The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

originally posted by: BO XIAN
What would it have been WITHOUT any of their efforts?

Seriously? You going to use Congressional Budget Office math to prove your point?

"There was a 25% savings on the budget as the newly requested $200,000,000 line item was reduced to $150,000,000."

"There would have been more people but the Elite's depopulation agenda only depopulated enough to get us to 7,100,000,000."

originally posted by: manna2
Matthew shephard was killed by an ex lover, who was also gay and was a competingmeth dealer, as was shephard. Its sad but true. a reply to: TheToastmanCometh

Now, now, don't let the truth get in the way of a perfectly good "I'm a victim rant." Trans, bis, glbtqsbbqwtf--persecute you, heck nobody can keep up with you!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE there have been NO such efforts on the part of the oligarchy?

If so, that boggles my mind.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE there have been NO such efforts on the part of the oligarchy?

If so, that boggles my mind.

Is 'oligarchy' some odious sounding word for 'group of elected representatives'?

I lost track of the bloke asking about the definition of "oligarchy"

Here's a common one:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

ol·i·gar·chy (l-gärk, l-)
n. pl. ol·i·gar·chies
1.
a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
b. Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons.

It has taken on the flavors, also of . . . ill-gotten or unfairly gotten or corruptly gotten !control!, leadership by a few.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE there have been NO such efforts on the part of the oligarchy?

If so, that boggles my mind.

There have been numerous historical instances of genocide but I do not believe in some overarching world depopulation agenda.

And the numbers support my viewpoint.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

imho, NO, the numbers do not necessarily support your assertion.

They could, just as logically, only support the reality that

their efforts have NOT YET ramped up

TO THE POINT THAT

significant to massive depopulation has resulted in markedly fewer numbers of people for the total population.

Do you honestly think that such an oligarchy would be that OBVIOUS about such a horrific issue . . . until they had Draconian !!!CONTROL!!! more in place?

They don't want folks storming their mansions and bunkers before they are totally ready for such.

I think they'll light off massively deadly WW III before it becomes very obvious and more than arguable.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Regardless of who Matthew Shepard was or why he was killed, the aftermath of his death is reason for LGBT people to be concerned.

Tensions were so high that Shepard's father wore a bulletproof vest under his suit when he spoke at his son's funeral service.

"The saddest part of this whole case was at Matthew's funeral, when they, these people, refused to let Matthew be buried with dignity," said Rerucha. "I never saw people that could hate so much."
abcnews.go.com...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: NavyDoc

As a Bible thumping die-hard Socialist, I suppose I'm a man without a country.

Nope, just a bundle of contradictions.

Such as?

Lol, I am not feeling persecuted, if thats what you meant. Actually what bugs me the most about the matthew shephard thingy is that kid was a meth dealer. I could care less if he was gay or straight or lfgbtwtf? I think meth is the most evil, satanic, sinister, dark, screwed up drug ever invented. It DESTROYS people and makes them not, people. I will shed no tear for any meth dealer ever ever ever. And his murderer, the other meth dealer? My only question would be why is he still alive? See, those are the kind of people that offend me.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
imho, NO, the numbers do not necessarily support your assertion.

They could, just as logically, only support the reality that

their efforts have NOT YET ramped up.

Huh? Since they have 'not yet ramped up' then they obviously support my point.

If this doom porn apocalypse wet dream takes place then you can say 'told you so'. Until then, not so much.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Given that the evil theocracy the globalists have been working on so long is sooooo evil . . .

and given the opportunity to be misperceiving a ton of evidence . . .

and given the potentially [I'd say certain] importance of such issues . . .

how much of the evidence have you investigated?

Let's say--just a wild guesstimate from what I've read--the more credible evidence is about 200-300 pages or so . . . how many such have you read?

My conviction is that the more important an issue is, the more I'd personally prefer to leave no stone unturned to insure I wasn't wrong about it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Regardless of who Matthew Shepard was or why he was killed, the aftermath of his death is reason for LGBT people to be concerned.

