Tab Content
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 12:48 AM
    But what did Mark Sanford do once his affairs were made public? Did he reason, "Well, I've been advocating for smaller government in my state, so I'll stay in office, even though I was caught cheating on my wife"? No, of course not. Sanford knew that his credibility as a principled governor was shot in the public's eye, so he resigned (and rightfully so). He understood the correlation between his infidelities to his wife and the ramifications of them in holding a public office in his constituents' trust.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:06 PM
    Yes, and that metric is simply a matter of public record. We all can find out how many times a candidate has been married or when his sexual infidelities have been exposed to the public. That's all I'm touching on when I mention Trump's multiple marriages as a basis for questioning his fidelities to the American people and the States. Obviously, I can't find out every instance of sexual deviancy from a candidate, so I can only stick with information that is known in the public domain. And to that point, I can generally say that Darrell Castle's marital commitment is much better than Trump's, as evidenced here.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:57 PM
    The irony of this (to use imagery from The Dark Knight Trilogy) is that Donald Trump serves more of a role as "The Joker," to his libertarian supporters because, for them, Trump is "destroying the establishment within the GOP," thus, weakening the two-party political structure, supposedly. So, in a sense, Trump's supporters "want to watch the world burn."
    44 replies | 458 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:47 PM
    I'm in Japan right now, and I'm not planning to vote by an absentee ballot, only because the candidate I would support is not on the ticket in my state--Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. But, of course, sexual purity is just one of the prerequisites that I look for in a candidate of my choosing.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:36 PM
    A person's sexual purity is one of the most important factors about a person's character because it deals with his deepest commitments to intimacy. While I agree with you that Washington D.C. is filled with hedonism, that's all the more reason why we need a President (or any political figure, for that matter) who does not give in to his sexual desires that violate his commitment to his spouse, just as we want him to resist the temptation to take power that he is not authorized to have by the Constitution. The two are linked. The more we ignore the truth that what a person does in his private life comes to light in his public life, the more we will continue to allow corrupt people to sit in seats of public office because those people hide themselves under empty promises and false allegiances to correct principles and policies. I'm going to be crude here and say that, on a basic, ethical level, where a person chooses to stick his dick in at night determines how he uses his pen in the daytime.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:17 PM
    The Trumpeteers in this forum will remain silent, I'm sure.
    22 replies | 252 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:13 PM
    Exactly. Generally speaking, we all look for some sort of credentials from a person before we trust them to perform a service to us, which in this case, we're investigating ethical credentials. Ethical credentials do matter, especially when a person is seeking the most prestigious office in America. If someone believes that it's okay to break sacred bonds whenever it's convenient for himself, then it's more than likely he will act on that in other areas of his life, such as in business or in civics.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:52 PM
    I would not be surprised if Donald Trump used their headlines to springboard himself as "The Dark Knight," coming to "save Gotham " from the evil, liberal villains...
    44 replies | 458 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:34 PM
    Yes, I understand that there have been Presidents who were faithful in marriage, and yet they did not uphold their oaths of office, betraying the American people and the States. But those Presidents were hypocrites. The point I'm driving at is that Donald Trump has a history of breaking his vows to love someone for all of his life, and that says a lot about himself as a person. If he were elected, then it would make sense for him to not be faithful to his oath because he has done that throughout his life with people who were supposed to be his highest object of love. As lilymc so eloquently put it: All I'm saying is that, at the outset of the general election, there is no reason to expect Trump to do any of the things that he claims to do (whether it's abolishing trade deals, having a sensible foreign policy, or anything else that members of this forum praise him for) because he does not honor oaths in his own personal life.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 10:30 PM
    No. Nonetheless, my point still stands about Trump's lack of commitment to one oath in marriage translating into his lack of commitment to his oath as a President of the united States.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 10:27 PM
