One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Trying Hard to Get the T***h
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
Jul 22, 2022 05:18:41   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
keepuphope wrote:
Actually Project Veritas is an investigative reporting site that actually digs for t***h which is why the FBI and mainstream media h**e them.


They are great!

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 05:20:19   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
working class stiff wrote:
Right? Fox, Newsmax, Red State, Western Journal, National Review, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, The Federalist, etc., etc., etc. If one wants a right wing cocoon, the sources are out there.

Perhaps the OP isn't trying very hard to get 'the t***h'.

Cnn is ur game! Good luck with that! The border is secure! Lolololololololol and Brandon is legit! Hahahaha

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 05:21:49   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
manning5 wrote:
The answer is simply Yes and No! I am talking about t***h, and t***h has no right or left, it just is. It is not woke, it is not progressive, it is not far right idiocy, it is the human dilemma in the real world, and for that matter, in the cosmos. Every discipline can approach t***h if they have the will to do so, or they can create their own idea of it, which happens all too much today. Ideological groups have a corner on self-generated t***hs that may or may not be part of reality. But at the same time, what the hell is "real reality"? I, like most of us, haven't a clue. But we need to pursue it avidly!

Reality is...?
The answer is simply Yes and No! I am talking abou... (show quote)

God is teal, the world is fading!

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2022 05:29:58   #
rjoeholl
 
Birdmam wrote:
That’s pretty mean I heard he already had two a******ns


He thinks wiping his butt is an a******n.

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 09:05:47   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
Zemirah wrote:
Manning, If there was nothing, there would be no one, including you, to ask the question - or any question. ...nor would there be anyone to answer the question.

"This is the question Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) posed in regards to the origin of the universe as a part of his argument for the existence of God.

Here is a brief and simplified explanation of what has come to be known as the Leibniz Contingency Argument, or the Leibniz Cosmological Argument (cosmology being the study of the origin of the cosmos, or universe).

The logic of the argument goes like this:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

As with all such logical arguments, if the premises are true (points 1-3), than the conclusion must be true (point 4). The question is whether or not the first three points or more likely to be true than they are false.

Certainly everyone would agree that the universe exists, so at least we are safe with point number 3.

But what about points 1 and 2? Is it accurate to say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence and that the sole explanation for the existence of the universe is God?

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence

In our everyday experiences, we expect there to be an explanation for the things we encounter. Common illustrations of this given are wandering in the woods and discovering a pocket watch.

We would not be intellectually satisfied with saying that the pocket watch is just there. We would explain its existence by concluding that it was left there by someone.

Or imagine how incredulous you would be if you were being told that Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than intentionally carved!

Or better yet, think of a simpler example. If you encounter tire tracks in the mud, you would immediately come to the conclusion that a vehicle had passed through. Even a simple, somewhat sloppy pattern in the wet dirt is enough for you to begin seeking an explanation outside of natural causes. (See Tire Track Apologetics for more on this example).

Whether it is muddy tire tracks, a massive sculpture, or the entire universe, we rightly expect that things which exist have an explanation.

But wouldn’t this mean God needs an explanation outside of Himself? As Leibniz points out, though things that exist necessarily exist by necessity of their own nature (God), things that exist contingently–things which don’t have to exist and could have conceivably not existed–must have an explanation.

This is the reason for his initial question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Unlike God, who has always existed in and of Himself, there is no reason to assume that the universe had to exist. and therefore its existence is contingent on being caused to exist. As such, it requires an explanation.

Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

So if everything that exists requires an explanation, or cause, for its existence (point 1) and if the universe exists (point 3), what is the most likely explanation?

For the universe to exist contingently, argues Leibniz, it must have an external explanation. And if the universe has a cause, it follows that the cause cannot be a part of the universe.

Instead, the explanation for the universe must be both “non-physical and immaterial.” It must be outside of the universe, beyond space and time.

Since non-intelligent, abstract objects cannot cause anything to exist, the options for how the universe came to be becomes limited to that which is non-physical, immaterial, exists necessarily and outside of space and time. In a word: God.

Those who reject the Contingency or Cosmological Argument typically do so in disagreeing with this second premise. They are not satisfied that the only acceptable explanation for the universe is God. Some, like the philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), asked “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?”1

To that, many apologists would reply that for the universe to be that which exists necessarily it would have to be eternal. Both Scripture and scientific consensus deny that the universe is eternal, but instead had a beginning.

Since the universe began to exist as a point in time, and “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” this objection to premise 2 is addressed.2

Conclusion

Though this logical argument may not be received as air-tight, undeniable evidence for God’s existence by a skeptic, it is nevertheless a strong apologetic that has stood the test of time.

