Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[teddyaware]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

And so it goes.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

The thing that astonishes me is how those on the other side apparently fail to realize just how utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish the leaders on their side happen to be. I guess in that twisted world as long as the leaders support the “holy sacrament” of the mass slaughter of the innocent unborn they obtain absolution for all their other sinful desires, motivations and behaviors?

[BlueDreams]

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The thing that astonishes me is how those on the other side apparently fail to realize just how utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish the leaders on their side happen to be. I guess in that twisted world as long as the leaders support the “holy sacrament” of the mass slaughter of the innocent unborn they obtain absolution for all their other sinful desires, motivations and behaviors?

That's a strawman. 

For years and years now, I have seen discussions on how to better our democracy from left leaning sources...even before Trump. I'm personally a big believer in a lot of methods that would strengthen real representation, reduce political showmanship, reduce monetary and lobbying influences, increase ethical standards and enforcement. I'm happy when any corrupt politician meets the judicial system and pays for their mishandling of power. I strongly (even somewhat spiritually) believe that a strong and peaceful society needs a strong and ethical governing body. 

We had (have?) a system that needs work. I've never thought otherwise. But there's problematic and then theres worse. In Trump and his movement I see worse in terms of all the goals I mentioned above.

 

With luv.

BD  

Edited February 12, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The thing that astonishes me is how those on the other side apparently fail to realize just how utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish the leaders on their side happen to be. 

Just so I understand where you're coming from, you are against people being elected to higher office who are utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish, and that’s why you support Donald Trump. 

Do I have that correct?

[ttribe]

46 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The thing that astonishes me is how those on the other side apparently fail to realize just how utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish the leaders on their side happen to be. I guess in that twisted world as long as the leaders support the “holy sacrament” of the mass slaughter of the innocent unborn they obtain absolution for all their other sinful desires, motivations and behaviors?

Your "side" literally elected a 34x felon who was also adjudicated as being civilly responsible for sexual assault. Your comment is utterly laughable.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

And when is that?

You speak of "viability" by specifically tying it to "dependence on the mother's body."  What is it about that type of "dependence" that deprives the child of a right to live, whereas the baby's obvious post-partum "dependence" is not a justification for killing the child?

By way of example: A three-day old baby lacks autonomy or the ability to survive without its mother or some other assistance.  And yet we don't allow post-partum killings of babies.  Why is that?

Why is that "decent?" 

And isn't "draw{ing} the line" an acknowledgment that there will never be a complete consensus (something "that we all would agree on")?  That being the case, why is a complete consensus necessary?  And why are we willing to set aside the need for complete consensus when we choose "viability?"

Why is "viability" a more "decent" line than, say, conception?

If life = fetal viability, is the fetus not alive prior to viability?

What are your thoughts about Roe?  It tried "viability" and it failed pretty catastrophically.  So why are you returning to it?

Viability doesn't work as a legal standard.  Roe's trimester framework was legally and medically incoherent.  It defined viability (~24 weeks at the time) as the point at which the state’s interest in protecting fetal life outweighs a woman’s right to choose abortion.  However, viability depends on medical technology, not legal principles.  In 1973, viability was around 24 weeks.  Today, some babies survive at 21–22 weeks with modern neonatal care.  And as technology advances, viability will continue to shift, making it an unstable legal standard.

I think it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say that a baby's right to life only begins at an unsettled stage of gestation.  Even if we could formulate a specific date for "viability," as a matter of constitutional law, why does a pre-viable fetus have no right to life, but a viable fetus does?  

That's the moral dilemma that, in my view, triggers an exception to what should otherwise be a broad prohibition on abortion.  

Broadly, yes.  I am concerned about "catastrophic problems" becoming a slippery slope.  Is Down Syndrome a "catastrophic problem"?  Iceland sure seems to think so, as it effectively eliminated Down Syndrome in that country by aborting it out of existence.

Is the fetus being female a "catastrophic problem"?  Sex-based abortion has created a huge gender imbalance in China.

I don't understand the "obviously."  What is the prohibition in play here?  Is it that "viability" thing again?

