Trump emerges unscathed as the the media attempts to demonize him

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
W

WoundedWarrior

Guest
#61
#61
Viligant_Warrior said:
Perhaps you'd be interested in what Winston Churchill said just before Great Britain was forced into war with Germany.

The issue of personal liberty must be defended at all cost, up to the point that defending them threatens our ultimate freedoms, and the very existence of our nation. That was what Churchill believe Great Britain faced in 1939, and it is what we are facing in the United States in 2015.

While I admire Rand Paul's vehement defenses of the First and Fourth Amendments (he never mentioned the Second in the debate, and it is irrelevant to the question) he is dead wrong in attempting to prevent all DHS access to certain records which, if you are not a terrorist, gives you no concern.
Click to expand...


I agree, Dr. Carson is a Christ-Follower.

I am not keen on the Churchill example as a justification for infringing upon Constitutional rights from a moral/ethical, at-face-value perspective. However, I am also not qualified to make an educated opinion on the matter of Counter-terrorism as it relates to National Security.
 
Last edited:
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#62
#62
blondieindahouse said:
Here again; you state your opinion.
Click to expand...
Also, an "opinion" is a belief about vague facts, or facts not able to lead one to a definitive conclusion. That is not the case with the non-legalistic SDAs, nor is it the case with Dr. Carson. It is proven by the record, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are non-legalistic SDA denominations, and that Dr. Carson belongs to such a church.

Therefore, not only is your level of willful ignorance evident, but so is your level of veracity, given you do not want to believe truth presented to you, and want to hold closely to your prejudiced preconceived notions, no matter how far fetched or untruthful.
 
B

blondieindahouse

Banned
#63
Jun 23, 2015
1,990
37
0
#63
Viligant_Warrior said:
Blondie, I'm sorry to say this, but you don't know what you're talking about, and should refrain from impugning Dr. Carson or anyone else who is a member of the non-legalistic varieties of SDA by claiming they "aren't Christians." That is, in fact, willful ignorance of the truth. Also, I did not stop at "church membership" but also stated that Dr. Carson has a statement of faith on his website that indicates his trust in Christ alone. You reject it without even reading it. You have a prejudice against SDA without even wanting to know that some types of SDA are not legalistic. Your view of all SDA as un-Christian is not supported by the facts, and your rant is inexcusable. Done here.
Click to expand...
Isnt it amazing how the enemy lies? He has stolen your tongue sir. It was your RANT and not mine. Ive stated facts and you got insulting with your response which was a slight against my opinion and it was indeed became a RANT! It is you that come in with all your pontificating rhetoric. I simply stand on my original statement.
rant

[ rant ]

VERB

speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way:<<<< this looks more like your disposition rather than mine wouldnt you agree? Ive simply stood my ground :)
 
G

GodIsSalvation

Banned
#64
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#64
I agree with blondie. The SDA is a cult started by false prophets. That is pretty well known. Doesn't matter what sect of the SDA it is, it is still a cult. It's like with islam, just because the Islamic State is the only group in modern time that follows islam in accordance to the Koran doesn't mean the other various pseudo-islamic sects and groups are not evil false religions.

Nevertheless, one doesn't have to reach to that ultimate card against Carson to show why he won't win. His lack of experience and vague positions and answers display his inability to understand fairly simple domestic and foreign policy. That alone is reason enough that he won't win whether you or I vote for him or not.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#65
#65
Viligant_Warrior said:
Many don't, but many don't realize there are several different "varieties" of SDA. A couple of them are not "Moses followers," and Dr. Carson belongs to one of those churches. He trusts in Christ and Christ alone, without works or the Law, for salvation.
Click to expand...
which seventh day adventist denomination exactly is he a member of?
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#66
#66
I personally don't care if Carson is a member of the sda. As long as we have a leader that stands on the principles of liberty and freedom that are outlined for us in our founding documents. There are too many little dictators running around trying to turn us into Venezuela. They need to be stopped and if they have broken the law they must be served justice under the law.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#67
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#67
Sirk said:
I personally don't care if Carson is a member of the sda. As long as we have a leader that stands on the principles of liberty and freedom that are outlined for us in our founding documents. There are too many little dictators running around trying to turn us into Venezuela. They need to be stopped and if they have broken the law they must be served justice under the law.
Click to expand...
I agree, but have a hard time seeing the country making to the next election......a lot is happening for sure and or can happen between now and then!
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#68
#68
dcontroversal said:
I agree, but have a hard time seeing the country making to the next election......a lot is happening for sure and or can happen between now and then!
Click to expand...
Im not so sure that a major economic catastrophe is just around the corner.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#69
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#69
Sirk said:
Im not so sure that a major economic catastrophe is just around the corner.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of friends who study the bible, history, world events etc. and they are all very nervous about this fall....I heard yesterday that Texas called the FED and said they wanted their gold and went to get it and a sample found it to be lead covered with gold....China has also demanded it's gold and the U.S. is not responding because there is no gold.....I agree...economic collapse seems likely....
 
G

GodIsSalvation

Banned
#70
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#70
Anything can happen suddenly in the future, and many things will happen. The President of the USA is not meant to be our leader. The president is a servant of the king, and we be the kings. Think technocratic, regardless of the whims of the future; who'd be best suited to preside over our other servants, carry forth our will on the other nations, and of course defend we the kings?

I'd say a servant that loves God and favors Jesus. A servant that knows he is a servant and loves his master, the American people broadly.

I believe under that criteria John Kasich is the logical best choice. I believe he even has the fruit of Christian conservative governance both spiritually by belief and secularly by knowledge for there is ample information regarding the secular effects of his governance (ie: economics, job growth, effects of foreign policy, etc.) He has always been a prosperous servant for my state and my people. I believe God has blessed the man with good understanding, prudence, and a servant's heart. Praise Jesus.
 
A

Atwood

Senior Member
#71
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#71
Well, the old boy seems to have blood on his hands now!

These debates are not debates. If they were we would have very neutral moderators, not trying
to ask embarrassing questions, favoring one candidate over another. IMHO the Republicrats
should refuse to play along. They should ignore the "moderator" news media people.

They should first speak to the issue positive:
Here is why I should be the president.
Then they should speak to the negative (rebuttal):
Here is why the others should not be president.

We will not have fair "debates" until the new media is put out of it or ignored.
I recall how Candy whatshername jumped in & helped Obama vs Romney, disgracefully.

I noticed at the end a couple of pretty good Christian confessions: first from Ted Cruz,
then from I think Walker who spoke of the blood of Jesus covering sins. I think that Cruz
is making a mistake by not speaking some Spanish, if he can.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#72
#72
blondieindahouse said:
Ive stated facts
Click to expand...
Please share with me where, if anywhere, you've stated "facts." As I've shown you, your beliefs are erroneous, therefore they are not "facts."

Also, I'm not the one posting in obnoxious five-point blue font, which pretty much qualifies as a rant. Have a nice life.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#73
#73
Viligant_Warrior said:
Please share with me where, if anywhere, you've stated "facts." As I've shown you, your beliefs are erroneous, therefore they are not "facts."

Also, I'm not the one posting in obnoxious five-point blue font, which pretty much qualifies as a rant. Have a nice life.
Click to expand...
In the words of Satan in the song by Don Henley called "Garden of Allah".....there are no facts, just data to be manipulated.
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#74
#74
blondieindahouse said:
I agree with everything you've said except that it is the 4th he was referring to. Rand supports 2nd and 4th. Christie doesnt necessarily support the 4th.

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TD]4th[/TD]
[TD]Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.[/TD]
[TD]September 25, 1789[/TD]
[TD]December 15, 1791[/TD]
[TD]2 years
2 months
20 days[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5th[/TD]
[TD]Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

That was my mistake and yes it was the 4th amendment, sorry about that.

Yes Christie's way wants to invade on people's person privacy right, and Rand Paul put him in his place on this.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#75
#75
KennethC said:
That was my mistake and yes it was the 4th amendment, sorry about that.

Yes Christie's way wants to invade on people's person privacy right, and Rand Paul put him in his place on this.
Click to expand...


When? I saw him get high-pitched, animated, and apoplectic, but I didn't see him "put him his place" with that silly rant. He acted like a 12-year-old and didn't make any point.
 
Last edited:
W

WoundedWarrior

Guest
#76
#76
Viligant_Warrior said:


When? I saw him get high-pitched, animated, and apoplectic, but I didn't see him "put him his place" with that silly rant. He acted like a 12-year-old and didn't make any point.
Click to expand...
So, Rand Paul "put him in his place" or "acted like a 12-year-old" -- I think neither; Rand Paul effectively communicated that he will support and defend our constitutional rights, while accusing Christie of the opposite.

No current candidate argues more effectively than Paul.
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#77
#77
WoundedWarrior said:
So, Rand Paul "put him in his place" or "acted like a 12-year-old" -- I think neither; Rand Paul effectively communicated that he will support and defend our constitutional rights, while accusing Christie of the opposite.

No current candidate argues more effectively than Paul.
Click to expand...
As Christie said, the issue of First vs. Fourth Amendment rights is one of degree. Not being a criminal, I have nothing to fear from my calls, emails, etc. being anonymously monitored -- which is what happens. Our names are not associated with anything unless there is evidence of terrorist activity. Paul is wrong when he says the Fourth Amendment warrant solves the problem. That's true only if we already know who the terrorists are.

In this day and age of electronic communication at the speed of the Internet around the world, keyword searches and analysis of communication patterns is absolutely necessary to make the identification possible. Then warrants are in order, but we can't get warrants if we can't first identify the suspects.

Paul's concerns would be admirable if there was actually a basis for concern for the average American. There isn't. If we aren't doing anything terrorist-related, we have nothing to fear.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#78
#78
Viligant_Warrior said:
As Christie said, the issue of First vs. Fourth Amendment rights is one of degree. Not being a criminal, I have nothing to fear from my calls, emails, etc. being anonymously monitored -- which is what happens. Our names are not associated with anything unless there is evidence of terrorist activity. Paul is wrong when he says the Fourth Amendment warrant solves the problem. That's true only if we already know who the terrorists are.

In this day and age of electronic communication at the speed of the Internet around the world, keyword searches and analysis of communication patterns is absolutely necessary to make the identification possible. Then warrants are in order, but we can't get warrants if we can't first identify the suspects.

Paul's concerns would be admirable if there was actually a basis for concern for the average American. There isn't. If we aren't doing anything terrorist-related, we have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...
Except that pretty soon if not already, being a christian might get you on a terrorist list...or being pro life, or pro 2nd amendment, or not liking a certain politician. They are already defining people like you and me as potential enemies and agitators of the "state".
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#79
#79
Sirk said:
Except that pretty soon if not already, being a christian might get you on a terrorist list...or being pro life, or pro 2nd amendment, or not liking a certain politician. They are already defining people like you and me as potential enemies and agitators of the "state".
Click to expand...
I have no worries if that happens. Whether free or imprisoned, I can serve Christ.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#80
#80
Viligant_Warrior said:
I have no worries if that happens. Whether free or imprisoned, I can serve Christ.
Click to expand...
Probably isn't much we can do about if that is what God wills.....but at least Rand is one of the few that is calling attention to this tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.