, is a whore. She got to the top by screwing everyone, including the people she claims to represent.
The lefty media, as a whole, is rapidly being exposed as not one whit better than the hypocrites that apologized to China. They were right there in the boat with Harvey Weinstein and the China loving NBA all along. They threw Billy Bush under the bus for being in the company of Donald Trump when he bragged about being a ladies man while protecting Weinstein, Hillary and all the rest. They are still doing it. What they lack in conviction, they make up for in cowardice.
And finally, there is the squad. AOC has proven again and again that she is just a cynical little power monger, and there is no accounting for Little Miss Jihad. For a woman who always covers her hair with a scarf, ruining her marriage by sleeping around is impossible to account for.
Republicans are not like Democrats. They are different spiritually. That is probably the real reason why Christianity has aligned with Republicanism. It is a natural match. Republicans stand for something with a different kind of meaning. They are not perfect, but they are not the spawn of the serpent. They are not evil. They are not loathsome. They are not vile. they may smell, but it is the odor that emanates from the armpits and the buttocks and not something much further down.
|
10/10/2019, 3:41 am
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
spud100
Moderator
Registered: 12-2017
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
I agree with some things and am sketchy on other things, based on your position. I sort of agree with Chesterton regarding the dems, using his statement.
“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” ― G.K. Chesterton
So, it was in his time, and in ours, The worship of nature, government, power, these are the beliefs of the democrats. They are far more obedient to the boards of directors of global companies, than, at all, to the USA. Also, it is not that they are awful, it is solidly, that we do nothing against them.
|
10/10/2019, 9:57 am
|
Link to this post
PM spud100
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
When Jean Bodin commences his study of witchcraft, he is careful to set down a clear and precise definition:
quote: A "witch" is one who knowingly tries to accomplish something by diabolical means.
The emphasis here is on "knowingly"...the conscious act of siding with evil.
Hillary Clinton and the mangagers of the NBA are not people with different beliefs that happen to be wrong or unworkable. When Hillary Clinton chose to protect the known abuser of women, Harvey Weinstein, she was not guilty of a wrong belief. She saw that what she was doing was harmful and knowlingly followed that path. The NBA managers who discredited Daryl Morey's tweet supporting the Hong Kong protestors did it knowing that they were giving force to people who oppress and kill. The players who repeated their refrain also knew what they were doing.
These people did not lose their way in the philosophical debate. They saw evil, recognized evil and sided with evil. Moreover, they did not do it under duress. They did it for personal gain. Hillary's campaign could have survived without donations from Harvey Weinstein. The NBA can survive without the support of China.
This is a continuation of a pattern that emanates from supporting the Riots in Ferguson, the denial of aide in Benghazi and countless other such acts. These actions come from people who, not fearing for their personal safety or general welfare, will oversee death and destruction in return for small advantages.
This is evil.
|
10/10/2019, 11:14 am
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
spud100
Moderator
Registered: 12-2017
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
Let us use your definition, and broaden by living examples. I voted for GB 43, in 2004 because I awoke from the hideous cowardice the democrats, in 2001, standing near the ruins of the trade towers in 2001. The toxic smell was in the air then. I would never vote democrat again. Yet, 43 did not pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan, and he went after Saddam in a way, that I believe was a deliberate distraction. Why? Because I believe he and his family benefited financially, from the relationship with the House of Ibn Saud, and called it The American Interest. Yet:
https://nypost.com/2019/09/07/robert-mueller-helped-saudi-arabia-cover-up-its-role-in-9-11-attacks-suit/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/finding-discussion-and-narrative-regarding-certain-sensitive-narrative-matters-saudi-arabia-911-11-a6999091.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/finding-discussion-and-narrative-regarding-certain-sensitive-narrative-matters-saudi-arabia-911-11-a6999091.html
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/obama-saudi-arabia-trump-appeasement-coddle
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-911-saudi-arabia-families-sue-congress-bill-terror-attack-world-trade-center-new-york-a7239726.html
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/18/donald-trump-said-saudi-arabia-was-behind-911-now-hes-going-there-on-his-first-foreign-trip/
Know that I hold BOTH 43 & Obama for a coverup.
One point here, at least the Obama Mother !@#$, offed Bin Laden, because it made him, look, faux patriotic. I voted for Bush in 2004, not knowing this about 43! I voted for McCain in 08, for one reason in all this, American Survival, and I am betting you know what I mean?
We have been screwed Sir, we the people.
|
10/10/2019, 11:47 am
|
Link to this post
PM spud100
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
quote: Yet, 43 did not pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan, and he went after Saddam in a way, that I believe was a deliberate distraction. Why? Because I believe he and his family benefited financially, from the relationship with the House of Ibn Saud, and called it The American Interest.
Possibly, but it is still in the realm of conspiracy theory and there is no question that everyone, including Hillary Clinton, looked at the same intelligence and concluded that Hussein had NBC weapons. Moreover, it was clear that Hussein was a genocidal maniac already responsible for countless mass graves. Taking him out looked like a win win situation.
Leaders must constantly make difficult compromises. The Unted States had to side with the Soviets during WWII, even though they already knew the Soviets were as bad as the Nazis. At least the Soviets wanted a corner of the world we could live with. It is entirely possible that the situations with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden fell into the category of difficult compromises.
It is worth noting that George Bush dealt with the banking crisis on his watch and took the fall even though he could conceivably have put it off until later so that his successor would get the blame.
On the other hand, the situations with Weinstein and China are glaring examples of people and organizations siding with pure evil only for the purpose of modest personal advantage. The NBA is not going to win any wars against anyone or anything by siding with China. Hillary was not going to indirectly help women by protecting Harvey Weinstein. Those were instances of pure unadulterated evil.