What does "autonomous person" mean?

Autonomy means "the right or condition of self-government."  I have six children.  None of them would have survived childhood absent all sorts of non-autonomy.  They lacked the means to protect themselves, feed and clothe and house themselves, etc.  They needed all sorts of close and direct supervision by my wife and me.  The State imposed all sorts of specific requirements on me to provide and take care of my children.  They were not, in any sense, "autonomous."  As non-autonomous persons, why couldn't they have been killed?  

What is it about "autonomy" that ties it to an individuals right to live?

Could you elaborate?  A frequent refrain from the pro-abortion crowd is that a woman should not be saddled with a child for 18 years if she does not want to be a mom, ergo she should be free to kill the child in utero.  But if that obligation is removed, then would not this justification be lessened or removed as well?

I don't think the Church has articulated a specific position on personhood.  It's more a legal concept anyway.

I think it comes down to when we, as a civil society, assign personhood to the in utero baby.

You are a citizen.  You have the right to vote. You have the right to involve yourself in legislative and political processes.  

Abortion is going to be a legislative/political issue, regardless of how we treat it.  So I think all of us are in a "position" to "impose" our will on society.  That's what voting is all about.

And what if "the parents and their doctors" want to kill a born-alive baby?

We've already seen hints of this.  See, e.g., this article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

From the abstract:

From Wikipedia:

See also Wiki's article on Peter Singer:

The test balloons have been out and floating for years.

Thanks,

-Smac

Since you seem to strongly advocate against women being able to have access to abortion what are your views on social programs the support single mothers, disadvantaged and minority children that live in poor socioeconomic areas of the country and so on.  I my experience, most who hold a view of small government and those currently cheering on the unconstitutional dismantling of federal agencies and the freeze on previously approved spending on programs like I refer to don't really care about the well being of the child after birth. But boy are they exercised about the child from conception to birth. After that, meh....

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just so I understand where you're coming from, you are against people being elected to higher office who are utterly corrupt, devious, power hungry, carnal, sensual and devilish, and that’s why you support Donald Trump. 

Do I have that correct?

I think his point is that pots and kettles should stop calling each other black.

There is corruption on both sides, not just the side you oppose.

I just prefer the criminals that don't want to kill babies, cut off Juniors private parts or force girls to compete against boys in their own sports.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Your "side" literally elected a 34x felon who was also adjudicated as being civilly responsible for sexual assault. Your comment is utterly laughable.

Which we be overturned because NY prosecutors had to literally invent laws to convict him.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which we be overturned because NY prosecutors had to literally invent laws to convict him.

obviously false, Do you want to re-hear the Access Hollywood tape again? Why do you think married men, claiming to be christian should be allowed ot do what he bragged about? it's illegal to sexually assault someone, in case you weren't aware. How much good do you think his payoff to  a P**nstar could have done for the homeless? Among other things. Like it says in the BOM you can't hide your crimes from God. 

he says he's against fentanyl, funny though I have a hard time seeing all of the drug rehab centres Donald established to help people get off drugs-Maybe you can supply me a list of addresses?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Pink said:

How in the motherfluckin hell are there so many liberal morons on this board???!! 

 

For fukkks sake, liberalism is more of a religion than Mormonism is. Infact, liberalism is a motherfluckin cult!!! 

Most the people commenting on this thread are just upset that the liberals were outright rejected and their restarted azz views are finally viewed by most Americans as complete bullszitt. 

 

How fluckin stupid does a liberal need to be to think that a baby is a clump of cells until it comes out of the mother?! 

I'd say welcome to the board, but I think your stay might be short lived...

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

obviously false, Do you want to re-hear the Access Hollywood tape again?

No need.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Why do you think married men, claiming to be christian should be allowed ot do what he bragged about? it's illegal to sexually assault someone, in case you weren't aware.

I don't think any man should engage in such conduct- Christian, Atheist, married or single, but...

What exactly does that have to do with supposed campaign finance violations?

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

How much good do you think his payoff to  a P**nstar could have done for the homeless? Among other things.

