Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Although that would also apply to the Jews; except that Christians were also Jews (as was Jesus).

It is better to say they all worship the same God, but only Christians believe that Jesus was God too.

New Thought Christians say that Jesus was God too-- and that his message was that we are ALL God too. That's in the Bible too. It just depends on how you read it-- which depends on your own experience or belief about divinity.

I realize that my position on this is in the minority and know that most will not change.

http://rzim.org/global-blog/do-musli...p-the-same-god


… " Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Like all good questions, the answer is more complex than most want, but I am confident of my position: Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, but given the complexity of the matter we all ought to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.”…

Originally Posted by Taramarie

He will be the cause of a massive depression and most likely a total war. This will be on a global scale. But just vote for him and see. America has gone crazy. He is the push into the depths of the crisis and is a product of it. But as i said, go vote for him and see. As my mother said, America will get what it deserves. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us. He has made his money from fucking people over. He will continue.

So so many people on the left having the alert outs is hilarious and fueling trumps fire. You guys need to get your emotions together and come up with some real arguments if you want anyone to vote for drab, boring, corrupt Hillary over the fun and exciting trump

put yourself in the head of the average person (not people on this bored). All they here all day every day is Trump trump trump while useless politician after useless politician continue to be eviserated by him.

people don't trust our establishment at all, Bernie would likely be leading Clinton of the democrats didn't have the super delegate rules

this is a coup by vote on both parties. It seems obvious to me, yet many people don't see how simple it all really is

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Oh of course they know best. On another thread they also know best about what size penis we like too....even though the man talking about this is not only a male but gay too. So what the hell does he know what we like and do not like! I love that they know so much.... I mean, I am just a straight female. What the f do i know right?

I don't claim to know everything but I know enough about women to be dangerous. As I recall, it was my penis size or lack there of that was being questioned by a self perceived inferior white male who happened to be straight. I don't recall Kinser weighing in. My opinion, if the women continues coming back for more sex, continues talking about wanting more sex with you and she's obviously horny while being with you then ones penis size should be viewed as being adequate to them.

Originally Posted by radind

I realize that my position on this is in the minority and know that most will not change.

IIRC Historically, Islam was seen as a sort of Christian heresy by Christians in the Early Middle Ages. IMO if one claims that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same god then one must also believe that Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christians do not worship the same god, either.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Just so you know kinser....he is for one man one woman marriage. So say goodbye to that right when he comes to power and it is a when if the dems are foolish enough to side with Hillary. He will tear her apart.

trump is the most pro gay candidate we've ever had run, he has public ally been for same sex marriage since at least the 1990's. Unlike Clinton and Obama who were public ally against gay marriage until about 2011

also he has a higher than average number of women in executive positions than most companies

also he has never said anything racist

these claims won't work

Originally Posted by Debol1990

also he has never said anything racist

Yeah, calling Mexicans rapists and murderers is not racist at all.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yeah, calling Mexicans rapists and murderers is not racist at all.

Mexican isn't a race

but besides this he said illegals are murders and rapists after talking about that guy in San Francisco who was and illegal Mexican alien that murderd a woman

but let's please try again

also Hillary said she would be ashamed of her daughter married a black man, why doesn't the left crucify her for his?

oh yeah, because the ideology is morally bankrupt

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Mexican isn't a race

but besides this he said illegals are murders and rapists after talking about that guy in San Francisco who was and illegal Mexican alien that murderd a woman

but let's please try again

also Hillary said she would be ashamed of her daughter married a black man, why doesn't the left crucify her for his?

oh yeah, because the ideology is morally bankrupt

Their ideology is being used a tool and tools have no conscience.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't claim to know everything but I know enough about women to be dangerous. As I recall, it was my penis size or lack there of that was being questioned by a self perceived inferior white male who happened to be straight. I don't recall Kinser weighing in. My opinion, if the women continues coming back for more sex, continues talking about wanting more sex with you and she's obviously horny while being with you then ones penis size should be viewed as being adequate to them.

