WalkingOrders

9 hours ago, candide said:

The fact that there are no official investigations into the Bidens is not an hypothesis.

 

From what I know they used him for public relations purpose because they had a (justified) corrupt image.

 

As I wrote several times, I personally have no problem in having Hunter or anyone investigated, as long it is an official investigation in accordance with the US law, and not a show to support a conspiracy theory from the alternate Trumpist universe.  Please send a petition to the DOJ about it. What the hell are they doing? Lol.

 

Anyway, It's not what Trump talked about, he talked about the story about the "very good prosecutor" and everybody knows It's been debunked. Same for the "Ukrainian" Crowdstrike stupidity.

 

As concerns Giuliani, Barr and others, let's have them testify under oath! Oh, sorry, Trump doesn't want that.... Why is it?

Read the paragraph in the July 25th phonecall text. For sure, it seems that the President is not aware of the reality of the crowdstrike server (not a ukrainian co, spread across multiple machines, or virtual severs), as Mueller report had just been released he obviously has reason not to trust the FBI, or other intel agencies, the subsequent IG on FISA confirms his reasoning.

The President asking about crowdstrike seems to indicate he was acting out of an intent to defend the interests of the USA, and not self-interest. Regardless of how crazy the theory of the crowdstrike server is.

In the call the President also speaks in general phrases "Our Country has been through a lot", " and concerns about people that may be around Zelensky, "There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation".

So is it I that has to stretch to find concern for the United States, or does one have to stretch to declare a lack of concern?

As for witnesses, and testifying. For both sides there are concerns about a time element, and executive priviledge, the lack of it; or arguably the abuse of it; either way; is going to be decided by the supreme court. That results in delay. This is an important topic not only in this case but for future precedent.

Assuming that all the witnesses were to be called, neither you nor I know what would come from that testimony. 

Remember there are several lines of defense. The last one is this: So what! This does not rise to an impeachable offense, as the President was acting in accord with his Presidential powers.

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

what here is ridiculous is that you think it is relevant to the charges against trump.

What kind of a comment is this? The Democrats just spent two days at imeachment trial talking about Burisma and Biden. Yeah its ridiculous, and the coming 3 days of the trial might also see the name Burisma and Biden come up again, again, and again.

I have done this already. No issues last year. I don't think going to the bank in Thailand is like facing a master plot to destroy me, and take my money, its just going to the bank. It's just like in any other country. No big deal. 

All I have to say is that it is going to be interesting to see if Bloomberg picks up any delegates on super tuesday. That's all that really matters. That, and if there might still any other potential latecomers to the race.

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I took lysergic acid a few times in my teens, always in a considerate way. Good memories ????

"In a considerate way"... are you sure about that? I'm not. Let's see; while surfing naked, in a couple of discos, on a bus, on a plane, hanging in a tree in an apartment complex about 4 hours, during a chat with police on a private boat dock...nah... I am not sure if I can say the same....I tried though. ????

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

A well thought out response >  

I don't know what Evidence you have for me  to disagree with  So far I have not heard any evidence from anyone, I have heard conjecture, but not evidence.

I have no problem with Christianity and it's core of morality. I think I am more Christian than many"Christians" but I think the "Church" has developed an unnecessary for the people narrative but necessary for the power structure to control and subjugate people. I think Jesus "If he ever existed" was a philosopher of the Buddhist tradition, that in an attempt to bring the philosophy to unsophisticated audience, framed it in a narrative they could understand at the time, within the framework of their Hebrew history.  IMO we are no longer unsophisticated and no longer need the Narrative. IMO we can shed the dogma but retain the philosophy. 

  Actually to be intellectually honest,  not all of as are ready, some of as still need the "stick and carrot"     

You should be able to conjecture at any evidence I have, and realize you cant claim that it is false. These aren't new arguments. Your take on "Jesus if he ever existed" is an interesting one. "Not all of us are ready", if this presumes some are farther along some continuum, or path, then others, what path is that? Where does it end? How do you identify who needs a carrot and stick? Is the assumption that non-believers have achieved enlightenment because they read more books? What does that matter to someone who plants and picks rice from birth till death?

2 hours ago, candide said:

Personally I don't think It's fair that sons of well known people can benefit from such privilege, usually because It's good for public relations or public image. However, he's far from being the only one and that's not illegal.

 

By the way, it's interesting to notice that you are not arguing any more about the debunked theory that Biden asked Shokin to be fired because of an investigation that was put on hold and switched to another topic.

