What part of him being a narcissistic sociopath is it that you have trouble understanding?

So when he was saying 35 years ago that we are being ripped off by foreing countries. That was a master plan to lie about it for 40 years.

You really are stupid. But WE ALL KNEW that when you said Bernie was a conservative and faggot pretend marriage was conservative.

You're a liberal on many issues and far to the left of Trump. Not a classical liberal.

Of course he does, why wouldn't he.

Because only children,superstitious fools,and people with severe sexual hangups believe in magic.

Warthogs are living creatures,also. Were they born in the image of your "Gawd"?

As compared to you who believe the mud turned into a person then some of the mud grew a dick. Then some other mud turned into a person and some of that mud grew a vagina. Then the mud got together and made some people.

What evolved first the eyes, feet or the penis? Did male or female evolve first?

I have never said or even hinted that I believe any of that crap. That is YOUR opinion of the choice of explanations available.

Remember President Reagan was a dim before he saw the light and did his best to change the party. But thanks to bush's who ruined everything President Reagan did.

I can't argue with that. Especially since it is the reason I came to hate the RNC and the Party People voters.

I know its only going to get worse if Bernie or Hillary wins. It will cause me to lose my business and probably everything I own.

I am truly sorry,but IMO you are going to lose it all within the next 10 years or so anyhow because the globalists that control the RNC/DNC will be in such firm control by then there will be no stopping them.

I know the people will never rise up and revolt again to kick this socialist/communist government to the curb.

Not as long as we keep pulling the lever for one globalist that is 10 percent less of a globalist than his globalist opponent. Anybody that still thinks America can survive by going along with the path she has been following since that evil bastard Poppy Bush became Reagan's VP is a dreamer.

IMO,at this point our BEST hope is the worse SOB possible wins and gets so cocky they quit pretending,and the revolution we need so badly occurs.

You watch,within a year of this upcoming election so-called Assault Weapons will be banned again,and the order will go out to have the police pick up the ones that weren't turned in voluntarily. Trump has stated they should be banned nationwide,do you think Bubbette! will do any different or any worse? And Trump will claim to have a mandate if he is elected,

After that it will be handguns.

Probably within a year,and certainly before the next election,which I am predicting will be the last one where common citizens still have the right to vote.

And the whole time people will still be shouting "Vote for the lesser of two evils!" because they just can't bring themselves to believe the scary truth they know in their hearts. It's not that they are cowards as much as it is there are some things that are just too awful to contemplate,but when you have spent decade after decade contributing to campaigns and working for campaigns in the hope that real and meaningful changes will be made "this time" to bring America back on a Constitutional footing and EVERY freaking time Lucy snatches the damn football away just as you go to kick it,what are the other options?

You're all over the map. You said the other day you liked Cruz and he should be VP.

The fact that I, personally, like Cruz does not mean that a country that is mostly not conservative Republican will vote for a guy whose life is funded by Goldman Sachs, and whose version of conservative Republicanism is the strictest, truest blue.

The Trump voters have not signed onto the conservative Republican movement. They believe in Trump's controlled border, regulated trade message. Huge numbers of people screwed by open borders and bad trade agreements are voting for the only candidate in either party who says to build a real wall, now, and deport illegals, and who is not a free-trader.

Cruz is a free-trader, completely opposed to Trump on trade.

Cruz opposes Trump on halting Muslim immigration.

And Cruz is an Israel firster. Trump's view is that the US should be an even-handed honest broker of a peace agreement between Israel and a Palestinian State.

None of that is Cruz.

Trump's policy offerings are unique, which is why he is running away with the election. Romney's 47% want that.

I like Cruz because he stands for his principles in a way that nobody else in politics does. I like him because Republicans hate him, and I hate Republicans.

But I don't like a lot of Cruz's policies. I see Cruz on the ticket as the opportunity for the hard-core conservatives to reconcile in their own minds to vote for Trump, same as many liberal Republicans reconciled themselves to voting for Reagan because HW Bush was on the ticket.

NEITHER party represents me. Trump represents me. He is a nationalist. So am I. He does not believe that the US should favor Israel, but should even handedly impose a solution that gets us out of the business of perpetually policing the Middle East. Just like me.

Trump thinks we should be friends with Russia, and step away from engaging in a new Cold War. So do I.

Trump thinks that everybody should have health insurance, and that those who can't afford it should have it provided through some sort of government program or subsidy. So do I.