So, if he donated to a homeless charity, it would be OK? I don't get your logic.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Like it says in the BOM you can't hide your crimes from God. 

True dat.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

he says he's against fentanyl, funny though I have a hard time seeing all of the drug rehab centres Donald established to help people get off drugs-Maybe you can supply me a list of addresses?

He is focused on stopping entry through our borders and freeing up religious organizations from burdensome regulations so they can more fully engage in helping people. How are Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, or Houston, etc.. doing with helping addicts? "Throw money at it!!!" is really just littering.

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which we be overturned because NY prosecutors had to literally invent laws to convict him.

I'm going to preface my comment by telling you that I am a forensic accountant and expert witness who has testified more than 70 times. I have investigated fraud and assisted in putting people behind bars for their crimes.

They did not "invent" a law to convict him. He was convicted under a long-standing law regarding fraudulently altering business records. I have looked at the evidence and his conviction under that law was unavoidable, in my opinion.

The controversy is whether NY's approach to elevating the violation from a misdemeanor to a felony was appropriate. This, I will acknowledge, was a novel upgrade of the charges and I don't know how that portion will turn out.

Nevertheless, your glib comment not only reveals your lack of understanding of the actual laws in play in this case, but also your utter lack of respect for the jury who actually saw all of the evidence and heard all of the testimony. It wasn't a "corrupt" judge who rendered the verdict. It was a jury who actually reviewed all of the evidence and deliberated on the matter.

Edited February 12, 2025 by ttribe

[Duncan]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't think any man should engage in such conduct- Christian, Atheist, married or single, but...

What exactly does that have to do with supposed campaign finance violations?

let's say you are correct, which you aren't, Prosecutors or defense attorney's don't "invent laws". Look at the ones he already violated such as what I posted

 

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So, if he donated to a homeless charity, it would be OK? I don't get your logic.

yes, Instead of sleeping with a pornstar and then paying to keep her quiet he should have spent his money elsewhere. Maybe he shouldn't have done it

 

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

He is focused on stopping entry through our borders and freeing up religious organizations from burdensome regulations so they can more fully engage in helping people. How are Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, or Houston, etc.. doing with helping addicts? "Throw money at it!!!" is really just littering.

This is delusion. He doesn't care about illegal immigration, he will lie to whoever he has to get elected because has a fragile ego that needs constant stroking. The Orange melon felon hasn't said one word about how is "freeing up" religious organizations to help people. You do realize that the Good Samaritan is about helping people regardless of who they are or where they live? Of the two people that refused to help someone, which one are you?

he spent like 15-20 million of your tax dollars to attend the Superbowl, talk about "littering"

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

So do I.  They could start with stopping the hatred of Jews and the supporting of terrorists.  Until and unless these things happen, the depravities, and the lack of liberty and self-governance, will persist.

Do you  think and of the Gazan's animosity towards Israel is justified?

[Kevin Christensen]

Quote

He's a billionaire, so he's not as beholden to special interests, 

Seriously?  The crucial flaw in the logic behind this theory is all of the evidence of every day.  Who elected Elon Musk?  How much did Musk spend on getting Trump elected?  What happened to 14 Inspectors General, whose job it was to root out corruption and waste?  Whose interests are served by illegally firing them?  Remember that during the campaign, Trump asked the  Oil companies for a billion dollars in exchange for favorable treatment.  Who was the first president not to divest themselves of business interests?  How much was spent by special and foreign interests on Trump businesses/hotels during his presidency?  And as far as special interests go, whose particular interests were addressed when Trump claimed without any evidence whatsoever, that the Congolese government had emptied their jails and insane asylums into the US as illegal aliens?   Whose special interests were served by blanket pardons of January 6 insurrectionists?  Was it the rule of law?  One of the most conspicuous personality traits of the current president along with pettiness and grievance, is his transactional nature and open corruption.  Think about his jacking up prices for Secret Service details forced to stay at his properties.  "What's in it for me?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm going to preface my comment by telling you that I am a forensic accountant and expert witness who has testified more than 70 times. I have investigated fraud and assisted in putting people behind bars for their crimes.

