Guy who admits that he doesn't agree with definitions wants to examine definitions
"The election was stolen"
"War on Christianity"
There are no wealthy righties controlling information except for one of the largest information social media sites....that is controlled by the literal richest man in the world.
Surprised Covid wasn't mentioned here....perfect opportunity
I never said I don't agree with definitions. I said I don't agree with liberal REDEFINITIONS of words using institutions to redefine them. The definition here comes from Britannica, and they are historically relatively neutral on most topics, though they do lean left on a few things. But particularly on history and subjects pertaining to it, they are generally good at giving a historical definition and description, as opposed to a modern definition based on current political and social climate.
Indeed, it was. You can be a denier all you like. It doesn't alter the theft.
Not exactly a war on Atheism or Paganism in America today, now is there? One particular worldview is being attacked by your side, being mocked in the media, and being ridiculed in schools and universities. And it ain't Islam, Buddhism, or Communism. The reason fascists and Marxists and Socialists alike hate Christianity is because of its particular view of the Source of Truth and Freedom. If freedom comes from God, any government who takes it away is illegitimate in its actions and role; that's the point of the statement in the Declaration. If freedom comes from government or society, what the government or society gives, it can take away; it was never really rightfully the individual's anyway. If Truth is defined by God, then the rules that govern morals and freedom are fixed and constant. If Truth is defined by government or society, the rules that govern morals and freedom are movable, inconstant, and can be changed to fit the mores of whoever controls the power. So, yes, there is an active cultural war on Biblical Christianity. You would have to be blind not to see it.
First, Musk is not a Righty. Unless he is right-handed. Not sure what hand he writes with. He is relatively liberal on his social views, holds some very weird views about humans needing to evolve into being one with machines, and is questionable on his fiscal views. He's more a globalist libertarian who happens to have very strong beliefs about free speech that happen to align with the conservative view. And that does not negate that your wealthy elites own the field except for Twitter... I mean X. (I still think that was a dumb name for the rebranding.)
Glad you recognize your side's tyranny there. It wasn't our side closing down churches while supporting BLM riots, shutting down prayer meetings while backing the burning down of cities by mobs.
You did say you disagree with definitions, no matter how you explain why you disagree with definitions. If you disagree with a current definition then you do. Period.
It was not.
No religion is taught in government. This isn't isolated to Christianity.
Musk is self professed Republican.
45 initiated closures due to COVID.
Yes, you disagree with the definition and you excuse yourself because of stupid shit.
It was not.
Humanism is not taught in schools.
He's raising money for the Republican candidate for President.
That happened in multiple states under multiple majority parties and was initiated under a Republican President.
Yes, I get that you disagree with the black lives matter movement.
So your modern libs are smarter than those older, wiser ones who grew up on a classical education and could read and speak Latin, Greek, French and often Hebrew by middle school. You really are arrogant, self-absorbed bastards.
Pointless to have this argument with a person as blind as you.
That is the central religion taught in schools. Look at the content of your science, history, and philosophy classes. Look at the books foisted on students in Literature courses. A kid can be told not to quote the Bible in a report or to openly pray to Jesus, but anti-theists are quoted from the teachers. Of course that is the religion of our schools and government.
Kinda making my point.
It happened under the state laws, not under federal mandates. You know, State rights trumping federal rights and all. And it was liberal governing bodies in the cities that imposed the mandates in conservative states. Generally, conservative governors backed off on any mandates during covid ASAP. And NO conservatives were fining and jailing pastors. THat was solely the act of liberals, including our current VP.
My point is not the BLM movement here. My point is the double standard your liberal leaders applied. Churches are not essential in their eyes, so shut 'em down. Bars and riots are essential. Leave 'em open. Masks are essential, except when they are not. Covid will avoid you in a restaurant with your mask down if you are eating. On and on. It was using a mild emergency, conflating it to create a crisis, and using that crisis to strip away freedom. All for the public good, of course.
Yes, I suck at technology. You got me.
Dictionaries have definitions. You want to live in the past and make everyone else agree with your worldview by not accepting actual definitions.
The election wasn't stolen.
There is no religion taught in public schools, nor should there be.
Nope.
The federal government gave guidance to the state governments who made decisions based on that.
The protests happened. If churchgoers would've protested, they likely would've overturned the government decisions
Yep.