Moreover, they were the continuation of a pattern. The people in Benghazi were abandoned, not because of the appearance helping them created, but because of the appearance helping them might create. Hillary and Obama sat back and watched people die as they got busy constructing a ridiculous lie. If it were not for MS media protection, they would look like war criminals. However, the MS media has as much blood on their hands as Obama and Hillary have. They deliberately sold out our own troops just to make George Bush look bad. Remember: wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? We still had troops in Iraq when they were saying that. It was an obvious continuation of their sin in Vietnam.
Democratists are evil.
|
10/10/2019, 2:59 pm
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
greendocnowciv
Registered: 11-2017
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
The "W" mistake was massive in playing God-King in Iraq, deciding how to order that incredibly messed-up country.
However he saw it, thats how I see it now. Back then, I was all for us being at war anywhere.
After all, while we have troops stationed maybe in a thousand places, we really don't rule any other country. But we do massively influence many. And the hint of our protection massively protects much.
I saw it as good training for us, and worth the cost to keep us as #1.
Only after so much was revealed about stuff after "O" got elected did I start to change my view of that. Now I'm glad we're pulling out of Syria, and wish we'd pull out of many other places.
The "W" corruption accusations are many, from many articles and books. And no more valid than charges of "O" corruption or Trump corruption without some real smoking gun that merits investigation.
The reason no investigation of the "intelligence lie" about Iraqi nukes was because we and the Euro intel folks all got the scoop from the same source. One or two Iraqi Generals who defected.
Saddam had kept his Generals in the dark as to anything they didn't absolutely need to know to do their specific job.
We found out after we had the whole country, that he had told all of his Generals - and leaked to many - that he had a program.
We found no program facilities or personnel, but we did find a complete plan, all the documents needed, to ramp up a nuke weapons project.
That's actually a lot. That means that setting one up could have been done fast. Yeah, it's a lot - but it's not a nuke weapon program.
And he might have had one at one point, really. And gotten rid of it, during the long, long, drawn out UN inspections of Iraq.
Plenty of truck convoys went to Syria before we invaded, while the UN inspectors were being delayed from getting to this place or that.
Then they'd get to a place to find rooms that were in incredible disarray, and have drawers half opened and desks and machinery missing.
All kinds of excuses given that nobody believed - but no proof of anything.
The General who defected, who Saddam spoofed, spoofed us. Saddam acted like he had them, alarming US and EU intel folks, and spoofing all his neighbors.
Handy, that second one, since one was Iran. A deadly enemy, and we had just destroyed a good bit of Saddams' army and air force kicking him out of Kuwait.
No, we didn't need to play "lets redesignn a country" in Iraq. We could have orked really hard to get more intrusive inspections in place. But that was only part of the reason for the war. One part might have been that Saddam was believed to have tried to assassinate the Daddy of "W."
Instead of going to war for that reason, I'd use the CIA to kill Saddam, and call it even.
So I call "W" incompetent, not corrupt, unless that smoking gun is found. As to the Saudis - their "petro-dollar" deal with us has been a great benefit to our economy, making the USD effectively the worlds currency for a lot of international trade.
Thats been rumored for the last decade to be breaking up, and I'm sure both Putin and Xi would like to - but it hasn't happened yet.
The Saudis offer us that benefit, and some real help otherwise.
Their main deficit is the billionaire Princes who spread Mosques and Wahhabiism in the US and all over the world.
Thats not Gov policy there, and its a point that President Trump may be able to make headway with, with the new Crown Prince.
That new guy has already slapped down many Wahhabi clerics in Saudi since he took power, which is why I think there's hope there.
I can fantasize about us doing it, but we're so far gone in PC ourselves that half or more of us think its "racist" to even consider the idea of restricting Mosques.
And Judges would fight it anyway, deciding from various benches that the Constitution is for the Mosque!
So that one big negative from the Saudis is gonna have to be fixed from over there, at least for the foreseeable future.
|
10/10/2019, 5:56 pm
|
Link to this post
PM greendocnowciv
Blog
|
Extropia DaSilva
Moderator
Registered: 12-2017
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” ― G.K. Chesterton<
Has this statement ever been put to an experimental test? Has anyone ever gone up to Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or some other known atheist and told them, oh I don’t know. “Hey did you know that if you stand on one leg and whistle the theme to the Great Escape while facing me, you will instantly gain to fly like superman?’, and then observed whether their reaction to this is actually consistent with somebody who is capable of believing anything?
|
10/11/2019, 8:57 am
|
Link to this post
PM Extropia DaSilva
Blog
|
Spikosauropod
Parliamentarian
Registered: 06-2007
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
quote: Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris
Perfect examples. Look at the ridiculous things they believe!
|
10/11/2019, 10:57 am
|
Link to this post
PM Spikosauropod
|
greendocnowciv
Registered: 11-2017
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Hasn’t recent news proven me right?
Extro,
You note two impressive atheists. Spike and others can offer debates on any one or two peoples' worth as examples.
But even if mooted, it's not the impressive lives of, let's say many atheists that prove or disprove Chesterton.
It's the French Terror. And the later Terror of Soviet, Yugoslav, Romanian, ChiCom, Vietnamese, Cuban and Cambodian Communism. And Venezuelan Socialism.
These examples were all atheistic belief systems. They're only some of the examples that give Chestertons' quote such life even now.
|
10/15/2019, 11:28 am
|
Link to this post
PM greendocnowciv
Blog
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2
You are not logged in ( login)
|