Search results

That's because they're all crooks. They've made lying, cheating and stealing legal for themselves, and for their fellow criminals. The only time they really get in trouble is when they steal from each other.

These scams have nothing to do with left or right, black or white. Criminals don't care who they steal from or who is harmed by it. They lie and cheat and steal for their own gain. Nothing else.

"WE" are an individualized current manifestation of being. That individual manifestation of being begins and ends even though we struggle to avoid it ending, once it begins. But existence, itself, continues on and reforms itself into new and varied individualized expressions of being. Our...

A "self-described trained Marxist", ... a self-described "man of God", ... s self-described "freedom fighter", ... a thieving criminal is a thieving criminal, and most them are liars, too.

I predict it'll be the gays, next.

Everyone and everything that exists, expends considerable energy to continue existing. Therefor, they have concluded (to the degree that they are able) that it is better to exist then not to exist. Because existence requires effort. We do not cease to exist. We only cease to exist as a...

I think of salvation as an open door. Not one that I have passed through, but one that is still there, available to me, because I sincerely want to embody the divine spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity within me. And it's a door that closes whenever I become unwilling to embody...

I agree with this. Mostly because I can observe existence and see for myself that it is better to exist than not to exist. And therein I have recognized a fundamental, universal value. And from that fundamental universal value I can extrapolate a set of ethical imperatives that will define...

One small fire bomb in a political action headquarters in Madison ... that's it. Not exactly an attack on the Supreme Court justices, or mayhem in the streets. Certainly not the carnage depicted in the photo you chose to post.

I like that he tries to stick to reason and logic and practical observation to support his premise. The "believers" will believe, regardless. It's the skeptics that need to see/hear some support. And because what's being presented, here, is essentially a vision of the truth, that support is...

Hmmm, ... he makes some very astute observations in the particulars, for sure. But he also really slides off the rails when he tries to over-generalize. I don't trust his over-view. He goes a bit 'crack-pot' when he tries to over-generalize. But I do appreciate the precision and detail of his...

It means they are not "absolute", however. Because they depend on us to respect them, for them to have any effective validity.

Where did you see me "bellyaching"? I'm simply pointing out that these rights that some here proclaim to be 'absolute' are clearly NOT absolute. If they were, we would not be able to negate them. So it turns out that all this "absoluteness" is just a semantic opinion.

So you have chosen to believe. To claim something exists just because you have chosen to believe that it does, doesn't mean it exists. That we can apparently disregard anything we want to, for any reason we want to. So ... what about it? They are also useless to us when people can just ignore...

Why doesn't it mean that when that is clearly the result? I see a lot of people here claiming to know what is absolutely right, and yet these rights aren't absolute at all. Any fool can defy them whenever they please, and many do so. Even the remotest consideration of reality shows us that these...

How does it do this? Especially when so many of us can and will simply disregard it? Here is my point. People "X" say, "God says what's right (and what's a right)". People "Z" say, "I say what's right (and a right)". Both are deciding for this for themselves, even when one is attributing...

But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose? What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?

There are divine rights, civil rights, natural rights, and voluntary rights. "A right" is just a linguistic term for a ceding of choice. Divine rights are given by God. Civil rights are given by social agreement. Natural rights are determined by the laws of physics, and voluntary rights are...

It appears that there is a difference between a right given by God, and rights being respected by men. As an example, a right given by God might be freedom of thought, or of physical autonomy, which no man can usurp or deny. Whereas a right that men can disregard and subjugate, such as the...

Only to then be ignored and denied by each other? That does not seem a reasonable conclusion.