However, the Leibniz Contingency Argument clearly is not formulated to present the God of the Bible as the one true God.

Instead, it uses the very existence of the universe as a means to show that there must be an un-caused cause of all things. It argues that there must be a Creator of the universe. There must be a God.

It is special revelation, the Old and New Testaments as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, which ultimately points people to God the Father and Jesus Christ, His Son."


1 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9

2 For more on this, see the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, B) The universe began to exist, and C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument
Manning, If there was nothing, there would be no o... (show quote)


====================================

Yes, I am familiar with this argument. For a long time, I stared at those words wondering why I had doubts. Then it occurred to me that in premise 2 and the conclusion 4 one can substitute almost any word for the word God, such as Jupiter, or Zeus, and it make the same sense. So, the argument is not only no proof of the Christian God, it leaves a vacant thought for what should be there. In a sense, it is a logical fallacy, assuming that his concept of God is what is to be proved.

Put another way, one can believe that the universe was created by someone, some agency or some thing, and we name that some one, some agency or some thing God-the-Creator, which doesn't seem all that satisfying either, because you have to invent from that what God's, or some one's, some agency's or some thing's full capabilities really are without reference to the Bible. Seems to be all in a name.

Thomas Aquinas presented five such arguments for the existence of God, and it is apparent that he was not fully satisfied with them either. In the end, it is faith that carries the day, and just read the Bible.

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 09:58:37   #
debeda
 
Zemirah wrote:
Carl Sagan was incorrect, and he's dead.

God is alive, and His Word stands.


👍👍👏👏👏👏👏

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 09:59:34   #
debeda
 
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Cnn is ur game! Good luck with that! The border is secure! Lolololololololol and Brandon is legit! Hahahaha


👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2022 09:59:57   #
debeda
 
rjoeholl wrote:
He thinks wiping his butt is an a******n.


😳😳😳😳😂🤣😂🤣😂

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 10:05:15   #
debeda
 
manning5 wrote:
====================================

Yes, I am familiar with this argument. For a long time, I stared at those words wondering why I had doubts. Then it occurred to me that in premise 2 and the conclusion 4 one can substitute almost any word for the word God, such as Jupiter, or Zeus, and it make the same sense. So, the argument is not only no proof of the Christian God, it leaves a vacant thought for what should be there. In a sense, it is a logical fallacy, assuming that his concept of God is what is to be proved.

Put another way, one can believe that the universe was created by someone, some agency or some thing, and we name that some one, some agency or some thing God-the-Creator, which doesn't seem all that satisfying either, because you have to invent from that what God's, or some one's, some agency's or some thing's full capabilities really are without reference to the Bible. Seems to be all in a name.

Thomas Aquinas presented five such arguments for the existence of God, and it is apparent that he was not fully satisfied with them either. In the end, it is faith that carries the day, and just read the Bible.
==================================== br br Yes, I... (show quote)


I think the biggest problem with our relationship with God is EXACTLY the last sentence of your first paragraph ",,,our concept of God". God exists, and has proven this to many over the millenia. But a shared, accurate conceptualization of God is beyond us.

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 14:50:01   #
WEBCO
 
PeterS wrote:
Doesn't Fox and other Right-Wing sources provide you with the 't***h' that you are seeking?


No.

They do provide more t***h than the MSM does though.

Who was right about Russian collusion?
Who was right about H****rs laptop?
Who was right about CRT, and it's anti American pro marxist bullschiff being taught to grade schoolers?
Hell who was right about c***d19 and school closures?

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 16:43:17   #
Geo
 
Wolf counselor wrote:
Are you pregnant yet ?

I hear that you liberal girlie-men are now capable of giving birth.


There are people that love to fantasize about what two gay males do in the privacy of their own home.
They dwell on it night and day because of some unfulfilled subconscious desire, they have a hard time dealing with it consciously, because of upbringing or guilt. Does your guilt stem from the time you were a boy scout counselor? Seek help so you can except who you are. Deal with your issues and stop attacking yourself by attacking others that represent what you h**e about yourself.

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2022 16:48:26   #
manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA
 
debeda wrote:
I think the biggest problem with our relationship with God is EXACTLY the last sentence of your first paragraph ",,,our concept of God". God exists, and has proven this to many over the millenia. But a shared, accurate conceptualization of God is beyond us.

=========================

That is a very good way to express what I was driving at. Our conceptions and our logic are inadequate to the task.