This actually stems from a conversation (or rather triggering) on a different thread I was having with Tara where she's convinced that Trump has made comments on the size of his junk. Of course any American who has been watching the news for the past year knows that the implied insult to Daddy's size down there comes from Little Marco Rubio, or as I call him sometimes Marcolito (an inferior Latino male apparently).

This then lead to a conversation on the preferences of women by and large as to size (down there) of males they find most attractive. Tara seems to be under the impression that her personal experiences trump (no pun intended) scientific data that has been collected that indicates that for females size does indeed matter.

That being said, I would imagine that if one's size is adequate to please the woman he is with then it is "big enough".

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Mexican isn't a race

but besides this he said illegals are murders and rapists after talking about that guy in San Francisco who was and illegal Mexican alien that murderd a woman

but let's please try again

also Hillary said she would be ashamed of her daughter married a black man, why doesn't the left crucify her for his?

oh yeah, because the ideology is morally bankrupt

Debol, I think you're missing a few things that are going on in Odin's fevered little brain.

1. Mexicans are indeed a race.

Okay we know that Mexicans are not a race, Latino is a race--a race to which many Mexicans belong but by no means all of them, but that's not the point. The narrative is "Trump hates brown people. full stop." As such a nationality must be conflated with a race, even if one claims that race itself is a social construct.

2. If Hillary does it it is okay because
A. She has a vagina
B. She is part of the lib-tard in-group
C. Racism is okay when We (the regressive left) do it.
D. All of the above.

3. Odin cannot fathom that there are many Latinos who are native born citizens of the country, and are legal immigrants that hate the illegals because they make their whole group look bad.

As for the regressive left being morally bankrupt, well they have been for quite some time. But it gets worse than that, they are intellectually bankrupt as well.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

This actually stems from a conversation (or rather triggering) on a different thread I was having with Tara where she's convinced that Trump has made comments on the size of his junk. Of course any American who has been watching the news for the past year knows that the implied insult to Daddy's size down there comes from Little Marco Rubio, or as I call him sometimes Marcolito (an inferior Latino male apparently).

This then lead to a conversation on the preferences of women by and large as to size (down there) of males they find most attractive. Tara seems to be under the impression that her personal experiences trump (no pun intended) scientific data that has been collected that indicates that for females size does indeed matter.

That being said, I would imagine that if one's size is adequate to please the woman he is with then it is "big enough".

Me bad. I wasn't aware that there was another conversation about size going on in another thread. I just got done breezing through it. I know size does matter to women. How many, I don't claim to know off hand and don't care about enough to look up. I've actually sat in on conversations about penis size with a group of women a few times. Size mattered to all of them but their personal preferences varied.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

2. If Hillary does it it is okay because

A. She has a vagina
B. She is part of the lib-tard in-group
C. Racism is okay when We (the regressive left) do it.
D. All of the above.

As for the regressive left being morally bankrupt, well they have been for quite some time. But it gets worse than that, they are intellectually bankrupt as well.

1. I really don't think gender matters with respect to whether I'll vote for Hillary.
2. I consider her being an insider to be a negative.
3. I don't think racism is OK, period.
4. In short, none of the above.

I guess this implies I am not 'regressive'? Your statements allegedly remain true because I'm not a true scotsman?

You seem to be indulging in a vile stereotype here. Over the years, many people have tried to explain to me how I think, because I am a liberal, all liberals think alike, then they list a bunch of absurd principles that all liberals allegedly cling to. This is not a form of argument I favor. In this case, as is usual with the vile stereotype style of argument, your projection of how the regressive left thinks reminds me not at all of the progressives I know in the real world.

By the way, how far back are you regressing? The Democrats around the time of the Civil War were the party of slavery. At various times they have been the party of the South, the rural party, the party of immigrants and corrupt city machine politics, and the party of the New Deal. These days they seem to be struggling to find a Newer Deal. Said hypothetical Newer Deal can't be an exact duplicate of the New Deal in detail, but the spirit of fighting an establishment government of, for and by the wealthy has to be near the core. In that, they have lost their way in recent decades. Sanders, Warren and others are trying to get that mojo back, with negligible effect to this point.

