Tab Content
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:20 PM
    That makes absolutely no sense. Why would a Muslim join a political party with explicit Christian beliefs in its platform? They could just form their own Sharia Party instead. But if you change the language to just "religion," then that opens the door to all sorts of religions, besides Islam. And based on whose religious beliefs become the majority view within that party, all due to the idea that "freedom of religion" is just a blanket statement for the inclusion of all religious beliefs, then it could very well evolve into a party of Sharia law advocates. But our founders didn't define "religion" in the general sense that we understand today. In their time, "religion" was synonymous with "denomination" or "sect," within the context of Christianity. There's simply no way our founders would have interpreted "religion" as giving way to what they would call "Mohammedans," in some general idea of "religion." That's just anachronistic.
    42 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:08 PM
    I do my work on the city and county levels because that's where true civic change starts. Our republic holds to the view that the States and the people of the States have more power than the federal government, after all.
    42 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:58 PM
    Yeah, and keep on supporting a party that hasn't worked to stop the slaughter of the unborn, hasn't brought our troops home from unconstitutional occupations, continues to devalue our currency (which is called an abomination in Scripture, by the way), increases subsidies to corporations all the while criticizing Democrats for increasing welfare spending, supports more intrusions into our privacy, has no interest in balancing our federal budget nor auditing the Federal Reserve, and has increased the size and scope of government that it's hard to tell if they're run by Democrats or not. Your work is in vain.
    42 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:39 PM
    The reason why the CP is so small is because so many conservatives think that a vote for the CP is a vote for the Democrats. That mentality is the whip which the GOP uses to keep conservatives in check and loyal to their party, which does not have their principles in mind, especially as it relates to the sanctity of life. The GOP doesn't need to change its position on anything because it understands that as long as it does "the dog & pony show" for conservatives and "whisper sweet nothings into their ears" during Presidential campaigns, they'll never leave for parties like the CP. Like I've told you before, you're being played by the Republican Party, and you refuse to see it because you've compromised your ethics, Swordsmyth.
    42 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:27 PM
    No, you migrate to places where your ideas can flourish and grow with likeminded people, such as you suggested in supporting the Constitution Party.
    42 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:21 PM
    You're not hijacking anything. They don't want true liberty-conscious people inside their party. Just look at how they turned against Dr. Ron Paul twice when he ran, and they used the mainstream media to do it in epic proportions. Case in point:
    42 replies | 365 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-21-2020, 09:37 PM
    Where are all the Trump supporters to defend him on this issue? :confused:
    12 replies | 297 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 06:22 PM
    He's not getting us out because if that was his intention, then he could've done it by now. I don't want to hear your excuses why he didn't, either, because at this point, you're nothing more than a Trump apologist. If Trump does get us out of Afghanistan, then that's a step in the right direction, but it's only a fraction of a start. I don't need new reasons to hate Trump because I don't hate Trump. There are plenty of reasons to show that he's not as conservative as people like you try to paint him out to be, from his approval to continue funding Planned Parenthood to his asinine appointments, such as John Bolton.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 06:08 PM
    If you believe the man who said the following truly has plans to get us our of Afghanistan, then I have a church to sell you in Saudi Arabia:
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:57 PM
    Trump is evil because he doesn't honor his oaths, which makes him a liar. When he makes decisions, he doesn't consult the Constitution, and furthermore, he doesn't listen to the wisdom from God's word (you know, that Book that Trump claims is his favorite book in the world). If a man can't keep his word, then he's not worthy of high praise and regard. Period. And Donald Trump has not upheld his oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, especially in matters of foreign affairs. So, I'll say again that Donald J. Trump is evil, and if you can't see that, then you've compromised on your ethics. No one is saying that Christians shouldn't work with Republicans and sinners, but there needs to be an objective standard by which any policy initiative is justified by a Biblical standard of limited government, protection of privacy and property, and especially, the preservation of life.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:44 PM
    He's not "draining the swamp" by hiring "Swamp Things." If anything, he's creating a precedent that his administration acknowledges the legitimacy of there being a "swamp." This is how I know that Trump isn't going to drain anything in Washington D.C.: right now, as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to bring home all American troops overseas, which as a result, will get the U.S. out of all the foreign entanglements and unconstitutional wars that Trump claimed he was against. Yes, I understand that transitions would need to take place, for he couldn't do it all in one day; however, he definitely can plan it out within, say, a five-year period. If Trump were to plan such a feat, the "swamp" would be draining like a vortex, because that initiative would quickly get all of the neoconservatives (from both parties) in D.C. to rally against him. And if Trump is as big and bad as he thinks he is, and if he's serious about maintaining his foreign policy commitments that our wars have been mistakes, then the entire "swamp" coming against him shouldn't be something he can't handle, especially as a Commander-in-Chief. But, instead, he has us occupying the same foreign lands that we've always had, even extorting a nation who passed a resolution to have us leave their lands because of his actions to shed blood on their soil. So, no, Trump isn't going to do any "real deals" to get us out of positions where we get caught up in the civil affairs of other nations who are not under our Constitution, and therefore, have no direct relation to our country's national defense. He's playing people like you, dannno, because you're a pawn on his alleged "3D Chessboard."