Trump is opposed to free trade, and thinks that our trade policy should favor Americans, and in particular should favor full EMPLOYMENT in the US. So do I.

Trump does not think that companies have the RIGHT to have access to the American market. The American market belongs to the American voters, not to whomever wants to trade here. Trump thinks that if there is a US company, and then another US company that moves outside of the US to not have to pay its taxes here, that the company that moves out should not be able to simply sell its good back into the American market that it abandoned for cheap labor and taxes. That that company's goods should be hit at the border with taxes that claw back whatever advantages they gained by screwing over America to benefit somewhere else. I agree.

Trump doesn't think that we should permit imbalanced trade with China and elsewhere any longer. It leaves millions and millions of Americans unemployed and with declining standards of living while empowering China, and adversary. I agree with Trump.

Free traders like Cruz and the whole Republican (and the whole Democrat) Establishment scream that this is stupid and invoke Smoot-Hawley. It's not Smoot-Hawley, it's not stupid, but it is a showdown between two fundamentally incompatible economic beliefs. We've tried the Republican/Democrat way for 30 years. It has failed the bottom half of America. We're going to revoke it now and go the other way. That's what Trump offers. I agree.

Cruz is violently opposed to even-handedness on Israel. He wants to expand the Cold War with Russia. He believes in free trade. And he does not agree that we should be suspending Muslim immigration, another unique and allegedly "bigoted" Trump postion.

Cruz is fundamentally wrong on all of these things and would make a terrible President BECAUSE he is wrong on all of these things.

But ALL the Republicans, except Trump, are wrong on all of these things, and Cruz is the most honest of them, and Cruz is better on immigration than the rest of the Republicans.

And the party is divided. Cruz may be able to bring in conservsative voters who won't otherwise vote for Trump. They hate Trump, but they like Cruz.

Somebody has to be thrown a bone to try to reunite the party. The question is, do you throw the hard right a bone, with Cruz, or do you throw the Establishment a bone, with Kasich.

There is merit to both. Standing alone, though, Cruz is not an acceptable Presidential candidate for me. Neither is Kasich or any other Republican. I hate Republicans. I like Trump BECAUSE his policies are NOT traditional Republican fare. HE, ALONE, is focused on the RIGHT answers to a host of issues. That's why he's so popular.

As nominee, he has to defeat Hillary, and that means trying to gain the support of one or the other wing of the party that he alienates. Cruz is one choice - I like Cruz. Kasich is the other. I like him.

I like them as men, as people, as politicians. I can't accept either of their POLICIES, because they're both wrong about just about everything. But as second banana to Trump, they are acceptable, mainly because I think that is likely to cause their voters to vote for Trump.

I see Trump as engineering a hostile takeover of the GOP in the interest of the things that I believe in, and in the interest of the 47%. To win the general election, Trump needs either the hard right Republicans to come over to him, or the Establishment. Either is possible. That boils down to Cruz or Kasich. I know that. So I'm happy with Cruz or Kasich as Veep. Only as Veep.

Cruz's ROLE as VP is to bring his voters home to the GOP to vote for Trump, not to set policies. The President sets policies. The VP waits around for the President to sneeze.

I can accept Cruz in that role, or Kasich, or Christie. Or Rubio for that matter. Not Jeb Bush. Not Romney.

So when he was saying 35 years ago that we are being ripped off by foreing countries. That was a master plan to lie about it for 40 years.

That was jealousy speaking. EVERYBODY knows we were getting ripped off by foreign countries It had been happening ever since King Roosevelt and his ugly-ass commie wife/cousin were in the WH.

Because only children,superstitious fools,and people with severe sexual hangups believe in magic.

You wouldn't have liked George Washington. Or any of the founders. They would have been talking about morals and virtues. You would have ran around saying they were bigots because they didn't support putting "gay marriage" in the constitution.

Like us they would have thought you were a real loon.

You would have been telling them to not have a first amendment. Because you don't support the first amendment.

I expect you to lie and say you do. But we both know you don't.

Of course crazy people will vote for a nutcase. They/you identify with the insanity.

Yeah, yeah, everybody who doesn't agree with you is a nutcase and insane.

And Cruz is an Israel firster.

That is just dumb.

Yeah,but you still believe in Virgin Birth.

Ummm, yes? You know CATHOLIC. HELLO, McFly - Virgin Birth, Mary, all that, it's sort of our signature flavor.