They did not "invent" a law to convict him. He was convicted under a long-standing law regarding fraudulently altering business records. I have looked at the evidence and his conviction under that law was unavoidable, in my opinion.

The controversy is whether NY's approach to elevating the violation from a misdemeanor to a felony was appropriate. This, I will acknowledge, was a novel upgrade of the charges and I don't know how that portion will turn out.

😂😂

At least you are acknowledging that I made br right.

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Nevertheless, your glib comment not only reveals your lack of understanding of the actual laws in play in this case,

I think you above comment acknowledged that I know enough.

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

but also your utter lack of respect for the jury who actually saw all of the evidence and heard all of the testimony. It wasn't a "corrupt" judge who rendered the verdict. It was a jury who actually reviewed all of the evidence and deliberated on the matter.

I said nothing of the jury but the prosecutors. Jurors rule according to what they are provided, which is why we have a robust appeals system where legal experts (judges) can rule on what actual law says.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

think most "atheists" have not gone through any sort of systematized research, reflection, thought processes, etc.  It's more often borne of, well, an unwillingness to commit to a religious belief, and/or a "I'm fed up and washing my hands of it all"-style approach, or just simple laziness about or indifference to the issue.

Maybe. Sort of like most people when it comes to religion. Most are adherents to one degree or another to the religion they have grown up with. Few ever think about or challenge the validity of their claims. 

I can’t speak for “atheists” as a whole, but in reflecting on some of the intellectuals I’ve recently spent time with in books, I’ve noticed an interesting pattern.

Many of the most rigorously thoughtful and intelligent people have deeply examined religion and emerged as atheists. Think of Steven Pinker, Yuval Noah Harari, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, George H. Smith, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris—each a formidable thinker who has critically engaged with these questions.

If we broaden the scope to those who reject religious belief but prefer labels like “none” or “agnostic,” the list becomes even more impressive: Bill Bryson, Michael Gazzaniga, Bart Ehrman, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, among others. These aren’t just random names; they’re some of the most insightful minds across disciplines, committed to intellectual honesty and evidence-based reasoning.

Many other authors I respect—such as Cal Newport, Charles Duhigg, Adam Grant, Michael Wysession, and Peter Zeihan—are more private about their religious beliefs but lean secular, emphasizing reason, science, and human progress over faith-based explanations. Meanwhile, writers like Brandon Sanderson, Michael Hyatt, J.R.R. Tolkien, and David Brooks are religious or spiritual, but their faith seems more rooted in personal meaning and tradition rather than a rigorous philosophical pursuit of the truth about the God hypothesis.

Of course, this isn’t a statistically significant sample. But the pattern is clear: those most dedicated to understanding reality through reason and evidence tend to land somewhere between atheism and agnosticism. Frankly, I can’t think of anyone taking the “God exists” position who could hold their ground in a debate with George H. Smith or any of the other atheist thinkers I mentioned.

To be clear, I respect someone like Michael Hyatt—if his religious beliefs provide him meaning, that’s fine. But there’s a difference between beliefs that offer personal comfort and beliefs shaped by relentless intellectual scrutiny. The former may be psychologically beneficial, but the latter is what matters when truth is the goal.

[Analytics]

56 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think his point is that pots and kettles should stop calling each other black.

There is corruption on both sides, not just the side you oppose.

I just prefer the criminals that don't want to kill babies, cut off Juniors private parts or force girls to compete against boys in their own sports.

I think it's important to be careful with how these issues are framed. Democratic leaders aren’t advocating for ‘killing babies’ or ‘cutting off kids' private parts.’ These are complex issues, but reducing them to sensationalist slogans makes real discussion impossible. And are they really the most important issues facing the country? The people pushing these narratives often have their own agenda—have you considered why they focus on these particular issues instead of things like economic inequality, corruption, or healthcare access? These topics are emotionally charged, which makes them useful distractions.

But while people argue over them, the wealthiest and most powerful keep consolidating their control without scrutiny. If these issues weren’t useful to them, why would they work so hard to keep them front and center? Do you really think your values and priorities are aligned with the billionaires who are now running the country?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conception.