    How do you know that? And even if it were true, it would still prove my original point about Trump, namely, that he can't be trusted due to his own personal infidelities.
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 10:25 PM
    Why wouldn't Trump's wives stay faithful to him, especially since he's a billionaire?
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 09:57 PM
    Donald Trump can't even stay faithful as a husband to one woman in his life, having been married three times now. So, how can I trust his oath to the American people and the States to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, as a President?
    58 replies | 567 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 09:51 PM
    I've been on these forums for a long time, and I've participated in plenty of forum polls to know that there are many members who vote in those polls, while simultaneously being against voting, in principle. So, I don't need names.
    112 replies | 1356 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 02:55 PM
    Isn't it ironic that those who are against voting voted for the option "Not Voting"? You just can't help yourselves, can you? :D
    112 replies | 1356 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 01:47 PM
    As one who is currently living in Japan, let me be the first to say that there is a lot of truth to the article in the OP. What is also interesting is that there are many social places called "Buy-Me-A-Drink Bars" (I forget the Japanese term for it) where men can rent women to sit with them over drinks and talk. It's essentially like being on a date, except there are restrictions on physical contact. Japanese men (usually singles) go to these places to express themselves with these gorgeous Japanese women, and the women are paid to just sit, listen, and make the customer feel accepted. It's a real social phenomenon all over Japan.
    26 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 01:29 PM
    Theocrat replied to a thread I love my wife in Open Discussion
    29 replies | 507 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 05:14 AM
    What do I need to study?
    188 replies | 2276 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-21-2016, 05:57 AM
    Thank you, Cruz.
    188 replies | 2276 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-18-2016, 08:57 AM
    The connection continues here.
    1 replies | 179 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-18-2016, 08:38 AM
    Yes.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-18-2016, 08:37 AM
    You find them here.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-18-2016, 06:22 AM
    Yeah, I don't agree with Dr. Hovind on many theological points, especially as his ones against alcohol consumption. But, nonetheless, you should watch his other seminars to get a full scope on what he's talking about. With the Loch Ness Monster, it's not like people have their cameras ready when a sighting happens, just like when an accident occurs no one can take a picture of the actual accident. It's an unexpected event, so you would not expect there to be many photos of sightings like the Loch Ness Monster. But the fact that there are so many accounts of seeing plesiosaurian creatures all around the world is quite compelling that such creatures still exist today.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-18-2016, 06:14 AM
    Once again, secular humanists prove how they don't want any other religious worldview to compete with their own by preempting free speech. They are trying to convince public schools to not have field trips to the Ark Encounter, but what is the harm in having students presented with another perspective that may get them thinking differently about what they've been taught in the public schools (Yes, I know we shouldn't have public schools, but that's beside the point...)? Shouldn't secularists be thrilled to have students visit places like the Ark Encounter, where the assumptions and evidences for a global flood can be challenged in the public's eye, even if it discredits their work? I thought secularist humanists were "free-thinkers," after all. They sure are going through a lot of pains to keep people away from a supposed myth instead of opening a dialogue in the pursuit of truth, no matter where the evidences lie. It smells like fear, to me. Ken Ham writes: Read more about it here.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-17-2016, 06:04 AM
    Communist thought is alive and well here in America, and it's been an agenda for a long time, as chronicled here:
    43 replies | 730 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-16-2016, 01:37 AM
    Thank you for proving my point. What you've confessed above "gives the game away." You won't accept any evidence until God is described by the natural world, but, once again, you need to understand that the demand, "God has to fit into the natural world," cannot, itself, be verified by the methods used in the natural sciences. In effect, you are appealing to a non-scientific concept in order to make your own assertion about what God has to be. So, you're not refuting any evidence that proves there was a global flood; you're simply stating the basis on which you believe evidences of God's work must be established, in accordance with your Deist assumptions about the nature of God.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-15-2016, 10:30 PM