 

Now Let's follow your line of reasoning about Hunter. A company hires an American guy because of his connections, allegedly in order to conduct some illegal activities. If It's true, these illegal activities would likely occur in the US or in relation to US organisations, right? Burisma doesn't need any American for corrupt activities in Ukraine, right? In this case an investigation should first be started in the US as it would directly fall under US law. Again, if there is so much evidence of wrongdoing, why no investigation?

I disagree with all of your hypotheticals, and your characterization. The questions that interests me is this: What was Hunter Biden's job? In other words WHY was he being paid? Was it simply for being the VP of the USA's son? And what was Burisma expecting in return for the millions that funneled through?

Did you read the story about the Diamond ring the Chinese gave to Hunter? That's a great story too. Look it up while your looking for A Hunter Biden defense. Honestly, I think the whole China thing is an even Bigger story then Burisma.

My other questions revolve around Rudy Giuliani, and the actual facts around what he claims to have found regarding Dem money in Ukraine. I am not sure if he has something that Barr now has, as well as the Trump Defense team, or if he had smoke blown up his rear, or himself is blowing smoke. A lot of negativity flies at this guy from the left, the old guy, half cocked, but he is no amateur prosecutor of organized crime. He is the real deal.

Like him or not. Were gonna soon find out, and I speculate no further...and no news reports...I trust none of them on this subject. 

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The verse is from the King James version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:22

Yeah, I was confusing this with another verse, but your enire argument here re hinduism comparison with Christ has a source? Not for arguing, but for interest.

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

As far as I know, Christ promoted the same spiritual concepts as any guru or enlightened yogi do: that the kingdom of God is within each of us and that we have the key to unlock the potential to create heaven on earth (= accessing the god consciousness through practice and becoming one with it). 
He often talked about the "single eye":
 

The light of the body is the eye: if

therefore thine eye be single, thy

whole body shall be full of light.
Matthew 6:22

Which is just another way to refer to the third eye in Hinduism/Buddhism. When you focus your attention on the third eye long enough, the kundalini energy (Holy Ghost) may awaken and bath you in white light.
Hence the halos around the images of saints or the little flames on top of their heads.

So, Jesus the Christ didn't make all his sacrifices in order for people to blindly follow his teachings, but pushed them at every turn to be an active part in their own awakening through meditation and prayer. 
Faith may be an important ingredient, but faith without practice is like an arrow without a bow.

You are quoting someone here Source please. Thankyou

12 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Christopher Hitchins exposed a different and not so "saintly" side of Mother T. He called her Hell's Angel in a documentary of the same name. He also wrote a book entitled "The Missionary Position". Amazing indeed...though not in the way most think.  

I lived over two months in a facility run by these Sisters in Bronx NY. My view is they are Saints on Earth who live selfless lives for others. I cannot speak for the view of Christopher Hitchins, but am familiar with his argument against Mother Theresa.

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

We seem to go around in circles, I never said god does not exist, I only said that there is no evidence that it exists, a very big difference. 

I can't even tell you that leprechauns don't exist, I can only say that there is no credible evidence that they do. 

If you say leprechauns exist , all i can say is Wow !! realy , what is your evidence?

Would you not say the same?  So why not about god.?

 

 

I agree that there is no scientific proof, but that is NOT the same thing as saying there is no evidence. That is a false claim. You simply find the evidence as insufficient for proof (I assume that is what you mean). I am a Christian, and agree, there is no scientific proof of the existence of God, or of Jesus Christ. I do see evidence, perhaps you would disagree with my evidence, that's ok. You can no more prove my evidence false then you can prove God false, and proving God false is not part of the requirement for proving the mysteries of the way the Universe works, nor its origins. I am not someone who sees science and religion as being in opposition.

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

What you call faith, i call open mind.

Faith can help doing great things though, and sometimes bad things.

Relying exclusively on the physical senses, is that enough for the sake of knowledge ?

In none of my previous comments have I denied scientific truths, or made a claim that my faith requires such a denial  or that I rely on faith as opposed to belief on the physical world I live, or in my rational thought on how the world works, or my interactions with people that inform my decision making. I state that I have Christian faith. Therefore I carry on in that manner, as I am able.

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Fact is, there are ways you can find proof. I laid them out several times here. No need to rely on faith alone, direct experience is the only way to get all the evidence you'll ever need.
The question is, are you (and all the others who deny Its existence) willing to find out?

To your question:

1. I do not deny the existence of God, nor of Christ.

2. As I said there is evidence, however, there is no scientific proof. The greatest theological minds the world has known have attempted such proof, and have all failed. 