Life begins at conception.  I don't think there's much dispute about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think most those who support abortion, even those who support it only slightly, would find this as extreme as you find the term "lump of cells."

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

By that definition, my daughter and her husband (both active in the church) are murderers because they did not use all the frozen embryos they had.

Okay.  Conception and implantation.

Great. So, if a woman takes the morning-after pill, which prevents implantation, then no moral wrongdoing has occurred—since, by your logic, personhood begins at implantation, not conception. Do you agree?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Seriously?  The crucial flaw in the logic behind this theory is all of the evidence of every day.  Who elected Elon Musk? 

Nobody.  Who hired the thousands of Deep State bureaucrats infesting Washington D.C.?

The American People elected Donald Trump, who has appointed Elon Musk to oversee DOGE.  He's the President.  He has both inherent and procedural and constitutional and legislatively-authorized authority to do so.

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

How much did Musk spend on getting Trump elected? 

I don't know.

How many billions flowed into the coffers of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris from extremely rich people?

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What happened to 14 Inspectors General, whose job it was to root out corruption and waste? 

They got fired.  By the President.

And how well have they been doing with that "root{ing} out corruption and waste" thing?  Mr. Musk has accomplished more in weeks to uncover corruption in government that these IGs have done in decades.

And did you object when Pres. Obama fired Gerald Walpin and other IGs?  Or is the POTUS exercising his executive power one of those "It's only bad when my ideological opponents do it" kind of things?

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Whose interests are served by illegally firing them? 

Well, the interests of entrenched and profoundly corrupt Deep State and NGO folks sure seemed to be in harmony with IGs not really doing their jobs well.

As for the "illegal" thing, we'll see, I suppose.  There is, I think, a pretty good argument for the proposition that the law which Mr. Trump supposedly violated is unconstitutional.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Some of the inspectors general did not respond well to Trump's decision to exercise his lawful authority and engage in a house-cleaning greatly resembling that undertaken by President Ronald Reagan following his inauguration in 1981. Former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Phyllis Fong, for instance, refused to leave and had to be escorted out of her office by security agents.

Fong and seven other former inspectors general, five of whom were nominated by former Presidents Joe Biden or Barack Obama, are now suing to undo Trump's house-cleaning and to snatch their jobs back.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and obtained by CNN, claims that Trump's termination of the former inspectors general for the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, State, and Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business Administration was "unlawful and unjustified."

The complaint specifically alleges that Trump failed to notify both houses of Congress 30 days before the removal and to provide a substantive, case-specific rationale for the terminations — both requirements added to the Inspector General Act in 2022, apparently in response to Trump's first-term IG firings.

In other words, Fong and her compatriots want to haunt the offices of their successors, "carry[ing] out their official duties," until Trump fires them again.

While the plaintiffs and their Democratic champions believe the firings were unlawful and "therefore a nullity," Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith recently noted the "removals are probably lawful."

"Trump probably acted lawfully, I think, because the notice requirement is probably unconstitutional," wrote Goldsmith.

"The Trump administration has a pretty strong argument that the notice provision is unconstitutional," continued Goldsmith. "The Court has recognized the president's 'unrestricted removal power' over executive branch officials, subject to only 'two exceptions.' The potentially relevant exception here comes from the shriveled and maybe-dead precedent of Morrison v. Olson (1988)."

Goldsmith suggested that should this issue make it to the Supreme Court, the high court "will not look kindly on Congress' requirement of a 'substantive rationale' and notice for firing IGs."

When asked last month about the terminations, President Donald Trump told reporters, "We'll put people in there that will be very good."

Washington D.C. is profoundly corrupt.  I have pretty much no sympathy for the IGs who got fired, as they were either incompetent in doing their jobs - as you put it - "to root out corruption and waste," or else some of them may even be complicit in the very corruption they were supposed to be rooting out.  

Either way, firing them is the lawful prerogative of the President.  As Mr. Obama aptly noted: "Elections have consequences."