The answer is STILL Donald Trump, even if you don't like it!
Comical!
yes you are...
Okay, let's see if your modern definitions hold water the way the older definitions do, shall we?
Of course they are teaching humanism in our schools, and crushing our any public statement that goes against their worldview. Don't believe me? If a kid is assigned to do a report on who they believe the most influential person in history, and they do the report on Jesus and His impact, that kid will be shut down. And try publicly praying or reading your Bible in school as a kid today. And listen to this account from a public school kid, then try and tell me they aren't pushing an agenda.
One person led that advice given to the states, and that so-called Dr, who was criminal in his mishandling the aids epidemic and has not practiced medicine in decades, should have been fired. He's a political hack posing as a medical expert who gets about everything he says wrong. But it was the LIBS in government, and the entrenched unelected ones, like "Dr." Fauci, who lied to the public and to the president.
Churchgoers DID protest. They did so by going to church in spite of unconstitutional mandates targeting them while leaving liberals to burn cities down and bars open as "essential" while houses of prayer, in the middle of national fear, were shut down. You know what happened? They were fined and jailed. Including by the current US VP.... So you are provably wrong.
Served in the military for a long long time. Had some commanders that were assholes, but damned fine leaders and tactical geniuses. I'd follow them to hell. Point is leadership isn't a popularity contest. Policy should be the foundation. But, free shit sways people with no skin to lose or knowledge of the issues. single issue voters with either nothing to lose and all to gain and emotional voters make up a lot more of the voter base now than practical minded voters who can separate that shit. Anyways, my view.
Aaaamen!!!! Hoorah, my friend. A fellow vet gets it. Thanks for that answer, and thank you, on behalf of all our friends and fellow warriors who paid it all for the price for freedom way too many who respond on here are far too comfortable to realize must be paid, for your service to and for a nation that I would venture to guess is one we both love, and one that is breaking our hearts. Sometimes it takes loosing everything we have, all those freedoms we value and treasure, gone to the squandering them on demands for "safety", comfort, and "equity" (for you snowflakes reading this, that is no more the same as equality than "social justice" is the same as justice). We've been pouring out the blood the tree of liberty demands, but I'm not sure that we haven't had too many others tearing at its roots.
Poorly educated pseudo-bollocks.
First, none of those you mentioned have any impact on gender or it's definition. There is not a "Turner's gender" or a "Jacobs gender" or a "Klinefelter's gender" or a "Down's gender". I each case the chromosomes have are clearly recognizable as male or a female. An abnormality attached to those chromosomes does not disprove the point.
The last ditch effort of those without reason is always unreasoned insult. The only resource left for those who can't refute an argument is to attack the person making it. You, and those like you have proven this time and again on these threads. So thank you for demonstrating to reasonable people the lack of depth and the shallow reason that exists on your side. It makes our side's point quite well.
You're an idiot in denial. People with those syndromes do not have xx or xy chromosomes yet they still have sex/gender.
That would explain why you called me a Marxist after I debunked your video about the Southern Strategy point by point, with historical facts.
Private Catholic university!
Nothing I just said has anything to do with "aryan ideals". It's science. And I am not calling the PEOPLE non-people or abnormalities. I am calling the chromosomal makeup abnormal. This is speaking medically and scientifically. That individual was created that way by God, specifically, specially, and uniquely, and has a divine purpose on earth and in eternity. I honor and respect that, and value that life. And that person was created male or female, as easily recognized by their chromosomes. Which was the clear point you are trying to distract from.
I identified your worldview as what it is, based on your many posts. One who follows or believes the tenants of socialism or communism is a Marxist. That isn't name-calling. That is accurate identification. Now if you would prefer Maoist....
I have never said anything to make any reasonable person believe that. And as I said before, even if I were a Marxist, that wouldn't have disproven any of my points.
Oh, it's name-calling. That you can't even own it when you do it speaks volumes, too.
Exactly my point. A Catholic football player makes non-controversial, according to a Christian, a Catholic, and a Conservative worldview, at a relatively Conservative private Catholic university, and he is torn apart for his use of his freedom of speech in speaking his own views and beliefs. By contrast, I know several Conservatives who go to hear intelligent, well presented, or just damn funny liberals, disagree with most of what is said, but engage actively and defend to the death the right of the liberal, or atheist or whatever, to speak their views. So who is at war with who again?