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:28 PM
    Neither the account of Nebuchadnezzar ruling over Israel nor the Genesis 14 passage address the command or precept that God's chosen people ought to select evil (of any degree) as a resort to civil polity. To the contrary, God reveals in passages such as Exodus 18:21 that: And other passages, such Joshua 24:15, stating: Note that in neither of those passages, when it comes to a decision that deals with righteous delegations in the civic health of a nation, God nowhere leaves the option of settling for a "lesser evil." Why is that? Because a "lesser evil" is still evil. The fact that, due to the sinfulness of men and God's works of providence to work out His own sovereign decrees, wicked men have ruled over the righteous doesn't give the imperative that righteous people ought to vote for evil. If you believe that's the case, once again, show me where such an imperative is taught in Scripture, Swordsmyth. Indicatives aren't imperatives, either.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-20-2020, 05:16 PM
    I disagree with you about Dr. Paul not being perfect. He was a perfect statesman, in the sense that he understood, promoted, and sought to legislate in matters that consisted with private citizens keeping their lives, their liberties, and their properties without intrusions by the central government. He even maintained a perfect score with all of his votes being 100% in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. I really don't care if Dr. Paul gave Trump a "C-" grade, though I understand his reasons why. There's no way Trump is going to deal with the root causes of the problems in our foreign and domestic policies; all he's going to do is post Twitter messages, gloat about how he has "kept promises," and continue to surround himself with neoconservatives from "the swamp." Trump is not a Constitutionalist, and that's what we need, at the very least, to begin reforming all of these bad policies we have accumulated in D.C.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 11:26 PM
    First of all, Donald Trump is nowhere near the same type of man as Samson. I'm not going to lay out my theological arguments as to why that's the case, here, because I want to get to a more important point. Last of all, your post didn't answer my question at all. I asked for Scriptural basis to support the idea that it's righteous (or moral) to vote for the lesser of two evils (or least of possible goods). You're a man of God, and I know you know the Scriptures, Swordsmyth. So please explain to me where in God's holy, inspired word He teaches that it's okay to have a voting ethic of choosing the lesser of two evils. I'm not looking for Biblical comparisons of Donald Trump to judges, prophets, nor apostles, which even to do so is insulting to those great men of the Faith, anyway.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 11:05 PM
    In light of the quote in your signature from Alexis de Tocqueville, "You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith," can you explain to me where in the Scriptures is the method of "voting for the lesser of two evils (or least of possible goods)" supported as a righteous thing to do? :confused:
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 07:28 PM
    Trump just granted clemency to one of the most crooked politicians in the history of Illinois, and you have the audacity to actually type with the same fingers that you fold in prayers to our God that Trump is a "possible good"? Can you not see how inconsistent you are, Swordsmyth? For all the death, theft, and debt that our country has been involved in, yes, I'll demand "perfection" instead of "lesser evils" or "least of possible good." There's too much at stake to be compromising our values and standards at this point. Just look at the type of people who continue to occupy the Oval Office, and observe what our chambers of Congress have become. Our children ought to be ashamed of us for the world we're leaving to them.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 07:11 PM
    The ballot box is not the only container we need to advance in the right direction. (By the way, you need to make sure you have the right definition of what is "the right direction" before you start moving, but that's another topic.). Besides voting, we also need the soap box, the prayer box, the coin box, and the ammo box. Those are the alternatives we have to work with when there are no candidates worthy of supporting. Yes, we need to make sacrifices, alliances, etc., and who says that libertarians haven't done that? But choosing not to "vote for the lesser of two evils" has nothing to do with being brainwashed by establishment elites and Socialists. On the contrary, it's those of you who continue to "vote for the lesser of two evils" that have fallen in step with the establishment elites and Socialists because they know they can promote whomever they want, and just as long as that candidate says a percentage of the things which tickle the ears of certain voting blocs, those elites/Socialists know they can remain in power, at the expense of your "ballot box tithe." That's what you call "voter suppression." So don't blame libertarians or "purists" for the political shifts every election cycle; that's on those of you who vote in fear and not in principle.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 06:57 PM
    Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is why our country never makes any progress. Generation after generation, people compromise on the axioms and principles which uphold a free republic, all for the sake of "doing something." The fact that you believe Trump is "moving things in the right direction" illustrates the delusion which is characteristic of those who continue to "vote for the lesser of two evils" instead of voting for what's objectively good. Under Trump, we still have slaughter of the unborn, inflation of our money supply, continue occupation of foreign lands, violations of the Constitution by the executive branch, incremental sieges of the right to own whatever we want to defend ourselves, and the list goes on. You're so busy looking at treatments of symptoms that you've completely ignored root causes, and because of that, people like you will never make any progress. So I'm not "holier than thou"; I'm just digging deeper than you are to undermine ideas that keep us in debt, in confusion and turmoil, and most of all, keep us with blood on our hands.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 06:34 PM