Now, one can usually find sideways twisted half truths in a vile stereotype. As an example, progressives do tend to favor equality. Those less interested in equality perceive such progressives as being authoritarian micromanagers interfering with how society ought to work. Sometimes, admittedly, I do see where political correctness can and has been taken too far. Still, one can better understand progressives as being interested in equality than as being dictatorial authoritarians. They are seeking entirely respectable goals not exercising authoritarian rigidity for the sake of authoritarian rigidity.

Are you trying to understand the opposition and improve society, or are you trying to demonize, obstruct and block meaningful discussion? The vile stereotype approach to political discussion leads more to the latter. Granted, you aren't naming names and attacking individual forum contributors. Still, you are painting your opposition with a broad and inaccurate brush.

Originally Posted by B Butler

1. I really don't think gender matters with respect to whether I'll vote for Hillary.
2. I consider her being an insider to be a negative.
3. I don't think racism is OK, period.
4. In short, none of the above.

I guess this implies I am not 'regressive'? Your statements allegedly remain true because I'm not a true scotsman?

You seem to be indulging in a vile stereotype here. Over the years, many people have tried to explain to me how I think, because I am a liberal, all liberals think alike, then they list a bunch of absurd principles that all liberals allegedly cling to. This is not a form of argument I favor. In this case, as is usual with the vile stereotype style of argument, your projection of how the regressive left thinks reminds me not at all of the progressives I know in the real world.

By the way, how far back are you regressing? The Democrats around the time of the Civil War were the party of slavery. At various times they have been the party of the South, the rural party, the party of immigrants and corrupt city machine politics, and the party of the New Deal. These days they seem to be struggling to find a Newer Deal. Said hypothetical Newer Deal can't be an exact duplicate of the New Deal in detail, but the spirit of fighting an establishment government of, for and by the wealthy has to be near the core. In that, they have lost their way in recent decades. Sanders, Warren and others are trying to get that mojo back, with negligible effect to this point.

Now, one can usually find sideways twisted half truths in a vile stereotype. As an example, progressives do tend to favor equality. Those less interested in equality perceive such progressives as being authoritarian micromanagers interfering with how society ought to work. Sometimes, admittedly, I do see where political correctness can and has been taken too far. Still, one can better understand progressives as being interested in equality than as being dictatorial authoritarians. They are seeking entirely respectable goals not exercising authoritarian rigidity for the sake of authoritarian rigidity.

Are you trying to understand the opposition and improve society, or are you trying to demonize, obstruct and block meaningful discussion? The vile stereotype approach to political discussion leads more to the latter. Granted, you aren't naming names and attacking individual forum contributors. Still, you are painting your opposition with a broad and inaccurate brush.

Good intentions can go awry. He's hitting you with hard truths that's coming from much closer to home. His view of progressives isn't much different than mine. He actually knows you guys and associates with you guys. I've gotten to know you guys here from a far.

Originally Posted by B Butler

1. I really don't think gender matters with respect to whether I'll vote for Hillary.

I would consider voting for anyone on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, age or physical challenges (if present) to be a poor basis on which to cast one's ballot. That being said, there are many articles coming out from intersectional feminists that one should vote for Hillary simply on the basis of her genitals.

I consider her being an insider to be a negative.

So do I. Which is why I voted for Sanders in my state's closed primary--I am still registered as a democrat but that may or may not change depending on if I'm right in that Trump is hitting the reset button on the GOP. If he does, and the GOP essentially becomes the cultural libertarian party (because I have severe problems with what the left has become recently--it is like they are not even living in the same century as I am or planet) I may switch my major party affiliation.

It should be noted I'm only registered with a major party because the state of Florida is a closed primary state, and without a party affiliation I cannot vote in primaries at all.

