Trump to Iowa evangelicals: I’m not sure I’ve ever asked God for forgiveness
Interesting exchange and pretty telling. I actually understand what he was saying about his faith. I also understand his statement on McCain. Trump could have fed them the standard line, instead he spoke the truth. While this doesn't guarantee my vote, his candor is pretty refreshing in the political arena.
It will always be Squaw Peak to me.
Did they rename Camelback to Napolitano yet? Looter whore (with apologies for the insult to whores.)
That certainly explains why when blundering about McCain he has simply forged ahead not apologizing and emphasizing the terrible care the veterans are getting.
And he has a point -- lots of people came back with serious damage, missing limbs, and are waiting months for VA care.
despite voting last November, Nothing Has Happened
to Help The Troops. . Dammit!!! -- j
.
Leave the social issues at the door. America has far more critical problems to deal with.
For clarity on what I mean by social issues, perhaps cultural might be a better word. For example, who is offended by what... Social/cultural issue.
PS can someone please point out to me exactly where the "right" to not be offended is enshrined in the Constitution??
b) global warming, baseline budgeting, entitlement accounting gimmickry that would make Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff gasp, etc
Except for global warming these all property rights issues. 1st if you own yourself and that which you produce almost all federal spending evaporates. Entitlements are antithetical to property rights.
c) the media backlash that one gets when someone tells the facts as they are.
The media is a product of the idea that the airwaves are owned by the public. But even more fundamentally, most of the media backlash is based on the idea that you are a slave - property rights start with you owning yourself. This puls reason also kills global warming.
If I were Trump, I would simply say: "I don't hold to a religion but am dedicated to making certain that your principles and rights aren't violated." ...and leave it at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...
"A key concept, delivered from the eccentric Professor Hoffman, suggests, in Hoffman's words, the existence of a "politico-legal-media" complex, comparable to the "military industrial complex," of the Cold War era. Hoffman insists climate science began using more extreme, fear-inducing terms such as "crisis," "catastrophe," and, "disaster," shortly after the fall of The Berlin Wall, in order to maintain a level of fear in citizens, for the purpose of social control, since the specter of Soviet Communism was gone. This "state of fear" gives the book its title."
We have lived in a world where A does not equal A ever since. The reason for Ayn Rand's surge in popularity is precisely because the truth has not prevailed for such a long time, just like it didn't in Atlas Shrugged for many years. When truth became a casualty, justice was not far behind.
No pun intended.
"I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, it is THE book. It is the thing,"
"I'm a Protestant, I'm a Presbyterian. And you know I've had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion.”
But even that isn't enough for them. They're attacking him for not.publicly extolling immersing himself in mystic seances grovelling for forgiveness over nothing in particular.
Also, neither he nor government, nor anyone else, should be "dedicated to making certain that [religious] principles aren't violated."
Ayn Rand said: "Once you lose your principles you have lost everything."
If someone holds irrational principles they may very well conflict with legitimate law.
Please stop trying to obfuscate reality to suit what you think should be principles.
Too many people confuse the term "principles" with "rules". Very often "rules" are an invitation to violate "principles" and "individual rights" and THAT is what is fundamentally wrong with this country today.
Religious principles are other worldly duties, which are rules. They are incompatible with the right to one's own life, liberty, property and pursuit of one's own happiness, which you left out. They are incompatible with American individualism and cannot be used to defend it as their opposite. The right to one's own life on earth cannot be defended with faith and duties to the supernatural.
The word "NO" isn't violating anyone.
Christians who don't value money above their principles are simply chosing the latter over the former.
The problem with our legal system and especially with laws that are non-objective is that "hurt feelings" are now looked upon as some sort of assault.
Laws should be in place to prevent actual loss to a person or their property by an act of aggression. That ISN'T where that type of non-objective nonsense leads to.
Non-objective laws (laws based upon emotions instead of reason) lead to protecting the guilty and rewarding emotional immaturity by punishing the innocent when no crime has been committed.
The real reason for the failures of the Republican Party are a) that they have adopted many of their prior enemy's objectives; b) that they refuse to stand up for anything (hence the ascendance of Trump and Walker to the top of the polls because they actually do stand up for something and oppose their enemies); and c) because they routinely stamp out opposition and ridicule anyone who stands up for Constitutional principles. The Republican Party deserves its fate not because it stands up for principles espoused by the Christian Right, but because it stands up for ... nothing.
(I liked Dana Carvey's impersonation better. See below.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QHHG...
There is no such thing as a "more ethically reasonable workaround" to stem cell research or any other science conflicting with religion. The very idea of restricting science in accordance with religious dogma is morally repugnant. Bush's precedent setting selective denial of scientific funding of stem cell research on religious grounds is fundamentally abhorrent, but they have also constantly pushed for religious injunctions ranging from Creationism in schools to religious dogma like the Ten Commandments in courthouses to bans and obstructions on abortion.
They don't block much more because they don't have the power to. Everyone knows what they are after but we are told they are no danger because they haven't done been able to do it yet.
Induction of pluripotency into one's own stem cells a) is technically sound because it eliminates the quite significant issue of immune rejection, b) eliminates anyone's concerns regarding morality (as the cells are own's own cells), and c) eliminates any potential issues regarding rights and ownership (as the cells are one's own cells and hence, as I said earlier, a more ethically reasonable workaround). Hence, Bush's position on stem cell research is now quite frankly a moot point.