Rather than focus on the personalities of the people uncovering and explaining governmental waste, corruptions, graft, theft, incompetence, etc., I think we should focus more on governmental waste, corruptions, graft, theft, incompetence, etc.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think it's important to be careful with how these issues are framed. Democratic leaders aren’t advocating for ‘killing babies’ or ‘cutting off kids' private parts.’ These are complex issues, but reducing them to sensationalist slogans makes real discussion impossible. And are they really the most important issues facing the country? The people pushing these narratives often have their own agenda—have you considered why they focus on these particular issues instead of things like economic inequality, corruption, or healthcare access? These topics are emotionally charged, which makes them useful distractions.

But while people argue over them, the wealthiest and most powerful keep consolidating their control without scrutiny. If these issues weren’t useful to them, why would they work so hard to keep them front and center? Do you really think your values and priorities are aligned with the billionaires who are now running the country?

And the other side promotes class warfare to distract from the war against morality.

See how that works?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Since you seem to strongly advocate against women being able to have access to abortion

I am broadly opposed to elective abortion, that is, the elective killing of in utero babies.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

what are your views on social programs the support single mothers, disadvantaged and minority children that live in poor socioeconomic areas of the country and so on. 

I think they are great in the abstract, need to be assessed on an individualized basis, and should be administered far further down the food chain, and should be carefully and scrupulously funded so as to avoid the widespread corruption, graft, theft, incompetence, etc. that is so frequently seen in NGOs and nonprofits.  Devolve fiscal oversight to a more local level.  Have volunteer and religious groups step up to reduce the number of people in NGOs/nonprofits (whose livelihoods can create perverse incentives).  Use technology and AI to our advantage.  Vigorously punish - as in financial ruin and prison time - people caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Pregnancy Resource Centers are a great idea.  And Sen. Warren tried to destroy them.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I my experience, most who hold a view of small government and those currently cheering on the unconstitutional dismantling of federal agencies

Well, no.  I think most (all) of Mr. Trump's purported errors in firings are either trivial and procedural (which means they can be easily rectified, with no "constitutional" issue in view), or else are based on laws which create legislative encroachment into the powers of the Executive Branch, which would make those laws unconstitutional.

This stuff will all get hashed out.  I am fully in favor of Mr. Trump following the law.  Various pronouncements about constitutional violations are, in the main, pretexts for trying to slow down the astonishing pace at which Mr. Trump is doing what he said he would do, and for which he the American electorate put him into office.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Pink said:

Your side believes chicks can have ****s!

I had been a Republican for most my adult life, fairly conservative. But after what I've seen of the Republicans, the bad ones, I'm going to stand up and give a proud salute to the Liberals because your presence gives me the creeps. And if you hate them, I love them, lol! And if the trans out there need to be accepted in order to save them from taking their own lives, I don't see a problem with supporting them. And those that get abortions, usually need to for the life of the mother, or the baby isn't able to survive once it's born. So abortions are needed for certain situations, it's not a boogey man word. It's a medical term. You cannot put it all in one basket. 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

The affirmative denial of the existence of God is a statement of faith.  Not knowledge.  Not empirical proof.

Some atheists affirmatively deny the existence of God.  When they do, the are expressing a matter of faith.

I think @Analyticshas rebutted your position here. So let me ask, do you strongly deny the existence of fairies?  Is that a statement of faith since you have no evidence that fairies do or do not exist.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think it's important to be careful with how these issues are framed. Democratic leaders aren’t advocating for ‘killing babies’ or ‘cutting off kids' private parts.’ These are complex issues, but reducing them to sensationalist slogans makes real discussion impossible. And are they really the most important issues facing the country? The people pushing these narratives often have their own agenda—have you considered why they focus on these particular issues instead of things like economic inequality, corruption, or healthcare access? These topics are emotionally charged, which makes them useful distractions.

But while people argue over them, the wealthiest and most powerful keep consolidating their control without scrutiny. If these issues weren’t useful to them, why would they work so hard to keep them front and center? Do you really think your values and priorities are aligned with the billionaires who are now running the country?

Nail on the head here!