    Nobody is stopping you from pushing forward with "the message"; but don't confuse your message with being of the same essence as Dr. Ron Paul's because it's not. That's the problem. Those of you who support Trump are not in the same camp as those of us who have fought, taught, and advocated for the principles of a true, Constitutional republic that emphasizes things like the preservation of God-given rights, advancement of sound money and a true free-market system that doesn't have central banking at its core, a sensible and diplomatic foreign policy where we aren't policing the world and bribing foreign nations in order to steal their national resources, etc. So if you want to support the "Orange Man," then go ahead. But don't ever define your efforts as being the same as forwarding the causes which Dr. Ron Paul stood for during his campaigns. Start your own forums, gather your own grassroots, and preach the "Gospel of MAGA" to all who will hear it, but you seriously need to leave this place and stop trying to evangelize those who have higher standards of liberty and freedom than you do.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 06:15 PM
    So Trump will commute the sentence of a former corrupt governor who was found guilty of extortion, wire fraud, racketeering, and other charges, but he refuses to pardon a man who lost almost everything dear to him in his life for the cause of exposing lies and unconstitutional acts by our federal security organizations to spy on American citizens without due process of law, calling him a "total traitor." Anyone who continues to praise Trump after this latest clemency loses all credibility when it comes to standing for the principles of life, liberty, property, or any other principle that guarantees a free and prosperous society. And if you call yourself a Christian, especially, then shame on you. You are not advancing Biblical principles of self-government nor civic government by supporting someone like Trump, and you need to seriously repent.
    39 replies | 1053 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 07:07 PM
    I'm not trying to change your mind because you've already swallowed the "Blue Pill." So, for you, ignorance is bliss.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 07:01 PM
    You're missing the point, Swordsmyth. The fact that Trump is on the wrong side of the Snowden controversy indicates that he's not serious about government transparency, to begin with (except when it's expedient for himself, because he's an egotistical person). Trump is supposed to be encouraging more "Edward Snowdens," especially if he wants the "Swamp Things" to come clamoring out of the swamp, naked for who they truly are. And I think it's laughable that you believe Trump has exposed "the swamp." Just look at whom he surrounds himself with in his administration (especially in terms of national security and foreign policy), and you'll see that they fit quite nicely in "the swamp."
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 06:40 PM
    You can't call someone like Edward Snowden "a total traitor," but then turn around and claim you're going to "drain the swamp." The two sentiments are simply contradictory.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 06:28 PM
    The general public already knew about collusions amongst the FBI, CIA, and State Department before there was a conspiracy against Donald Trump and his associates, and that knowledge was escalated through Edward Snowden's whistleblowing. Trump hasn't woken anyone up to that, and he should've been exposing our intelligence community from the beginning, not when it was politically expedient for himself. Nonetheless, Trump thinks Snowden ought to be dealt with harshly, as recorded in the video above. And for what?
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 06:13 PM
    What examples or cases of Trump's exposure of the "Deep State" are you referring to? I need citations, not just empty rhetoric from you that "He's doing it," nor any assurances from him (or his staff) that he's going to do it. And by "exposure," I mean documented evidences that show programs, initiatives, and other means that our privacy has been intruded by our intelligence community, in the same manner that Edward Snowden did when he came out with his information about the NSA, CIA, etc.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 06:06 PM
    What policies or legislation has Trump encouraged Congress to pass regarding safeguards of our privacy from intrusions by any level of federal bureaucracy, which would reveal Trump's commitment to maintain government transparency, similar to what Edward Snowden exposed?
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 06:00 PM
    No, he's not. You can stop with the "Trump is playing 3D Chess" bullshit.
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 02:46 PM
    Besides his second sentence, "Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet," I don't see anything wrong with Bezos' initiative. Environmental concerns ought to be solved from private individuals and groups, first. That's what keeps nation-states from having to get involved with them through overregulation/taxation and political appeals to fear which cause dependency from constituents.
    10 replies | 306 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 02:21 PM
    Then the solution is to get rid of the subsidies. YouTube has no right to public funds, and therefore, they have no right to be considered a "public square." If YouTube is censoring certain channels or individuals, then it has every right to do so, even if they're channels and individuals that we may like. The problem isn't that since they're receiving money that they shouldn't be allowed to censor anyone in the public domain; rather, the problem is they're receiving public revenues as a private entity. The sneaky culprit in this whole debacle is corporate welfare, not censorship to speech.
    51 replies | 2503 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 02:04 PM
    As an example: What Dr. Ron Paul said about Edward Snowden: What Donald Trump said about Edward Snowden:
    138 replies | 4190 view(s)
More Activity