If you think I am exaggerating on the ownership of stem cells issue, consider the following possible dispute between embryonic stem cell therapy patients, the mother, and the clinic providing the procedure. The "mother", after signing away privileges to the aborted embryo, later could still go after the clinic nonetheless to ensure that stem cells from that embryo would not be further used.
Would you have the same opinion if the stem cell research clinic later used the embryonic stem cells for cloning purposes?
Regarding your last paragraph saying that they don't have the power to do so, you are correct. They will never again have that power either.
Other than that principle of government, a president trying to represent the entire population is an impossibility. It becomes a futile attempt to "balance" pressure group warfare, which cannot be done but is the contradiction we have now in an ideological battle behind welfare statist unprincipled pragmatism and the egalitarian nihilist ideology of the left.
Lack of religious absolutes is not the problem. "Moral relativism" is not an "issue with the Constitution". The religious "framework" is deadly to American individualism and a false alternative to ends justifies the means Pragmatism..
As for moral relativism, I again disagree with you. Eg. Homosexual marriage. Okay, any two people have a right to be joined in union. But now plural marriages want acceptance? Still okay? But now, transgendered are flaring up for acceptance Still okay?Now (seriously) people want age of sexual consent lowered to 13. Still Okay? When you accept anything, when there is only shades of gray, you have nothing.
Moral relativism waters down the structure of a society. Structure is defined by laws. Laws are defined by people. People define their morality through their beliefs.
Yeah, moral relativism doesn't mean anything.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p...
Brass ones!!
Now if he were saying about welfare recipients the kinds of things he says about Mexicans, I'd be in his camp.
He gave out Lindsay Graham's cell phone number!! LOLOLOL..
BUT....Donald took whatever it was he was left by his father that and turned it into BILLIONS.
Ayn Rand said it:"Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver."
As far as I am concerned I would like to see him driving this country based on the past 40 years of his business track record.
But the man himself irritates me beyond words. I have watched him on a screen for probably less than 2 minutes total, and that is about all I can take. I may vote for him; I don't want to see or hear him.
Jan
.
More of the media telling you what to think. The target audience of this kind of stuff covets the neighbor's wife. Don't matter...
I remember those images of Clinton coming down the church steps one Sunday morning right after getting his knob slobbed by an intern about the age of his daughter.
Should Trump rise to the top of huge heap, I may vote for him.
I have been favoring Scott Walker but lately I've become very impressed with listening to Carly Fiornia speak. She's extremely sharp and intelligent.
She recently told Megyn Kelly that she's love to debate Hillary. I'd love to see that too.
At least the lamestream media couldn't use a discrediting man bullying a woman slant.
Trump is the kinda guy you don't throw mud at if you don't want mud thrown back.
would benefit with a Fiorina presidency. Maybe
down the road her time will come.
He could have acknowledged McCain's war record with respect, but then lambasted his legacy as a sell-out politician all without backing down. The truth works.
The same with the religious thing. The truth works.
I don't know, maybe he knows that and his main goal is to just stir the pot and help the vetting of the big list of candidates. Especially towards weeding out the lily livered elites. Like AJ says he is not stupid and maybe that is the game plan.
And now I see he is threatening a third party is not out of the question. High, high stakes there. The Bull Moose/Perot thing.
I need to learn more about his track record. You say he is a statist and a crony and will trample others in some fashion. If anyone can recognize a statist, it would be you. I must learn more.
Based on the coverage of his statements on healthcare, I would be terrified of healthcare fascism taking hold. Definitely the statist in there. Not that we have anything different at this point, but he is clearly not the one to help solve this mess. It appears Mr business man has not a clue to what free market means.
And so, everyone at one point or another is a "great guy". Why? Cause they can laugh while beveraging? Apparently it has nothing to do with ones values or qualifications.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
The earlier support for universal healthcare and raising taxes are the most troubling to me. I have not heard any acceptable explanation or convincing arguments from him about a change of position on these matters. As for the other points you mentioned I heard a comment from him the other day that may shed some light... He claimed that he had to play the game to get things done and that was one of the reasons he wanted to get into the race...(paraphrase). He apparently greased the wheels with whoever had the power at the time. The implication I gleaned was that he recognized the cronyism and knew it for the problem it was, apparently felt compelled to play along at the time, but thought he would be different... I want more elaboration from him on this issue. If he thinks he would be above such things because of his wealth... I don't know what to make of his rhetoric... if it is what he truly believes now... what is in his mind??? Still his forcing of some of the issues is refreshing and illuminating in regard to the responses of his competitors. We shall see... I still think he will crash and burn ultimately, but I will enjoy the show.
Respectfully,
O.A.
"I have a ton of money. You can't buy me. I'll say whatever the hell I want and you can kiss my ass if you don't like it."
Aide from being crass this reminds me of the T. Roosevelt and short lived the Bull Moose Party. The Republicans bent over backwards to ride the teddy-train into power.
It isn't in reference to canibalism, it is in reference to Passover and the flight of the Jews from Egypt.
You might even say it is about fleeing things that are holding you in bondage and there is a "rescuer" who is paving the way for your escape.