I don't think racism is OK, period.

Neither do I. Which is why I'm glad that Illegal Immigrant is not a race. Neither is Mexican.

I guess this implies I am not 'regressive'? Your statements allegedly remain true because I'm not a true scotsman?

I don't know...do you wish to impose a politically correct order where in discussion of race, economics, ability, sex, sexuality and other social issues is impossible? If not, then you may be on the left but you would not be a regressive. The Regressives are a particular type of cult that is on the left currently.

You seem to be indulging in a vile stereotype here.

Can a stereotype be vile if it is accurate? I've interacted with Odin enough to know exactly what he will likely post. It will be completely fact free emotionalist drivel and is almost always whatever the "progressive" talking point du jure is. Sometimes I question if he is even a real person with the way he seems to parrot whatever the regressive party line is without the slightest semblance of independent thought. If anyone is making a stereotype here, it is Odin when he makes himself one. I find it sad really.

Over the years, many people have tried to explain to me how I think, because I am a liberal, all liberals think alike, then they list a bunch of absurd principles that all liberals allegedly cling to. This is not a form of argument I favor.

Usually those who make such an argument simply don't know that not every liberal thinks exactly the same thing. Neither does every conservative, nor every communist. Anyone who would attempt to make such an argument clearly doesn't understand (most) people. In my years I've encountered many people, left, right and center and most of them had at least one view that differed from the accepted party line. As such, one who makes an argument like that is either often wrong, or doesn't know what they are talking about, or both. When they are not, then they are speaking of someone with whom they have interacted enough to form a pretty clear picture of their world view. I've done that with more than a few here.

In this case, as is usual with the vile stereotype style of argument, your projection of how the regressive left thinks reminds me not at all of the progressives I know in the real world.

You must not know very many so-called progressives then. The rest of your post clearly indicates that you do not understand the concept that the very progress these so-called progressives attempt to make has either already been achieved in the west and that they are casting about for any reason to insure their continued existence, or that in many cases following their prescriptions would actually lead to a reversal of the progress already made in our society.

Perhaps this video will explain exctly what I mean by Regressive Left...and remember that while the examples are largely European, the same phenominon is already current in the US.



It should also be noted that I've been involved in leftist politics since I was 13 years old. I know how the left works, how it works and so on and so forth.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Good intentions can go awry. He's hitting you with hard truths that's coming from much closer to home. His view of progressives isn't much different than mine. He actually knows you guys and associates with you guys. I've gotten to know you guys here from a far.

I actually associate with so-called progressives less and less these days. Their lines have become repugnant to my innate humanism.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

This actually stems from a conversation (or rather triggering) on a different thread I was having with Tara where she's convinced that Trump has made comments on the size of his junk. Of course any American who has been watching the news for the past year knows that the implied insult to Daddy's size down there comes from Little Marco Rubio, or as I call him sometimes Marcolito (an inferior Latino male apparently).

This then lead to a conversation on the preferences of women by and large as to size (down there) of males they find most attractive. Tara seems to be under the impression that her personal experiences trump (no pun intended) scientific data that has been collected that indicates that for females size does indeed matter.

That being said, I would imagine that if one's size is adequate to please the woman he is with then it is "big enough".

and clearly you do not read. I clearly stated i have researched this. But this is to be sure everyone else knows you are full of shit. So, no more bread for you. From now on I know you really are just a silly little troll who is no longer worth messaging. All the best in your recovery.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

So so many people on the left having the alert outs is hilarious and fueling trumps fire. You guys need to get your emotions together and come up with some real arguments if you want anyone to vote for drab, boring, corrupt Hillary over the fun and exciting trump

put yourself in the head of the average person (not people on this bored). All they here all day every day is Trump trump trump while useless politician after useless politician continue to be eviserated by him.

people don't trust our establishment at all, Bernie would likely be leading Clinton of the democrats didn't have the super delegate rules

this is a coup by vote on both parties. It seems obvious to me, yet many people don't see how simple it all really is

Actually here in NZ I vote for someone who often has actually been more on the side of the right...yet debates both sides. He is the head of the NZ First party and is an in-between left and right. So.....your move.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I don't know...do you wish to impose a politically correct order where in discussion of race, economics, ability, sex, sexuality and other social issues is impossible? If not, then you may be on the left but you would not be a regressive. The Regressives are a particular type of cult that is on the left currently.