3. Faith, hope  and charity are what is demanded of a Christian.

4. Faith as is said in the bible is in things unseen. The Church has referred to faith in God as a mystery for reason. It is considered a gift from God  but I need no such gift to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Nothing in my previous comment denies the existence of God. 

On 4/14/2019 at 10:40 PM, reenatinnakor said:

Every culture have their own beliefs and comfort system and superstitions. We all know here in Thailand monks are revered and Thais think they can grant wishes... Which as we all know is <deleted>, as I keep telling the gf, if monks really could grant wishes then there'll be no poor people in thailand. For the west the idea of jesus and god is our comfort system. For the chinese it's the idea of bai san, or respecting the dead.

I'm atheist and only believe in science but I do respect others superstitions and beliefs as long as they respect mine to not believe! Off course at the end of the day there is definitely no God like there was no Zeus, or Thor, or Posseidon. Man just hasn't had enough time to prove it yet. Last week we were finally able to see what a black hole looks like. One day we will be able to prove there's no God despite the fact that the burden of proof should be on those that believe there is a God.

There is no scientic proof that can be argued successfully for the existance of God, or the Christian God or any God, that is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. All of the arguments for proving God all fail. If there was in existence some proof, then there would be no need of faith. God has not sufficiently shown his existance to me in a way that would negate my reasons for have faith in what is unknown.

On 4/14/2019 at 10:40 PM, reenatinnakor said:

Every culture have their own beliefs and comfort system and superstitions. We all know here in Thailand monks are revered and Thais think they can grant wishes... Which as we all know is <deleted>, as I keep telling the gf, if monks really could grant wishes then there'll be no poor people in thailand. For the west the idea of jesus and god is our comfort system. For the chinese it's the idea of bai san, or respecting the dead.

I'm atheist and only believe in science but I do respect others superstitions and beliefs as long as they respect mine to not believe! Off course at the end of the day there is definitely no God like there was no Zeus, or Thor, or Posseidon. Man just hasn't had enough time to prove it yet. Last week we were finally able to see what a black hole looks like. One day we will be able to prove there's no God despite the fact that the burden of proof should be on those that believe there is a God.

I think its an over simplification to claim either that all Monks are revered by Thai, or that all Monks think they can grant wishes, or that all Thai believe such things. Bad monks fill the news, media, and folklore of Thailand. Reverence given to Monks is formality which is typically given, and heartfelt  but Thai are very aware of bad monks, in the same way the west is aware of bad religious leaders.

On the other hand, not being buddhist, but having spent some time in two remote temples in Thailand, that were a long jouney of a few days to get to, I was honestly struck by the compassion of these Monks truly living in a very isolated setting. They truly live their entire life in service to the visitors of the Temple, and I assume to foster the teaching of the Buddha through selfless action. I have also seen similiar actions by the Missionairies of Charity founded by Mother Theresa. Amazing people.

On 4/14/2019 at 10:28 PM, marcusarelus said:

How about those who deny medical treatment to their children in the name of god?  How about those who stone women in the name of god?  How about those who commit mass suicide in the name of god?  Is that OK?

I don't know what this has to do with the question of believing in God. How about things that are NOT OK, and NOT done in the name of any God? Why does ones expressing a personal belief in God or not, require one to defend that belief by attacking the beliefs held by others? Or their moral failings? Or the morality or immorality of the actions of others? If that question is put forward then surely criticisms of religion(s), are valid to the question, but here the question only asks for a personal response to the belief in God.

On 4/14/2019 at 10:27 PM, mauGR1 said:

We can't understand the concept of infinite, we can't understand lots of other things.

I think it's logical to think there are superior beings, and an intelligent design.

You don't throw around randomly screws and bolts and metal planks to build an airplane, right ?

People who mock God, mock something they don't understand.

I do understand the concept of infinite. Quite clearly.

I try to differentiate between belief, and faith. I have faith which is to say I have hope. Therefore I carry on in the hope of the promises of Christ, that there is a creator of all and this creator is good. I can pronounce my own belief all day long in terms of the Apostles creed for example, and get caught up in my own doubts. After all, how can I claim any first hand knowledge to support any of this belief? What proof can I offer? None, that can be construed as, or rises to the level of, scientific evidence. I see no requirement from God, or do not suppose one, that says I am required to have belief. I proceed on faith, and evidently I need only have the amount equivelent to a mustard seed, or a very small amount. Ok thats my theology for the day.