    You've missed my point, though. The assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences is not scientifically-based; that statement is based on a person's precommitment to the philosophy of naturalism. How can you prove the validity and reliability of that assumption from the natural sciences, Sonny Tufts? You simply cannot do so without begging the question. In the natural sciences, the principle of induction is used, that is, reasoning from past experiences to explain present and future phenomena or making inferences from particular cases to a general case. However, naturalism cannot account for the use of induction in the natural sciences because it always takes for granted causation without a rational reason for appealing to it, especially in a universe that is supposedly always evolving. In fact, atheist philosophers such as the 18th Century philosopher David Hume, denied causation on the grounds that whenever it is assumed, it is based on experience, which begs the question, causing one to reason circularly. Thus, Hume denied causation, and in so doing, he undermined the principle of induction, without which, natural science cannot be possible. So, if one denies that supernatural explanations cannot be allowed in the natural sciences, then, ultimately, they are left with the alternative to reject the principle of induction. And if one rejects induction, then one cannot study the natural sciences. Naturalism (with its assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences) gives us no foundation to trust the laws in nature nor to appeal to the predictability of natural phenomena. The only way naturalists can be successful in the natural sciences, then, is to borrow assumptions about nature from supernaturalism, which in this case, is the Christian worldview. When you say that appealing to supernatural explanations leaves us with no certainty about the predicting anything in nature, and then, for an example, question whether the sun might rise in the east tomorrow (because God made the sun and moon stand still once), you need to realize what you're assuming about God. In Scripture, God doesn't cause miracles to happen in nature arbitrarily, for He always has a revealed explanation of their use, which is to vindicate His messenger or His people as belonging to Himself before witnesses. Otherwise, we can accept the reliability of the laws of nature because they are established by an unchanging God. In fact, all of the scientists who established the scientific disciplines that we enjoy today were creationists, so God's use of miracles was no problem for them in their studies and successes in the natural sciences.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-14-2016, 06:41 AM
    I'm just curious as to whether or not you've visited the Ark Encounter yet. Ken Ham is one of the world's most renown scholars on "Noah's Ark" and the Genesis account of the global flood. I'm sure that many of your objections and questions can be answered just by visiting the Ark Encounter and seriously considering the information provided, using assumptions of your creationist opponents. But therein lies the dilemma. You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science. That assumption, itself, is not based on the methodologies of the natural sciences, though; it is a philosophical assertion based on one's beliefs about metaphysical realities. The reason why that's important to grasp is because all evidences are interpreted by a person's philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. It's not that we creationists do not have evidence that can be shown scientifically to support a global flood; it's just that evolutionists have a counter assumption on what the nature of evidence ought to be about such things.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-12-2016, 04:58 AM
    I do happen to believe that the universe is a little over 6,000 years old, but I have not heard of Gerald Schroeder's theory on creation. I would say, though, if he accepts that the universe is billions of years old, then he already has a flawed theory because there is no way to consistently fit "billions of years" into the Genesis account of creation.
    112 replies | 1873 view(s)
More Activity

4 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Thanks for the rep, I like your avatar too. I wish I could find the source file on this, cuz I wanted to change the text to "pure evil"
  2. View Conversation
    Thanks for the rep brother!
  3. View Conversation
    thanks for the rep....i keep gettin banned for telling the truth!,,,Ha Ha Ha

    Have a look at my website htpp://www.TomatoBubble.com
  4. View Conversation
    Can you take a screenshot of your megaphone directing you to this thread?

    Do they link here often?

    Thanks
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 4 of 4
About Orgoonian

Basic Information

Age
51
About Orgoonian
Occupation:
Personal Trainer

Signature


" Be sure to get your very own Orgoonian™ Action Figure while supplies last."
Ex Gladio Libertas
Bend meetup video
YouTube - Ron Paul rally in Bend, Oregon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVo1...eature=related



All your delegates are belong to us!

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
730
Posts Per Day
0.23
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
4
Most Recent Message
02-21-2012 06:34 PM
General Information
Last Activity
07-17-2013 09:46 PM
Join Date
01-07-2008
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. Theocrat Theocrat is online now

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...