User Profile: imperative


Member Since: December 03, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [7] October 16, 2014 at 10:49am

    “Scott was stupid enough to fall for it.”

    Spot on. How could he not see that he would be made to look petty due to his protest?

    At the opening of the debate, he could have politely made a request to the moderator that he be afforded a fan like his opponent so that they could debate on a level playing field. If refused, he could brush it off with a joke “…I guess Crist knows he’ll be sweating tonight…”.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 16, 2014 at 9:14am

    First, the pope’s infallibility comments were tongue in cheek. Lighten up.

    Second, of course I’m not infallible, but I do have a good understanding of… you know… words. And I generally know when someone, whether catholic or protestant, is telling me that the bible says something that it clearly does not.

    It’s those who claim infallibility who feel that they can make things up that aren’t there, and those who believe in their infallibility mindlessly accept what they say.

  • [10] October 14, 2014 at 9:14pm

    This sentence just didn’t make sense to me at all…

    “However, the team also made a “groundbreaking” discovery by identifying 18 unknown species known to cause disease in humans,”

    …until I read the actual wording in the article…

    “Then the scientists searched the rats for new species of viruses. So far, they have identified 18 unknown species related to viruses already shown to cause diseases in humans. Two of the new species, were similar to the virus that causes hepatitis C.”

    Sure does help when we can fill in the missing information.

  • October 14, 2014 at 5:46pm

    @US Navy EOD Vet

    Good points. Yeah the “infallibility” of the pope is a funny thing. If whomever they pick becomes infallible, then why does it matter who they pick? The could choose Charlie Sheen, and it shouldn’t make a difference since he’d be infallible.

    And if the guy is infallible, they should have the current pope pick the next one, since he would make the perfect choice. Would seem to save a lot of effort. :-)

  • [-1] October 14, 2014 at 5:42pm


    Many of the divisions that threatened the early church were ones born of false doctrines that crept in almost immediately. Yes, the scripture you provided describes seemingly petty divisions, the nature of which we don’t entirely know. But elsewhere there were heresies that threatened the church. Those are worth dividing over for the sake of being united in truth.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 5:23pm


    Nope, not a game. It’s your two party system that has created the welfare state. Clinton did his part, then Bush did his, now Obama’s doing his, and Romney promised to continue what Obama started.

    Voting for the right candidate withholds support from the ones who want it. This is the only thing that will convince them to stop behaving like Democrats. As long as you support bad behavior, bad behavior will continue.

    You talk about strategy, but you have no idea what that means. Your position is that of one who can’t see more beyond the immediate circumstance. One who has no foresight. One is reactive instead of proactive. You’re the one playing games rather than thinking logically.

    If you think there’ll be no country left, then you live in fear and act accordingly. Cowards didn’t build this nation. Strong, principled men and women did.

  • October 14, 2014 at 3:45pm

    @dyslexicwombat: Right you are.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 3:32pm

    Again, I never said it was government. I don’t know who did it and what exactly happened. That’s the point. I’m not the one drawing conclusions.

    A skeptic would be wary of both sides until compelling evidence is provided one way or the other. The institution that claims the science backs their side has refused to release the data that backs their model of what happened to building 7. If relatively minor fires can take down a modern building, then irrespective of the WhoDoneIt question, they have an obligation to release it.

    The far-fetched part is that this rag-tag group of nobodies could pull it off. And then when they hide evidence and data on top of that, and ignore witness accounts, that just adds to the mystery.

    When a man’s wife dies, and it’s discovered that there’s a half-million dollar life insurance policy, he’s an immediate suspect, and they scrutinize every tiny detail. When someone stands to profit billions from a major catastrophy, no one bats an eye.

  • [2] October 14, 2014 at 3:22pm


    Doing the right thing is never a waste.

    Supporting a party merely because they may win, irrespective of the fact that they oppose your core principles all the while claiming to uphold them is not only a waste, it’s a disgrace.

    If you want to support the continuance of the problem, that’s up to you. But then I have a feeling you don’t view RINOs as being a problem.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 3:14pm


    “Imperative- what questions do you have?”

    All the details surrounding Building 7 alone ought to be enough to get a person to sit up and take notice.

    “Secondly, plenty of people pay attention to this sort of thing so they’d be deceiving quite a few.”

    I don’t quite understand that. Yes, plenty of people pay attention, and those are the ones who want answers.

    “Thirdly, again the perfection and consistency of which these events would need to be pulled off is totally mind boggling. Something I’ve never seen the government have.”

    Sorry, but that’s a dismissal. It’s a way to never have to give real consideration to evidence. And I don’t know if the government was involved, or if so, which one.

