User Profile: SacredHonor1776


Member Since: January 25, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • June 20, 2016 at 9:30pm

    This article doesn’t mention it, but the individual is a British National.

  • June 20, 2016 at 9:28pm

    He’s actually a British national.

  • [1] June 19, 2016 at 7:04am

    Actually if If you read documents of the while chamberlains treaty appears ill conceived and naive, it may have actually given Britain enough time to prepare defenses. Germany was. Ore than ready with resources to take on Britian at the time, unfortunate series liberal government had gutted Britain’s defenses after the first world war. Chamberlain actually did start increasing defenses after the treaty believing Hitler couldn’t be trusted, before Churchill took over. But had they declared war on Germany then or Germany declared war at the time of the treaty, it actually had superior forced and weapons that it could have knocked Britain out much earlier in the game, and possibly had Russia’s help at that point..

  • June 19, 2016 at 6:49am

    Actually it was ransomed from the Kings of Austria and Germany. Leopold of Austria and Henry VI of Germany both Christian nations, but saw saw a way of taking advantage of the Crusades.

  • [3] June 13, 2016 at 6:03pm

    Private companies have a right to set their own policies.. They then can live with the consequences when things go to hell….

  • [3] June 10, 2016 at 2:55pm

    “To the left of what? Really.”


  • [1] June 9, 2016 at 5:16pm

    ” You mean like kool-aid? Sorry, I’d rather sip from the fountain of knowledge than drink ygr kool-aid.”

    Perhaps you passed up the Kool-Aid to drink the Flavor-Aid instead.

  • [3] June 6, 2016 at 3:00pm

    Actually,the phrase goes back to William Rogers of Rhode Island… It was quoted by many of the founders. That letter by Jefferson wasn’t the only time, and probably the ingest person to invoke it was Madison. Who used it when he vetoed Comgress attempt to “establish” episcopalian as the National Religion.

  • [10] June 5, 2016 at 4:49pm

    If Trump truly has thick skin, why should he or anyone else care what people say about him?

    If trump can mock someone with a disability, and doesn’t care… Then why should he care if someone mocks his skin ‘disabilities/abilities/deficiencies’?

  • [26] June 5, 2016 at 11:40am

    Also Known as: Ad Populum

    Description of Appeal to Popularity

    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

    1.Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
    2.Therefore X is true.

    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth” but all these claims turned out to be false.

    This sort of “reasoning” is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way t

  • June 4, 2016 at 9:44am

    Tinkertoi… LIbertarienism is ‘broad’… Unfortunately there is ‘Libertarian socialism” its more of a European branch of libertarian thought. “Left-libertarianism”, ‘social anarchism’. I think this is where Bill Maher leans on the ‘libertarian spectrum’ as well.

    This is one of the reasons why libertarians will never agree on anything, or necessarily be taken seriously by the more stringent ‘constitutionalists’. Certainly aren’t taken seriously by the ‘progressives’ who are much more ‘lock step’ in their ideals..

  • June 4, 2016 at 9:40am

    Petersen, Judge Napolitano, are a few examples of pro-life libertarians. They make a lot of sense. They are more ‘classical liberal’ than necessarily ‘libertarian’ (yes there is a difference between the terms), although they interact, overlap, and sometimes fit into each other.

    I just can’t take some like McAffee (who seems more anarchist) seriously, or anyone who doesn’t respect the rights of the unborn..

  • June 4, 2016 at 9:34am

    “For the record early Supreme Court justices disbelieve that the constitution applied to unborn child as well…”
    That first sentence should ‘did believe’ that the constitution did apply to unborn children as well. Somehow stupid ipad auto correction, turned it into ‘disbelieve’. But yat my point is that early US judges did extend rights to the unborn.
    My point is that activist judges have turned away from that, and pushed for ‘living document’ that now allows for taking the rights away from the unborn.
    Also my point isn’t so much that they are libertarians are not ‘anti-constitution’ but rather that they aren’t all necessarily ‘original intent’ constitutionalists. That many are willing to use the same ‘living document’ idea to support their own positions.

    Also there are quite a few libertarians are who are more ‘anarchist’, or ‘minarchist’, than ‘classical liberal’. Not all ‘classical liberals’ are necessarily ‘libertarian’. Of course difference between big L, Liberariens and little l, “libertariens’.

    Of course not all ‘libertarians’ believe the same thing. Some are more originalist than others.

  • June 4, 2016 at 9:23am

    BBMEayers this isn’t the place to really go into specifics… But yes, the bible is somewhat n the paradoxal on the issue. In some cases it says the punishment for ‘all sin’ is the same, so essentially the wages of sin is all equal. They all lead to ‘death’.

    Yes, it does talk about some sins being worse than others… The worst by far is to deny the holy spirit, to the point that one is no longer able to ‘ask forgiveness’ or ‘repent’. Unpardonable sin. The most likely way to end up in that state? Repeating a cherished sin over and over again, until the holy spirit no longer pushes guilt on the heart, and then ignores the person. The holy spirit will even harden someone’s heart, and make them turn from the holy spirit’s advice even more, if pushed too far.

    However, the point is generally moot about when it comes to homosexuality vs. adultery. Both of these are usually mentioned or implied under the same bible verses or gospels or teachings. Neither one is treated as being ‘worse’ than the other, but that both are equally bad.

    So in reality its best to avoid sin with “God’s help’, always be repentant, and not bring anyone else to sin as well (that makes a person a hypocrite).

    If you think “I can get away with certain kinds of sin, because my sin is less than other types of sin’. You have completely missed the point., and are also a hypocrite.

  • [2] June 2, 2016 at 7:59pm

    9Or do you not know that the unrighteousb will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,c 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

  • [1] June 2, 2016 at 7:56pm

    Also for your information but not all “divorces” we’re sin, Jesus and Paul both discuss exceptions. Leaving because one of thr members is unfaithful (abusive can fall under this as well) or committing sexual immorality. Two, according to Paul one has converted, and the other refuses to convert, then Paul said the Christian should leave the non-believer.
    Above all forgiveness is given to all sinners who repent of their sins’ and stop,practicing them.

  • [4] June 2, 2016 at 3:53pm

    For the record early Supreme Court justices disbelieve that the constitution applied to unborn child as well… It is only because of,activist judges whom believed in a living document rather than original intent that roe vs wade was passed in the first place. I’m not sure Libertariens believe in original intent, or necessarily even the constitution bunt would like something even less binding. Perhaps closer to the articles of Confederation.

    Responses (3) +
  • [10] June 2, 2016 at 3:49pm

    Ya people,should have the choice to commit post-birth abortion too if that is their “self-determined choice” and it becomes the law of the land. Dread Scott was the law of the land once too, as was slavery… Doesn’t make them right.

  • [7] June 2, 2016 at 3:19pm

    Ya allowing others to take comstitutional rights away from unborn child is going to turn away most constitionalists.

    Responses (6) +
  • [3] June 2, 2016 at 11:11am

    Yes according to the bible any sin, including adultery is equal. They used to even kill those who committed adultery. See the stoning of the woman, in which Jesus told everyone who was attempting to stone her “he who is without sin, cast the first stone ” after he wrote down their cherished sins in the sand. Afraid that their sins would be found out they departed. After saving the woman, he didn’t tell her to go and sim again, he told her to sin no more. Without repentance, he did not offer salvation. Only hypocrites believe they are saved without repentence.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love