Tensions were so high that Shepard's father wore a bulletproof vest under his suit when he spoke at his son's funeral service.

"The saddest part of this whole case was at Matthew's funeral, when they, these people, refused to let Matthew be buried with dignity," said Rerucha. "I never saw people that could hate so much."
abcnews.go.com...

He said he wore a bullet proof vest because the "tensions were so high" and there was "hate." Were there any real credible threats or because there were some hay to be made by people with agendas?

Was there real hate or was the entire issue and drama created by advocates who canonized him for a cause that really had not much to do with the actual situation.

Perhaps the aftermath and media circus was directly the fault of the LGBT crowd who wanted to make a point and THEY are the ones who caused the anguish for the father?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Any of that massive amount of reading, investigating and stone-uncovering disprove that the world's population has been growing exponentially?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I get your point. I got it early on.

I think it's a moot point.

I seem unable to communicate that effectively with you.

Sorry.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
I think it's a moot point.

I seem unable to communicate that effectively with you.

There is nothing to communicate and the reason it is moot to you, and convenient to ignore the actual numbers, is that it does not play into the whole doom porn apocalypse fantasy.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: beezzer

What are YOU willing to cede in order to come about a compromise?

What do I need to further cede?
I own guns, and know how to use them.
I recycle, and do what I can to reduce the harm our society poses on the planet.
I don't care what religion people follow in their own homes as long as NO CHILDREN are harmed.
I have no problem with gays, birth control, or pot.
I pay my taxes.
I don't receive (or apply for) welfare.
I shop at thrift stores and avoid buying anything made in slave-labor countries.
I don't over-eat, and I have a clean background.

I make do. I live within my means. I raised two children into productive adults. I worked for 40 years of my life. I vote independent. I keep up with my responsibilities, and don't abuse animals or exploit anyone.

What I "cede" is between me and my husband and children. We make out okay.
But when someone tries to tell me I have to become an Evangelical Christian, NO. I will NOT cede my right to refuse the dogma of others. To them, or ISIS, or anyone else.

Here is what bothers me about your compromise. Every decision you call a concession you have made - like owning a gun - is a choice you freely made. And while I'm certainly glad that you had the liberty to be able to make those choices, no one I know of ever required them of you. There certainly was no "gun mandate" passed that required every citizen to purchase and own a gun, and gun ownership is often thought of as right wing.

So, you made a choice to buy and own guns. Bully for you, and now because you did something thought of as right wing of your own free will, you think you've made a compromise and get to demand that we give up what you want us to give up?

I don't think it works that way.

I notice you also list recycling which is often thought of a more leftist, enviro-weenie position. Well, guess what? I do that on my own. I also recycled my gray water from my aquariums when I kept them to water my patio garden. I'd call this a like trade off except that someone felt that recycling needed to no longer be voluntary and passed a law forcing me to recycle.

I notice that no one has yet forced you to own those guns, but still you want me to cede my freedom of religion for some reason.

I see no compromise here. Tell me some things that have as much bone deep value to you as my religion has to me, and I should get to choose which one you need to cede to me at my choosing just like you want me to cede my religious beliefs to you.

Notice I'm not asking you to become a Christian. I'm just asking you give up something that means as much to you as my faith means to me.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
I lost track of the bloke asking about the definition of "oligarchy"

Here's a common one:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

ol·i·gar·chy (l-gärk, l-)
n. pl. ol·i·gar·chies
1.
a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
b. Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons.

It has taken on the flavors, also of . . . ill-gotten or unfairly gotten or corruptly gotten !control!, leadership by a few.

It could be argued that any government which includes congress and the senate and a cabinet could be considered an oligarchy. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to criticize or why...

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: NavyDoc

As a Bible thumping die-hard Socialist, I suppose I'm a man without a country.

Nope, just a bundle of contradictions.

Such as?

I never saw Christ advocate for the government to force redistribution of wealth nor did he advocate a person taking from one person to give to another. He advocated individual giving and voluntary charity, both at odds with socialism and communism.