58 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    For curiosity, have you been reading my theonomy posts?
  2. View Conversation
    Regarding the whole "only the radical libertarians" will enter the gate, a similar thing was brought up at Eric Peters Autos:

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/12/1...comment-544496

    "David" is my username. Moleman is coming close to arguing the position that only libertarians are Christians.
  3. View Conversation
    Just an FYI:

    1. My answer to my own poll question is probably "yes", though its an exceedingly reluctant "yes."

    2. The more reluctant someone is, the less quick I'm going to be to judge them. You, frankly, are not the type of person I was considering when I made my OP, even if you techncially qualify. You're against legal torture and you agree that its almost always wrong. There are a lot of people who support legal torture and who think at least some of what was in the Senate Report was morally permissible (At least at my school there are, admittedly, my school is pretty "conservative"). I much more had in mind the neoconservative who says "torture is always justified against terrorists if there's a chance to save even one life" than I am a generally peaceful person that reluctantly says they could justify torturing someone if it meant saving their family, or something like that.
  4. View Conversation
    OK, so in that situation you're almost dealing with Hiroshima and Nagisaki again (not as it actually occured, but what most people think of it as.) Fair enough...

    Still distressing.... I'm not sure what that says of those people who actually think these were all ticking time bomb situations.
  5. View Conversation
    Do you think it would ever be moral to let someone die of hypothermia in a cold cell? Do you ever think it would ever be moral to break someone's legs and force them to stand for hours or days? Do you ever think it would be moral to consecutively waterboard someone 183 times?

    Is your only issue with this the potential for abuse, or do you understand that there is something deeply immoral about this?
  6. View Conversation
    There's something sickening and inhumane about about what was described in the CIA report. Killing someone in self-defense when they are trying to shoot you isn't comparable to that.
  7. View Conversation
    Sorta, but there are plenty of people here who think it should be legal. So, where's the line where the form of torture becomes inhumane no matter what?
  8. View Conversation
    TC, I apologize for the neg rep. I was in a really bad mood today, both from seeing the CIA report and seeing people here at school defend it. I took it out on you. I deserved the neg rep you threw back. Sorry...
  9. View Conversation
    Am I also a hardcore extremist?
  10. View Conversation
    The same one you said you'd never be extreme enough in. The one about police.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 58
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
About Brett85

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
22,134
Posts Per Day
6.10
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
58
Most Recent Message
03-04-2015 02:22 PM
General Information
Last Activity
02-14-2020 01:38 PM
Join Date
03-21-2010
Referrals
0

10 Friends

  1. Christian Liberty
  2. compromise compromise is offline

    Banned

    compromise
  3. Coolidge/Dawes '24
  4. DonVolaric DonVolaric is offline

    Member

    DonVolaric
  5. MichaelDavis MichaelDavis is offline

    Banned

    MichaelDavis
  6. realtonygoodwin realtonygoodwin is offline

    Member

    realtonygoodwin
  7. Southron Southron is offline

    Member

    Southron
  8. Spoa Spoa is offline

    Member

    Spoa
  9. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
  10. Zatch Zatch is offline

    Member

    Zatch
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 10

02-14-2020


01-04-2019


08-19-2018


04-06-2018


07-24-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

02-14-2020


04-10-2019


04-09-2019


03-14-2019


08-19-2018


08-09-2018


08-08-2018


08-07-2018


07-07-2018


07-04-2018


06-01-2018



Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast