jakee

They have been through untold investigations and nothing ever comes out of it, not even charges. If they are guilty, either the Clintons are incredibly smart and cunning, or everybody else is just incredibly stupid. Which one do you believe? It is not smart or stupid. It is the possession of incredible power. Ah, so they're winning? That must mean they haven't done anything wrong, they were just being pragmatic. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

In that case, Obama is ten times the man Trump is. President Trump had his own money. Obama had George Soros. I believe there is a real difference in motivation between the two. Oh, ok. You've run out of pragmatism already and now motivation matters? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yeah, so I'm sure you'll have no problems demonstrating how Bernie says that no-one should be more successful than anyone else. Your obvious desperation does not make your point anymore convincing, FYI. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No it hasn’t. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That’s nonsense. The ultimate expression of the logical fallacy that is ‘both-siderism’. All other politicians are not the same as Trump. Career politicians are not all criminals. Pretending they are is just an excuse not to have to think. In what way has Trunp blown up the system? Apart from the fact that he simply ignores all the ethical rules regarding conflicts of interest and profiting from the office that other Presidents have followed, which part of the system has he changed? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh no, thats quite different. See, morality applies to people Ron doesn't like, pragmatism applies to people he does. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

We've been through this before, and it turns out Ron fully supports criminal or con-man behaviour as long as the perpetrator is 'winning'. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You want a free society that dictates how its members should behave? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Which everyone knew. Seriously. No-one, absolutely no-one disputes that Iraq had a WMD program and made weapons. It's the lie that the program was still ongoing and was producing viable weapons in 2003 that is the problem. I possessed the information coming from neutral UN weapons inspectors who said there was no threat. I also possessed history and common sense - even if Saddam had WMD why would he use them against the west? He was ruthless and brutal, but not insane. What my crystal ball told me was that invading Iraq would be a perfect way to destabilise the region, provide the perfect propaganda for extremist groups throughout the muslim world, and throw away any chance of a better outcome in Afghanistan by diverting huge resources away from that mission while mobilising a new insurgency at the same time. Unfortunately, my crystal ball was pretty damn good. Your crystal ball won us what? A decade long war. Thousands of western military casualties, tens of thousands of eastern military casualties and hundreds of thousands of eastern civilian casualties, continued instability in Iraq and Afghanistan and is directly responsible for ISIS. Yeah, you must be so glad we took that risk. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, the ignorance comes from someone who can read an article purely about remaining stockpiles of old, corroded, unuseable and unsalvageable weapons and think it has any relation to the arguments put forward for the second Iraq war. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

George Bush is your classified source on George Bush? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

IIRC they were the same people that thought GWB's "evidence" to justify invading Iraq was actually true. Funny...the Times seems to think there are WMD's in Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html And you agree with them? Good! Because to be clear, this is what the article says: "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq's arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war." So if you believed the Bush admin was telling the truth about an active Iraqi weapons program, the article you just provided says you were wrong. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's not very confidential, the guy's name is on it. And he's a foreigner. Why are you letting outsiders tell you how the USA works? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Ron, don't you think it's your patriotic duty to report your source to the authorities for leaking confidential information to the public? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Baaaaahahaha. Seriously Ron, don't you ever get tired of being led around by the nose ring? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Troll troll troll your boat... Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's hilarious. You know Q is probably a liberal, right? Sitting on his porch, tapping away whatever he dreams up that day, laughing his ass off at how many of you puppets he's got dancing on the end of his strings. You need to do more research and discern the difference between: Q Q+ QAnon One fat, one short one lean? Otherwise all doing the same thing I said above. Remind me: weren't we supposed to start feeling those blades before the end of the Bush administration? Brexit. Everyone knows that one. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That's hilarious. You know Q is probably a liberal, right? Sitting on his porch, tapping away whatever he dreams up that day, laughing his ass off at how many of you puppets he's got dancing on the end of his strings. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Oh please! Don't laugh; My friend Harvey the rabbit has confirmed this. Plus I'll add that the super special ops warrior who has the same ultra secret OPSEC decoder ring I have just texted me one letter: Q. Q predicted himself, therefore guaranteeing his own veracity? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And it worked so well that time it's clearly worth emulating Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Mohammed gathers the rebound, crosses to Buddha, Vishnu scores!!!! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So what is the context? Since you're now claiming the passage above doesn't mean what it says (straight after claiming it does mean what it says), what does it actually mean? If the holy spirit is telling you that this passage "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." really means that the sexually immoral will inherit the kingdom of god, thieves will inherit the kingdom of god, greedy people, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will inherit the kingdom of god then yes, it sounds like you do need the holy spirit (or some strong spirits) to understand it. Don't get snippy because you were caught lying. That's your fault, not mine. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And would your god have anything to say about it either way? Only if you choose not to put any value on the lives and experiences of other people. I don't know why you've made that choice, but evolution doesn't command you to do it any more than any other physical process demands that you do it. You might as well say that you don't care whether those tribesmen live or die because of the god of gravity. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Lets be honest - you haven't shown any inclination to clarify your positions so far. But ok then, so the stuff that you've posted means exactly what it says, yeah? So this: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Means that no one who has ever done any of that stuff will get into heaven? That quote was given to show you how God cares. Now, like always, you want to go off on another tangent, and that's fine. I don't mind. Lol, what? If the quote is not true, and the people who do those things can get into the kingdom of heaven, then how does it demonstrate that god cares what we do? Finding out whether or not your quotes have any meaning is not a tangent, it's fundamental to finding out if they answer the question. So it's not clear and it doesn't mean what it says it means. Last post you asked me if I believed you that it's clear and should be taken at face value, and said you'd have explained the context if it was neccesary. This post you've basically admitted you were lying about it being clear, and it is neccesary to look at the context to know what it says. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You are correct, their lives don't matter. Just remember, neither does yours or your loved ones then. Yep, so says secular humanism So what's your excuse for not caring about their lives? You keep saying that as if you think it's clever. What does it mean? Do you want to have an ideagasm?