I do not want to make such discussions impossible. However, often those who fight political correctness wish to practice racism or sexism, or are perceived of as wishing to do so. This might be the flip side vile stereotype... that those who dislike the cultural standards pushed by the political correctness movement just want to go back to the good old days of prejudice and harassment. It is possible to see both sides as having positive motivations, but it is also possible to see both sides as vile.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Can a stereotype be vile if it is accurate? I've interacted with Odin enough to know exactly what he will likely post. It will be completely fact free emotionalist drivel and is almost always whatever the "progressive" talking point du jure is. Sometimes I question if he is even a real person with the way he seems to parrot whatever the regressive party line is without the slightest semblance of independent thought. If anyone is making a stereotype here, it is Odin when he makes himself one. I find it sad really.

When you were in your rote by the book Communist mode, I felt much the same about your writings. Oh, you weren't emotionalist. Your tone was intellectual by-the-book. Still, you came across as locked into a tight world view, living by a playbook rather than showing capability of independent thought.

This may be a side effect of possessing strong values. Those who disagree seem to be pod people programmed into a political lockstep of some sort rather than being thinking living human beings. One might see vile stereotypes as a defense mechanism. Opposing value systems can be reduced to a simplistic twisted parody which is easily dismissed. Generally this simplistic parody has little to do with the reality of a living intelligent being, but taking what is being said by someone with opposing values might require one to think through one's own values. The human mind doesn't like to reexamine values. Thus, the vile stereotype of what 'they all think' is a useful way to avoid thinking.

Are you sure you are really listening to Odin, or are you fitting what he says into a stereotype?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Usually those who make such an argument simply don't know that not every liberal thinks exactly the same thing. Neither does every conservative, nor every communist. Anyone who would attempt to make such an argument clearly doesn't understand (most) people. In my years I've encountered many people, left, right and center and most of them had at least one view that differed from the accepted party line. As such, one who makes an argument like that is either often wrong, or doesn't know what they are talking about, or both. When they are not, then they are speaking of someone with whom they have interacted enough to form a pretty clear picture of their world view. I've done that with more than a few here.

Yes, you do have some ability to treat people as people. Thus, I was mildly surprised with your recent post.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You must not know very many so-called progressives then. The rest of your post clearly indicates that you do not understand the concept that the very progress these so-called progressives attempt to make has either already been achieved in the west and that they are casting about for any reason to insure their continued existence, or that in many cases following their prescriptions would actually lead to a reversal of the progress already made in our society.

Correct. I don't know of such people. Those I know of who care about political correctness care about equality and respect.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It should also be noted that I've been involved in leftist politics since I was 13 years old. I know how the left works, how it works and so on and so forth.

Well... no. You can see the world through the lens of your worldview as much as anyone. You will ignore history and facts which conflict with your perspective while embracing those that support your perspective as much as anyone. Mind you, this is very human. I'm not surprised or dismayed by it. This could be said of a lot of folks on this forum, perhaps everyone. A lot of folk fail to grow, fail to learn of reality, because they have too much invested in their current world view.

But I get very suspicious when I see 'all X think alike' arguments where the traits shared are repulsive.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

trump is the most pro gay candidate we've ever had run, he has public ally been for same sex marriage since at least the 1990's. Unlike Clinton and Obama who were public ally against gay marriage until about 2011

also he has a higher than average number of women in executive positions than most companies

also he has never said anything racist

these claims won't work

One simple search on this turns up every single link saying otherwise including quotes from the man himself. I do not believe you. I do not give a shit about how many women he has hired. I care about the quality of the work being done, not how many men or women are hired. That was not what i was talking about, neither was i discussing racism. I believe you are lumping me with other American democrats. Keep in mind I am not an American and there will be differences in how i vote given I do not vote in America, but in NZ. I do not vote left or right, and our left and right parties are different from yours. Keep that in mind when you are conversing with the kiwi.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't claim to know everything but I know enough about women to be dangerous. As I recall, it was my penis size or lack there of that was being questioned by a self perceived inferior white male who happened to be straight. I don't recall Kinser weighing in. My opinion, if the women continues coming back for more sex, continues talking about wanting more sex with you and she's obviously horny while being with you then ones penis size should be viewed as being adequate to them.

Very true. Interested why you mention you know enough about women to be "dangerous." How is it dangerous?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually I'm on the left economically. I still want to destroy capitalism.

My race and orientation have very little to do with my politics, my class is what matters and Hillary represents the working man no more than Mitt Romney. That said, you really should consider the dark side. Daddy is rich enough to provide cookies to his volunteer staff. Daddy has also hired more working people than anyone on the Dem or GOP side running, or even all of them combined. Though that is mostly because he's actually hired people.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/

Should prove an interesting read. I'd like to see where you think I stand in that list.

It's the height of cognitive dissonance to believe you are to the Left and want to destroy capitalism on the one hand and then praise a real estate developer for hiring the help.

I think you lack some self awareness.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Actually here in NZ I vote for someone who often has actually been more on the side of the right...yet debates both sides. He is the head of the NZ First party and is an in-between left and right. So.....your move.

Good for you ?

that has nothing to do with what I was saying, what I'm saying is the only way your side will beat trump is if you guys quit panicking and start bringing real arguments

"he is a racist, bigot mysoginist who is going to Nike the world and has Jews!!!!!!" Is not an argument and sounds hysterical

Originally Posted by Taramarie

One simple search on this turns up every single link saying otherwise including quotes from the man himself. I do not believe you. I do not give a shit about how many women he has hired. I care about the quality of the work being done, not how many men or women are hired. That was not what i was talking about, neither was i discussing racism. I believe you are lumping me with other American democrats. Keep in mind I am not an American and there will be differences in how i vote given I do not vote in America, but in NZ. I do not vote left or right, and our left and right parties are different from yours. Keep that in mind when you are conversing with the kiwi.

opposing nation wide imposed gay marriage =\= opposing gay marriage but i guess you probably don't understand our federal system

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The funny thing is that I don't think that Daddy would, even if he could, start a reign of terror that he would use a guillotine. That method of execution is alien to Americans.

That said...I find that Partisan Democrats are resorting to the Trump is Hitler meme, totally ignoring that it is not historically accurate. Video below. But also that it is a clear case of stage 3 of "Defeat by Daddy" (TM).

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...l-death-trump/

You're stuck fighting the last war.

The fact of the matter is about 1/3 of the GOP primary voters are Trump's base, and maybe another 1/3 are willing to hold their nose and vote for The Drump. Doing the math, they represent a total of 30% of the general electorate.

And what Drump does to rile these dummies up is exactly what pisses off the rest of the general electorate.

Those 5 steps in his t-bagger primary process are exactly the steps he'll take to his ruin in the general.

For example, his trashing Elizabeth Warren recently is nearly the best way to get Sanders voters enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. The best way, of course, will be when the Dem nomination process is over and Drump tears into Sanders; anyone thinking Drump it too smart for that, isn't paying attention.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's the height of cognitive dissonance to believe you are to the Left and want to destroy capitalism on the one hand and then praise a real estate developer for hiring the help.

I think you lack some self awareness.

Stalinists love an icebreaker. Like Hitler was. The icebreaker destroys a given capitalist / conventional polity. Into the subsequent destruction wades the Stalinist, who believes he'll raise a new utopia from the ashes.