    Irrespective of who pulled off an event like 9/11, the perfection and consistency would have to be mind boggling. Are you saying it never happened? Or do you believe that a bunch of uneducated muslims would have greater success than those who are more sophisticated? The intricacy angle doesn’t work in favor of the official story.

    IMO, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “things would have to be perfect”, and then use that as an excuse to not look at all the things that were not perfect.

  • [2] October 14, 2014 at 2:44pm

    Republicans help Democrats maintain power.

    Libertarians wouldn’t enough votes to make a difference if only the Republicans weren’t nearly indistinguishable from Democrats.

    But let’s keep giving them our votes, and maybe someday they’ll change. Right?

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 2:37pm


    Interesting. I’ve yet to hear rational explation for plenty of questions. I’ve more often heard off hand dismissal that fails to acknowledge evidence.

    In any case, whether it’s governments or other entities, they’re plenty capable of pulling off elaborate schemes. They do get caught, but most people just ignore it unless it shows up on NBC. Let’s face it, if a person doesn’t want to believe something, they’ll find a way. I’m disinterested either way. My interest is only in logic and truth, irrespective of what it reveals.

  • [1] October 14, 2014 at 2:11pm


    Yet there are questions about what look like apparent failures; questions about evidence to the contrary that genuinely deserves attention. Yet the majority of people dismiss them and blithely laugh it off because they’ve already decided that it could never be.

    People say that folks in government could never keep a secret, yet somehow they have no trouble believing that the government holds mountains of classified information that never gets leaked.

  • [5] October 14, 2014 at 2:03pm

    In saying that, aren’t you also worring about what others believe?

    Jesus himself said that he came not to unite, but to divide. The apostles also taught us to be divisive over false doctrine. They never tell us to tolerate false doctrine or sin for the sake of unity, yet that’s a growing trend in today’s church, and those are the folks who are typically the ones preaching unity.

    Responses (7) +
  • [10] October 14, 2014 at 1:47pm

    A man will kill another for his iPhone, his sneakers or even just the money in his pocket. Never underestimate what one will do for wealth and power.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] October 13, 2014 at 9:39pm


    Who is shying away? Given a theistic world view, there’s nothing surprising about the existence of what we would consider to be miraculous.

  • [14] October 13, 2014 at 9:37pm


    Of course, age has nothing to do with it. There is both a rational and a mystical aspect to Theism. I understand that your mockery is meant to demean, however it fails to do so. I need only recall the brilliant minds who were and are Theists to dismiss your comment without concern.

    If you have something of substance to offer, I’d be glad to converse with you as I have with several times before with atheists on this site. Many of them have had a maturity such that they can maintain a respectful dialog.

    However, if you’re so insecure about your world view that you are afraid to enter into serious exchange of ideas, and instead must regress to the communication skills of a thirteen-year-old, I’m afraid I’ll have to treat you as such and patiently ignore you as one would a pestering child.

  • [10] October 13, 2014 at 4:15pm

    He’s talking about the immaculate conception.

    And hey, he’s right. When God decides to bless somene in an unusual and special way, do we think we’ll prevent Him? God elected Mary for this purpose, and she received a blessing greater than any mother prior or since.

  • October 13, 2014 at 9:56am

    It isn’t one or the other. In the hearts of some, there’s room for compassion and mercy.

    Yes, they’re lucky he didn’t kill anyone, and no one is saying that a person wouldn’t have the right to defend one’s self if necessary. However, killing him neither the only nor the best outcome that could be imagined in the hearts and minds of those who have received forgiveness for their own wrongs.

    If it needs to be done, so be it, but there are those who express dissatisfaction with anything short of his demise.

  • [2] October 13, 2014 at 9:47am


    I see what you’re saying, however I don’t think it’s fair to say that conservatives agree on that. I don’t believe any true conservative would be in favor of any sort of governmental subsidy of business.

    I do agree with the idea of assisting those in need, though I don’t believe government is the right means to do so. There’s too much corruption that takes place. It’s the same sort of corruption that we see when government gets involved in corporate endeavors.

    There’s an interesting book called Tyranny of Kindness that was written in the early 90′s by Theresa Funicello, a woman who received and then worked with or near government social programs and large charitable organizations. She was not a conservative by any stretch, yet she painted a very bleak portrait of the state of such programs. At the end of the book, she’s hopeful that Bill Clinton’s presidency would change things. I wonder what her final assessment was.

    In any case, my point was that there are those who take situations like this and use it to justify a governmental war on drugs, yet they wouldn’t allow the same reasoning to justify a governmental war on poverty.

123 To page: Go