You DO know that, don't you?

I believe in the Virgin Birth for the same reason that I believe we landed on the Moon. Both of those things are objectively true parts of history, and I know that, even though I wasn't physically present at either.

That is just dumb.

Cruz went into a meeting of Eastern Orthodox Arab Christians - people who have been brutalized all over the Middle East. Those people, from the front right there, know that radical Islam is terrible. They ALSO know that Israel is discriminatory against them, and that Israeli policies have brutalized and radicalized the Muslims in their neighborhood, making it much harder for Christians there, much as the American invasion of Iraq broke the civil peace of that country imposed by Saddam Hussein, and ended up unleashing Islamist terrorism on Christians.

Middle Eastern Christians are not pro-Israel. They're not "destroy Israel" or "destroy America" jihadis either. They are opposed to aggressive wars and policies that result in the persecution of Christians far and wide, and they know a hell of a lot more about the conditions of Christians on the ground in the Middle East, including in Israel, than Ted Cruz ever will.

Cruz came in and didn't give a damn. He insulted them to their face, told them that if they did not support the state of Israel they were part of the problem, not the solution, and he would have nothing to do with them.

Cruz is an Israel firster, and really a loathsome shit when you get right down to it.

But if he's on the ticket, conservatives who love him will vote for Trump/Cruz, and if that's what it takes to win, then fine. It's like Reagan/HW Bush. You ally with whom you need to in order to defeat the worse threat. You and I are both voting for Trump, for different reasons. Doesn't mean that you're signing up for my beliefs or I, yours.

You wouldn't have liked George Washington. Or any of the founders. They would have been talking about morals and virtues.

Bullshit. Christianity sure as hell doesn't own morals and virtues. Ever read the Old Testament?

That is as opposed to the "New and Improved Testament"?

You would have been telling them to not have a first amendment. Because you don't support the first amendment.

I'm not the one on here screaming for some Americans to have less rights than other Americans because of religious conditioning.

NO religion has ever been about freedom. Ever. The old Popes made Stalin look like Jimmy Carter in comparison.

Ummm, yes? You know CATHOLIC. HELLO, McFly - Virgin Birth, Mary, all that, it's sort of our signature flavor.

You DO know that, don't you?

Why do you think I commented on it? If you believe that crap,you will believe anything.

They are not conservatives. They are a collection of incompetents and parasites wanting to unite Republicans for continuation of more of the same. Everybody claims to be a uniter. That means "Don't think. Just follow me."

Ding, ding, ding! I hear you.

Cruz would do every bit as well as Trump, probably better.

The fact that he is not a narcissistic sociopath gives him a "yuge" advantage over the gasbag.

He's the king of the narcissistic sociopaths. The only people who can't, or refuse, to see it are people who are stupid or determined to avoid Trump's sense of reality and are desperate to believe Cruz will save them. Who will save them from Cruz, Hillary, or Sanders is a matter to be avoided.

BS. Cruz would do every bit as well a Trump, probably better.

Ding, ding, ding! I don't think so.

FYI there are millions who would vote for Cruz who will not vote for Trump. And Cruz has a much better chance of unifying what remains of the REP Party after the convention than has Trump.

The dishtowel in my kitchen generates more excitement than Cruz. His passion is to sit on the throne by defeating Trump, not to fix the problems Trump is determined to fix.

Why do you think I commented on it? If you believe that crap,you will believe anything.

To the contrary, BECAUSE I believe "that crap", a whole unbounded universe of other contrary crap is precluded. It makes the lines of my world bright and clear, puts limits on what I may do, what I MUST do, what I must NOT do, and gives me clear roadmap to the next 100,000 years or so of my life.

So your commenting on what you conceive as a fatal weakness is really pointing to my greatest strength.

The only people who can't, or refuse, to see it are people who are stupid or determined to avoid Trump's sense of reality.....

There's a keeper,Robert. You should get it tattooed on your chest or make a plaque and mount it on you wall.

gives me clear roadmap to the next 100,000 years or so of my life.

Uh,huh.

No big loss. It is idiots like you that created this whole corrupt "party is power" thing.

Vote for the CANDIDATE,not the party. The only thing parties stand for is staying in power.

One word...Reagan.

Yeah,but you still believe in Virgin Birth.

There are two virgin birth belief systems; one involves Jesus Christ and the other evolution. I believe in the first, not the lie.

NO religion has ever been about freedom. Ever. The old Popes made Stalin look like Jimmy Carter in comparison.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! You're quoting one branch of Christianity, and not Christianity based on the Bible.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! You're quoting one branch of Christianity, and not Christianity based on the Bible.

Really? I could have sworn the Catholics were the first Christian cult.

OG's,as it were.

There are two virgin birth belief systems; one involves Jesus Christ and the other evolution.

Since when has evolution claimed virgin birth?

Really? I could have sworn the Catholics were the first Christian cult.

We were and are, along with the Orthodox. "Cave-man Christians". But the Cave Men and the Proddys all believe in the Virgin Birth, the holiness of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, etc.

Since when has evolution claimed virgin birth?

Well you have to understand that once there were no humans, and then there were, so we are expected to believe that a monkey sired a human. When two monkeys mate what they get is a monkey not a human. So the first human must have arisen some other way, thus a virgin birth.

You see the impossibility that humans are the result of multiple genetic mutations is just too fantastic to contemplate. Monkeys breed consistently and what they get are more monkeys. If humans arose from monkeys, the monkeys should have died out, but they haven't

Well you have to understand that once there were no humans, and then there were, so we are expected to believe that a monkey sired a human. When two monkeys mate what they get is a monkey not a human. So the first human must have arisen some other way, thus a virgin birth.

Uh,huh.

Were monkeys creaked in the image of God,also?

Baboons?

Dogs?

After all they all give birth,so according to YOUR logic the first ones born must have been the result of virgin births,right?

Getting back to genesis, The first were created by God

That's your proof? Do you believe everything you read?

That's your proof? Do you believe everything you read?

No I don't believe the Book of Mormom, I don't believe the Origin of Species, I don't believe Mein Kempf. I don't believe the Quoran, I don't believe Awake but the Bible has stood the test. God has told us what he wants us to know, it isn't about where we came from but where we are going

No I don't believe the Book of Mormom, I don't believe the Origin of Species, I don't believe Mein Kempf. I don't believe the Quoran, I don't believe Awake but the Bible has stood the test. God has told us what he wants us to know, it isn't about where we came from but where we are going

And of course all those other people are going to go to hell,and you and those who share your beliefs are going to heaven,right?

And of course all those other people are going to go to hell, and you and those who share your beliefs are going to heaven,right?

You forget the "you have a choice" clause, you want to criticise my choice because you have made a different one, thing is; if I'm wrong we both end up in the same place, if I'm right, we don't, and I have evidence that God exists, so I'll take his "word" for it over yours. Paul said it a long time ago and it was important enough to be written down. God has put up with this foolishness but no more he wants you to know the truth

you want to criticise my choice

No,I criticize your elitism and smugness as a way to point out your hypocrisy.

EVERY member of every other religious cult everywhere on the planet are the ones who are convinced YOU are going to hell for YOUR beliefs,not me. I don't believe in heaven or hell,other than what we make for ourselves during our lives. Once you are dead,you are dead forever.

As I said, I don't need to defend my position, I know the truth therefore I am free of the opinions of others

Ok.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! You're quoting one branch of Christianity, and not Christianity based on the Bible.

Really? I could have sworn the Catholics were the first Christian cult.

I said Bible base.

There are two virgin birth belief systems; one involves Jesus Christ and the other evolution

. Since when has evolution claimed virgin birth?

Both claim to produce an offspring from one sexual gender.

EVERY member of every other religious cult everywhere on the planet are the ones who are convinced YOU are going to hell for YOUR beliefs,not me. I don't believe in heaven or hell,other than what we make for ourselves during our lives. Once you are dead,you are dead forever.

What evidence do you have for your belief?

Really? I could have sworn the Catholics were the first Christian cult.

I said Bible base.

Not trying to be a wiseass,but there is a difference? Every Catholic I have ever talked to claims they are the one,true Christian religion,and the Catholics were the ones that decided what went into the Bible and what didn't.

Am I wrong?

There are two virgin birth belief systems; one involves Jesus Christ and the other evolution

. Since when has evolution claimed virgin birth?

Both claim to produce an offspring from one sexual gender.

I have believed in evolution for most of my life,and have never seen or heard that claim made.

If you can,without too much trouble,please show me where you got that idea from.

What evidence do you have for your belief?

