[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Establishments war on Donald Trump Title: Anti-Trump “Conservatives” Release Statement After Meeting to Dump Trump – Want to Unite Republicans op anti-Trump Republicans will meet in Washington DC on Thursday on how to stop GOP front-runner Donald Trump from winning the nomination. The group was also planning a third party run if Trump wins. The meeting was organized by RedState founder Erick Erickson who has vowed to never vote for Trump – even if it means a Hillary Clinton presidency. dump trump crowd The anti-Trump group released a statement this afternoon. Here is the statement agreed to by the conservatives who met this morning to stop Trump: https://t.co/klsTcIiPOf — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 17, 2016 Erick Erickson’s website released this statement today to stop Trump. The group called “for a unity ticket that unites the Republican Party.” …Except, of course, for the seven million Trump voters. They can go to hell. The cowards did not have enough courage to release the attendees at the meeting. This morning I participated in a meeting of grassroots conservative activists from around the country who are committed to opposing Donald Trump. We have agreed to release the statement below: We are a group of grassroots conservative activists from all over the country and from various backgrounds, including supporters of many of the other campaigns. We are committed to ensuring a real conservative candidate is elected. We believe that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump, a Hillary Clinton donor, is that person. We believe that the issue of Donald Trump is greater than an issue of party. It is an issue of morals and character that all Americans, not just those of us in the conservative movement, must confront. We call for a unity ticket that unites the Republican Party. If that unity ticket is unable to get 1,237 delegates prior to the convention, we recognize that it took Abraham Lincoln three ballots at the Republican convention in 1860 to become the party’s nominee and if it is good enough for Lincoln, that process should be good enough for all the candidates without threats of riots. We encourage all former Republican candidates not currently supporting Trump to unite against him and encourage all candidates to hold their delegates on the first ballot. Lastly, we intend to keep our options open as to other avenues to oppose Donald Trump. Our multiple decades of work in the conservative movement for free markets, limited government, national defense, religious liberty, life, and marriage are about ideas, not necessarily parties. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 91. We want to unite Republicans too, and we want to win, to beat Hillary, to save the Supreme Court, to get jobs back in America, to get the economy on track. Trump will do that. The other Republicans cannot. That's why Trump is leading: the People have a lot of sense. So come on, Republicans, get in line with Donald and let's go win.
#9. To: Vicomte13, calcon (#5) The other Republicans cannot. BS. Cruz would do every bit as well a Trump, probably better.
#13. To: SOSO (#9) No he wouldn't. There are millions of us who will vote for Trump that won't vote for Cruz. Trump has recreated the Reagan Democrat: the nationalist, populist working class voter. Those voters will not vote for Cruz. They've come out for Trump. They'll elect Trump. If the party pulls shenanigans to deprive Trump of the nomination, they won't come out for Cruz or Kasich. They'll stay home or vote Hillary in disgust. You've got two choices: Hillary or Trump. Cruz is a dead letter.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13) Trump has recreated the Reagan Democrat: the nationalist, populist working class voter. Most of the DRats that supposedly crossed over are likely Hillary supporters that want to see Trump run against her over Cruz or Rubio.
#18. To: SOSO (#15) Most of the DRats that supposedly crossed over are likely Hillary supporters that want to see Trump run against her over Cruz or Rubio. That's a nutty view.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18) Most of the DRats that supposedly crossed over are likely Hillary supporters that want to see Trump run against her over Cruz or Rubio. Why? Because you say so?
#24. To: SOSO (#20) Why? Because you say so? I say so because it's true.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#24) Why? Because you say so? Yeah,but you still believe in Virgin Birth.
#65. To: sneakypete (#36) Yeah,but you still believe in Virgin Birth. There are two virgin birth belief systems; one involves Jesus Christ and the other evolution. I believe in the first, not the lie.
#68. To: GarySpFC (#65) There are two virgin birth belief systems; one involves Jesus Christ and the other evolution. Since when has evolution claimed virgin birth?
#70. To: sneakypete (#68) Since when has evolution claimed virgin birth? Well you have to understand that once there were no humans, and then there were, so we are expected to believe that a monkey sired a human. When two monkeys mate what they get is a monkey not a human. So the first human must have arisen some other way, thus a virgin birth. You see the impossibility that humans are the result of multiple genetic mutations is just too fantastic to contemplate. Monkeys breed consistently and what they get are more monkeys. If humans arose from monkeys, the monkeys should have died out, but they haven't
#71. To: paraclete (#70) Well you have to understand that once there were no humans, and then there were, so we are expected to believe that a monkey sired a human. When two monkeys mate what they get is a monkey not a human. So the first human must have arisen some other way, thus a virgin birth. Uh,huh. Were monkeys creaked in the image of God,also? Baboons? Dogs? After all they all give birth,so according to YOUR logic the first ones born must have been the result of virgin births,right?
#72. To: sneakypete (#71) Getting back to genesis, The first were created by God. Ever thought how interesting it is the word genesis contains the word gene
#73. To: paraclete (#72) Getting back to genesis, The first were created by God That's your proof? Do you believe everything you read?
#74. To: sneakypete (#73) That's your proof? Do you believe everything you read? No I don't believe the Book of Mormom, I don't believe the Origin of Species, I don't believe Mein Kempf. I don't believe the Quoran, I don't believe Awake but the Bible has stood the test. God has told us what he wants us to know, it isn't about where we came from but where we are going
#75. To: paraclete (#74) No I don't believe the Book of Mormom, I don't believe the Origin of Species, I don't believe Mein Kempf. I don't believe the Quoran, I don't believe Awake but the Bible has stood the test. God has told us what he wants us to know, it isn't about where we came from but where we are going And of course all those other people are going to go to hell,and you and those who share your beliefs are going to heaven,right?
