Search results

Tell me, @Arthur Brain or @User Name, what you would accept from the AZ audit as real or substantial evidence.

So there’s a large divide between beliefs here? Isn’t that the reason for a reasonable accounting via an audit that checks out these things that have raised suspicions in some? If not the courts calling for them, which might be correct, then the state legislatures? They are essentially calling...

Bottom line is that you have no standard for right vs wrong, so you are morally bankrupt. And thus you have neither a desire for the truth nor the ability to recognize it when it arrives. You should worry about your bottom line, and repent.

That’s why audits are necessary. If we knew exactly how much fraud, we’d probably know where, how, and by whom it was committed. How many prosecutors do you know that walk onto the scene of a crime knowing the full extent of the crime, and have already determined who will testify in the trial...

I think you misunderstand @User Name and others of his ilk. What they means is “something that convinces me when my mind is already made up”. By that definition, also used by those who agree with the platform of the dem party, no evidence you provide will suffice. I don’t disagree with him on...

Curiosity on my part, Chair, but do you agree with their request, or not?

It might not happen, especially with the presidential election. But it only has to show the fraud that Biden is if he stays in office, not to mention the rest of the party.

That’s why we’re doing the audits—court cases are for liberals to change the law against the will of the majority. Audits are for conservatives to show the will of the majority.

Did you read what the goofs from your side said in that article? It’s attack of the straw men! Next, did you read what you were responding to? Your goofs didn’t, so I don’t expect you did either. Read before you post, Goofus.

Or has Arthur Brain cells.

He answered your post. That means he paid attention to it.

@ffreeloader And I missed the first dirt reference, right there in your verse: Adam. “The name Adam is derived from the Hebrew adom meaning "red" or adamah (אֲדָמָה) meaning "earth". In the Old Testament, Adam was the name given to the first man that G-d created. That he was created from earth...

You didn’t read the whole passage: Genesis 3:19 (KJV) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. This was spoken to Adam, but what happens to women when they die? “Rib thou...

Or possibly a niece.

I guess so. You start with a small batch of silly putty and then stretch it out to a large baby of silly putty, and then that large baby stretches into a little boy of silly putty, and on into a man of silly putty, all with the same initial blob of silly putty.

It’s not? How many generations have had majorities or even pluralities of believers? If you’re mainly talking about the Jews, I can see that the 1st century Jewish nation as a whole was not that interested in their Messiah. But I don’t know of other generations of Jews that were, either...

What about babies? What are they made of?

This is the problem with the blindness caused by your theology. You can’t see the forest of the gospel for the trees of Calvinism.

This is a sad commentary, and with it my mission with this discussion is complete. It’s not always for the addressee that a post is written, but in this case, it was. Because I feel like you are intelligent, I was hoping to show you how you’ve gone wrong, in hopes of some sort of repentance...

In one sense your standards haven’t changed, and that’s where you require more in terms of evidence of those you disagree with than you’re willing to supply yourself, or to require of those you listen to. That’s a form of confirmation bias, and we all do it to some extent. But confirmation bias...