Rational thought. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in mantras that state "It all exists so there MUST have been a God to create it",yet fail to address the question of "Ok,so where did God come from if EVERYTHING had to be created purposely?"

Rational thought.

chortle

[21] For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 2:21

Rational thought. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in mantras that state "It all exists so there MUST have been a God to create it",yet fail to address

Atheistic materialism is highly irrational, because it defecto posits matter over mind.

Atheistic materialism is highly irrational,

And organized religion isn't?????

Seriously?

BTW,WTH does Atheistic Materialism have to do with anything. It's just another belief system,and has more in common with organized religion than it does a open mind.

Your religion,and all other religions are based on FAITH,NOT FACTS.

Rational thought. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in mantras that state "It all exists so there MUST have been a God to create it",yet fail to address

I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion — those narrow, unattractive jews, too blind to the mystical wealth of the Pagan world around them — was precisely the matter of great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another, but nothing was simply alike. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time… yet also so luminous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god — we are no longer polytheists — then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all. C.S. Lewis

If you want to believe that and it makes you happy,I'm happy for you. Just don't start demanding that I or anyone else MUST share your faith.

For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For something to create itself, it must be able to transcend Hamlet’s dilemma, “To be or not to be.” Hamlet’s question assumed sound science. He understood that something (himself) could not both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. For something to create itself, it must be before it is. This is impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for light and heat. It is impossible for God.

In 1999 or 2000 I was asked by Linda Holloway, then Chairwoman, of the Kansas School Board to testify before the board during the Kansas Evolution controversy.  As I mentioned previously there were reporters from around the world attending, and I would put the number to be at least 1,000. I was the only one testifying against the Darwinists, and the odds were stacked against me 9 to 1.   Yesterday, I found the testimony I provided, and I thought you might like to see it for inclusion on my new website. You will find it below. I apologize for the loss of formatting.

Grace and peace,

Gary Butner, Th.D.

Sent from my iPad

Evolution, God and Atheism   I would like to say statements to the effect that one can believe in evolution and God's hand working in creation displays an ignorance of Darwin's belief system and what is being taught.   Firstly, if one believes God is using the evolutionary process in creation, then they would use the term "Divine selection," and not "natural selection" as favored by the evolutionists. Evolutionists are very clear that natural selection is an unsupervised, impersonal, and purposelessprocess.  In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:   "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."   Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."  I have to ask:      How do they know the process was impersonal?    How do they know the process was unsupervised?     How do they know the process is purposeless?    How do they know the process is mindless?   ​Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "impersonal" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way--and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheistic naturalism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal Creator being involved in either a creation or evolutionary process.   ​In 1997, theologians Alvin Plantinga and Huston Smith notified NABT that their official position statement was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. NABT discussed the objection for all of five minutes and voted to continue their position statement.      Later, NABT removed "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from the language after the evolutionist spokesperson Eugenie Scott informed NABT the definition would give Phillip Johnson ammunition in his fight against their position. They still continue to teach evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal, purposeless, and mindless process. Any teacher denying that is either fired or transferred to teaching another subject.   Secondly, in his response to Asa Gray, Darwin specifically stated evolution excludes design. In the view of the great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, however (as well as every mainstream Christian theologian before the Twentieth Century), excluding design is tantamount to excluding God. Design implies a Designer, God. When one excludes the Designer they have embraced atheism.   Darwin's response to Gray is at the end of his 1868 book, "The Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication." Darwin concluded his book with a lengthy refutation of Gray's position. Using the metaphor of a house built by an architect utilizing uncut fragments of stone, Darwin explained that "the fragments of stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to the edifice built by him the same relation which the fluctuating variations of each organic being bear to the varied and admirable structures ultimately acquired by its modified descendants." The shape of each fragment "may be called accidental, but this is not strictly correct; for the shape of each depends on a long sequence of events, all obeying natural laws." Nevertheless, "in regard to the use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may be strictly said to be accidental." In Darwin's metaphor, of course, the architect is natural selection. Darwin continued:   "Can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice?  If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predeter-mined for the builder's sake, can it with any greater probability be maintained that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants; - many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves?   Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds?   Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?  But if we give up the principle in one case - if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed - no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided."   Americans fought and died for religious liberty, and the right to educate their children in the religion of their choice. Please answer why evolutionists arrogantly DEMAND the right to indoctrinate OUR children into THEIR religion?   Gary Butner Kansas   Gary Butner, Th.D.