#76. To: sneakypete (#75) (Edited) And of course all those other people are going to go to hell, and you and those who share your beliefs are going to heaven,right? You forget the "you have a choice" clause, you want to criticise my choice because you have made a different one, thing is; if I'm wrong we both end up in the same place, if I'm right, we don't, and I have evidence that God exists, so I'll take his "word" for it over yours. Paul said it a long time ago and it was important enough to be written down. God has put up with this foolishness but no more he wants you to know the truth
#77. To: paraclete (#76) you want to criticise my choice No,I criticize your elitism and smugness as a way to point out your hypocrisy. EVERY member of every other religious cult everywhere on the planet are the ones who are convinced YOU are going to hell for YOUR beliefs,not me. I don't believe in heaven or hell,other than what we make for ourselves during our lives. Once you are dead,you are dead forever.
#82. To: sneakypete (#77) EVERY member of every other religious cult everywhere on the planet are the ones who are convinced YOU are going to hell for YOUR beliefs,not me. I don't believe in heaven or hell,other than what we make for ourselves during our lives. Once you are dead,you are dead forever. What evidence do you have for your belief?
#85. To: GarySpFC (#82) What evidence do you have for your belief? Rational thought. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in mantras that state "It all exists so there MUST have been a God to create it",yet fail to address the question of "Ok,so where did God come from if EVERYTHING had to be created purposely?"
#88. To: sneakypete (#85) Rational thought. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in mantras that state "It all exists so there MUST have been a God to create it",yet fail to address Atheistic materialism is highly irrational, because it defecto posits matter over mind.
#89. To: GarySpFC (#88) Atheistic materialism is highly irrational, And organized religion isn't????? Seriously? BTW,WTH does Atheistic Materialism have to do with anything. It's just another belief system,and has more in common with organized religion than it does a open mind. Your religion,and all other religions are based on FAITH,NOT FACTS.
#90. To: sneakypete (#89) Rational thought. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in mantras that state "It all exists so there MUST have been a God to create it",yet fail to address
I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion — those narrow, unattractive jews, too blind to the mystical wealth of the Pagan world around them — was precisely the matter of great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another, but nothing was simply alike. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time… yet also so luminous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god — we are no longer polytheists — then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all. C.S. Lewis
#91. To: GarySpFC (#90) Quoting C.S Lewis or anyone else is meaningless. The truth is YOU choose to believe your faith is based on facts,period. If you want to believe that and it makes you happy,I'm happy for you. Just don't start demanding that I or anyone else MUST share your faith.
Replies to Comment # 91. #93. To: sneakypete, all (#91) (Edited) Brotherse, In 1999 or 2000 I was asked by Linda Holloway, then Chairwoman, of the Kansas School Board to testify before the board during the Kansas Evolution controversy. As I mentioned previously there were reporters from around the world attending, and I would put the number to be at least 1,000. I was the only one testifying against the Darwinists, and the odds were stacked against me 9 to 1. Yesterday, I found the testimony I provided, and I thought you might like to see it for inclusion on my new website. You will find it below. I apologize for the loss of formatting. Grace and peace, Gary Butner, Th.D. Sent from my iPad Evolution, God and Atheism I would like to say statements to the effect that one can believe in evolution and God's hand working in creation displays an ignorance of Darwin's belief system and what is being taught. Firstly, if one believes God is using the evolutionary process in creation, then they would use the term "Divine selection," and not "natural selection" as favored by the evolutionists. Evolutionists are very clear that natural selection is an unsupervised, impersonal, and purposelessprocess. In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments." Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind." I have to ask: How do they know the process was impersonal? How do they know the process was unsupervised? How do they know the process is purposeless? How do they know the process is mindless? Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "impersonal" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way--and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheistic naturalism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal Creator being involved in either a creation or evolutionary process. In 1997, theologians Alvin Plantinga and Huston Smith notified NABT that their official position statement was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. NABT discussed the objection for all of five minutes and voted to continue their position statement. Later, NABT removed "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from the language after the evolutionist spokesperson Eugenie Scott informed NABT the definition would give Phillip Johnson ammunition in his fight against their position. They still continue to teach evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal, purposeless, and mindless process. Any teacher denying that is either fired or transferred to teaching another subject. Secondly, in his response to Asa Gray, Darwin specifically stated evolution excludes design. In the view of the great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, however (as well as every mainstream Christian theologian before the Twentieth Century), excluding design is tantamount to excluding God. Design implies a Designer, God. When one excludes the Designer they have embraced atheism. Darwin's response to Gray is at the end of his 1868 book, "The Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication." Darwin concluded his book with a lengthy refutation of Gray's position. Using the metaphor of a house built by an architect utilizing uncut fragments of stone, Darwin explained that "the fragments of stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to the edifice built by him the same relation which the fluctuating variations of each organic being bear to the varied and admirable structures ultimately acquired by its modified descendants." The shape of each fragment "may be called accidental, but this is not strictly correct; for the shape of each depends on a long sequence of events, all obeying natural laws." Nevertheless, "in regard to the use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may be strictly said to be accidental." In Darwin's metaphor, of course, the architect is natural selection. Darwin continued: "Can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predeter-mined for the builder's sake, can it with any greater probability be maintained that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants; - many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case - if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed - no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided." Americans fought and died for religious liberty, and the right to educate their children in the religion of their choice. Please answer why evolutionists arrogantly DEMAND the right to indoctrinate OUR children into THEIR religion? Gary Butner Kansas Gary Butner, Th.D.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 91. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|