The first one is. Still serves a point in putting out the info on what can be done.
The second one is it working, it seems.
Only one question is needed to kill this dumb narrative: "if it was a violent insurrection and overthrowing of the government, how did they all fail?"
The universe has rules. We all play by them. Things in the world work a certain way.
The deep state can't do certain things, because if they could just kill us all instantly and win.
If the whitehats can fight them in a way that forces them into certain scenarios, they can ensure victory, or nearly so (nothing is assured to be fair).
It is literally chess.
The analogy is very good. One of the best for our current situation (hence why so many people use it).
If patriots are in control, that doesn't mean the deep state can't still play their moves and take some pieces, hoping the white hats fuck up, while still knowing they are going to lose if the white hats don't fuck up.
Even when both players in a chess game know exactly how many moves to checkmate, it doesn't stop the checkmate.
So all we have to do is not screw up and let them play their final desperate moves.
When someone is in a winning position in chess and both sides know it, what happens?
Plenty of first responders die all the time (as does everyone). And when they are associated with a large event, they go from unknown to known, and their deaths garner more attention as a result. So not really evidence of anything on its own.
This particular story with all the context, however, absolutely does not check out.
Calling a male tranny a dude is violence. Calling a female tranny a dude makes you the Second Coming of Christ in the eyes of the mentally ill lefties.
CNN over here with the least retarded headline. I'm sure the article is dog shit, of course.
Who is "they"? A name is not a person nor an action.
You have to establish which ones actually participated or did anything wrong first. Otherwise, you are the same as the bad guys.
He put up a basic page saying to go to patriots.win for a while, and hardly seemed hostile. Whatever that clusterfuck was it probably wasn't exactly what either side said it was.
I can't find an archive of the page I was thinking of but found this one which certainly doesn't seem hostile to me:
Whether it's true or not, I don't know, and it does seem a bit off. But not hostile or like there was any animosity.
I never said He controls everything. I said He controls the big stuff.
I would amend my analogy, however, because I do think it presented less free will than I believe we have: The boat has sails. We can mostly control where we go, but we depend on the wind and the water to some degree. Both of which are out of our control. In the end, the wind and the water will guide us all to the Second Coming of Christ, no matter what we do.
And what is your logical basis to claim that God interfering or controlling things in His the day-to-day lives of His creation is a fundamentally silly idea?
Edit: further, you can witness your conception of what free will is. What if your conception is wrong? What is free will? The will to choose what I believe? To choose my actions? To control the world around me with my actions/beliefs?
We can't go back in time and do something different, so we can't know if doing something different would change the outcome of anything. Especially on the large scale. That doesn't mean we don't have free will. We can still control what we believe and control our actions, but why must having control over those things require that we can control the path the world is on? Or our own lifelong destiny, for that matter? I see no logical issue with God having a plan for the world and the world more or less following that plan, with slight-to-moderate deviations as a result of free-will.
Nor do I see an issue with free-will and destiny. We could certainly have a general life path that we will follow, and have the free will to control our lives within that path. To a significant degree, even. But that doesn't have to change the major points.
Why do you think we are?
Why does free will mean we can control such grand things as our destiny or the world? We could just as well have free will in a scenario more like a sailboat without sails.
We can do what we want and control our lives on the boat, but the sea controls where we ultimately end up.
Both systems could be true and both include free will, but which is true? How do we know?
If those people had faith in the Lord they are in heaven.
So terrible for them…
Easy for Him. Just not without trampling our free will.
Depends on the AI. I've heard better than this one. You could give it an emotion to base on, and it would generate an output with the proper tone and inflections.
Is a heart transplant transhumanism? Is a prosthetic limb transhumanism? Is a smartphone transhumanism? Is a pacemaker transhumanism?
Sticking a plank of wood to a guy who got his leg blown off is not the same as gouging out his perfectly healthy and functioning eyes because he wants "better ones".
How do you make sure it doesn't kill people if you refuse to test it? That is the whole purpose of animal testing. Get it to a baseline before trying it on people.
How many things "didn't work" on the first try? How many things do we use every day that "didn't work" and had naysayers decrying it?
Yea, but what about all the people this could help?
Your point is correct. I was simply pointing out a small part of your overall comment I find to be incorrect.
Lincoln was absolutely a tyrant, and a racist too.
"I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man." -Abraham Lincoln
Edit: The Lincoln Memorial started construction in DC in 1914. I wonder why the cabal would put a statue of Lincoln on a throne one year after instituting the Fed and enslaving America?
I don't care what you or the world thinks. I care about what is true. Fighting for them will never be fighting for America. To accept them as the same is to admit they have won. I refuse.
Should have known. That alleged quotation is way too coherent for the Potato in Chief.
No. They are illegal occupiers. Fighting for them is by default fighting against our country.
No, I don't think I will.
I certainly will be immidietely disregrding anyone who wants me to ignore potentially useful information due to presentation.