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 16:54:36   #
debeda
 
Geo wrote:
There are people that love to fantasize about what two gay males do in the privacy of their own home.
They dwell on it night and day because of some unfulfilled subconscious desire, they have a hard time dealing with it consciously, because of upbringing or guilt. Does your guilt stem from the time you were a boy scout counselor? Seek help so you can except who you are. Deal with your issues and stop attacking yourself by attacking others that represent what you h**e about yourself.


I dont think anyone fantasizes, or even WANTS to know, what anyone does at night in the privacy of their homes

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 17:00:07   #
Geo
 
debeda wrote:
Project Veritas is actually one of the few media outlets that actually does do investigative journalism.


This is one of the reasons you are ignorant about the world you live in.

Project Veritas

Project Veritas - Questionable - Right Bias - Republican - Conservative - Trump - Not Credible - F**e NewsFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of t***sparency, and/or is f**e news. F**e News is the deliberate attempt to publish h**xes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered f**e news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Project Veritas Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of misleading videos, propaganda, conspiracy theories, and several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy Theories, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History

Founded in 2010, Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations.

In April 2021, Project Veritas was permanently suspended by Twitter for violating its “platform manipulation and spam policy,” suggesting he was operating multiple accounts in an unsanctioned way. O’Keefe has already announced that he will sue the company for defamation as he claims to have only one account.

On 11/5/2021 it was reported by the New York Times that Project Veritas is under investigation for the theft of Ashley Biden’s diary. They deny wrongdoing.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

James O’Keefe owns project Veritas. Funding primarily comes from donations. However, most of these donations come from the Donor’s Trust. The purpose of the Donor’s Trust Fund is to “safeguard the intent of libertarian and conservative donors.” In other words, it allows the source to receive funds without disclosing who they come from. Needless to say, most funding for Project Veritas comes from conservative and libertarian organizations.
Analysis / Bias

In review, videos are difficult to fact-check based on the way they are edited. Sometimes his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more. In general, O’Keefe’s videos more often than not target those with a liberal perspective. However, Project Vertias does target conservatives such as this NEW VIDEO: James O’Keefe Ambushes Republican Congressman Over R****t Bill and Faces Of V***r F***d #1: NY Republican V**es Twice in 2018 E******ns, Casts Mail B****t in Florida.

Our review of numerous articles reveals that many more target Democrats, such as HIDDEN CAMERA: NYC Democratic E******n Commissioner “I Think There Is A lot of V***r F***d.” Project Veritas counters this argument in the article Lie #9: James O’Keefe and Project Veritas only go after Democrats and individuals and organizations on the left, where Mr. O’Keefe states, “It is true that because America’s mainstream media is overwhelmingly l*****t and in favor of centralized federal power in Washington, their best opportunities for Project Veritas are in the institutions dominated by allies of the mainstream media, such as colleges and universities, state and federal bureaucracies and the media itself.”

Further, former President Trump often sourced Project Veritas, such as this: President Trump Thanks Project Veritas Tech Investigations at White House Social Media Summit. The fact that the former president endorses them can mean different things to different people; we just share that he does endorse them and nothing more.

Finally, during the 2020 e******n, Project Veritas promoted misleading and false information (See fact checks below). While Project Veritas claims not to be intentionally biased in whom they target, it is clear through counting the number of stories targeting the left that they favor the right, whether on purpose or not.
Failed Fact Checks

“Money raised to help (Beto) O’Rourke get elected is being used to fund migrants. This is clearly breaking campaign finance laws.” – FALSE
Did CBS News Stage a ‘F**e Testing Line’ at a Michigan Hospital? – MISLEADING
No Proof of ‘Lying’ – FALSE
Project Veritas discovered a v***r f***d scheme connected to Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis – FALSE
Postal workers in Michigan backdated b****ts so that they could be counted. – FALSE
Children don’t need to get a v*****e and the long-term safety of C****-** v*****es is in doubt – Lacks Context/Inaccurate

Overall, we rate Project Veritas Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of misleading videos, propaganda, conspiracy theories, and several failed fact checks. (11/16/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 10/03/2021)

Source: https://www.projectveritas.com

Reply
Jul 22, 2022 17:09:04   #
keepuphope Loc: Idaho
 
Geo wrote:
There are people that love to fantasize about what two gay males do in the privacy of their own home.
They dwell on it night and day because of some unfulfilled subconscious desire, they have a hard time dealing with it consciously, because of upbringing or guilt. Does your guilt stem from the time you were a boy scout counselor? Seek help so you can except who you are. Deal with your issues and stop attacking yourself by attacking others that represent what you h**e about yourself.


That don't fanasize about it it repuslises them. Don't want your kind to pollute our kids with such filth and tell them it's ok. If your gay fine keep it to yourself we don't care, your adults just don't involve your mental illness on our kids.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.