Training evangelical pastors to be politicians

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I know many of my fellow atheists and Norse pagans with the same "kill 'em all and be done with it" philosophy. Norse paganism has become very popular in the military--due to the warrior ethos it embodies.

Many liberals voted for the Iraq war (before they voted against it) and the current administration has taken drone strike assassinations to the highest level.

Do you imply that Obama and Hillary are "Christian Dominists" who are fronts for "big capital?"

(Is this really what it boils down to for you, yet another anti-capitalist? )

Well - yoo-hoo - not the military I grew up in and my father served in for 30 years. I always was told the Navy was the more refined service, thoughtful and deliberate.

Regarding President Obama and Former Secretary of State Clinton ( the disrespect of Offices of the Federal government and the implied sexism would not be allowed in any military I know of and would be cause for a serious dressing down) are IMO tools of capital. I don't know to what extent it's by choice or by coercion but they do listen to capital (their families are de facto hostages to capital).

An aside - as you are allegedly a military man - why are generals guarded by Private Security and not service members? Riddle me that one will you.

As to the Anti-capitalism Ad-Hominem SLUR, I don't consider it that. I once believed that "Greed" could be the only possible motivator for well anything - it used to be called 'self-interest' but have come to experience many other more motivating factors in my life and the lives of others. Granted it's necessary for some ********* but not for thoughtful people of good will.

Oh. You "grew up in the military." I'm sorry ,that obviously qualifies you know what's it like to be an actual service member.

If I had a nickel for every dependent who thought they knew what it was really like.

Hillary is no longer anything. You do realize that one is not elected for life, right? It is moronic to claim any criticism of her is sexist, implied or otherwise, for the votes she actually made and are of public record.

Unlike what people see on TV military members can perfectly criticize politicians as long as it is out of uniform and not acting as a representative of the service. We can actually vote, too--amazing! Besides, being recently retired as an 0-6 means I don't have to worry about such stuff.


Having been to the homes of a few flag officers, I can say that they typically don't have any more personal security than anyone else on base. There is and entity in the Marines known as the security company that farm out personal security detachments as needed. I met Mattis in Iraq and his security was all active duty Marines.

Sometimes a diplomatic position or overseas posting will come with a SS detail or private contractors vs active duty personnel depending on the terms of forces agreement.


When afloat, security for any embarked flag officers will come from the Marine detachment afloat.

Embassies are gerard by Marines with additional contractors as needed.

You were the one going on about the Christian Right being "capitalist fronts.". How is it a slur to ask questions based on those comments?

originally posted by: NavyDoc


You seemed to keep placing capitalism up there as almost being as bad in your mind as theocracy and I wondered if you had the same feelings about leftist Christiabs who want to take charge an circumvent the Constitution to fulfill their vision of Christian "social justice" or is it just a "right wing" theocracy you have a problem with.

If you cannot stick to facts and continue with false equivalencies - there is nothing more I will say.

But I can direct you to a Conservate site about debate:

The only subject I agree with this guy is ranting about intellilectual dishonesty in debate and agrument:

This Web site is, in part, a debate between me and others with whom I take various issues.

I welcome intellectually-honest debate.

It is one of my favorite ways to test my theories and learn.

That is the way we were trained at Harvard Business School where all lessons are taught by the case method and my wife and I got our MBA's. When Harvard Business School was founded in 1908, it was modeled after Harvard Law School which also uses the case method of instruction.

In college, I was on the debate team during my freshman year. Retired general and unsuccessful presidential candidate Wesley Clark was on that debate team as well.

He makes it very simple:

Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

If you are willing, you could learn from a like minded person that knows wtf they are doing.

The list of Intellectually dis-honest debate tactics is much longer:

Politicians, con men

Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers of guilty parties, dishonest salespeople, cads, cults, and others who are attempting to perpetrate a fraud.

My real estate opponents, in general, are either charlatans or con men.

As such, they have no choice but to employ intellectually-dishonest tactics both to prove that I am wrong and to persuade you to buy their products and services.

My coaching opponents are generally not charlatans or con men, but many are quite political.

Other coaches denounce me because I denounced some approach they use and they cannot admit they were wrong.

Those who dislike my military views are also career politicians notwithstanding their claims to be “selfless servant warriors.”

I will leave you to discover the intellectually dis-honest approaches for youself.

www.johntreed.com...

Be sure to check out #2 and it's variations:

Changing the subject:

debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating,

but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: NavyDoc


You seemed to keep placing capitalism up there as almost being as bad in your mind as theocracy and I wondered if you had the same feelings about leftist Christiabs who want to take charge an circumvent the Constitution to fulfill their vision of Christian "social justice" or is it just a "right wing" theocracy you have a problem with.

If you cannot stick to facts and continue with false equivalencies - there is nothing more I will say.

But I can direct you to a Conservate site about debate:

The only subject I agree with this guy is ranting about intellilectual dishonesty in debate and agrument:

This Web site is, in part, a debate between me and others with whom I take various issues.

I welcome intellectually-honest debate.

It is one of my favorite ways to test my theories and learn.

That is the way we were trained at Harvard Business School where all lessons are taught by the case method and my wife and I got our MBA's. When Harvard Business School was founded in 1908, it was modeled after Harvard Law School which also uses the case method of instruction.

In college, I was on the debate team during my freshman year. Retired general and unsuccessful presidential candidate Wesley Clark was on that debate team as well.

He makes it very simple:

Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

If you are willing, you could learn from a like minded person that knows wtf they are doing.

The list of Intellectually dis-honest debate tactics is much longer:

Politicians, con men

Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers of guilty parties, dishonest salespeople, cads, cults, and others who are attempting to perpetrate a fraud.

My real estate opponents, in general, are either charlatans or con men.

As such, they have no choice but to employ intellectually-dishonest tactics both to prove that I am wrong and to persuade you to buy their products and services.

My coaching opponents are generally not charlatans or con men, but many are quite political.

Other coaches denounce me because I denounced some approach they use and they cannot admit they were wrong.

Those who dislike my military views are also career politicians notwithstanding their claims to be “selfless servant warriors.”

I will leave you to discover the intellectually dis-honest approaches for youself.

www.johntreed.com...

Be sure to check out #2 and it's variations:

Changing the subject:

debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating,

but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

You deflect like mad man. The question was simple,direct, and in keeping with the discussion--do you do or do not take the same umbrage with leftist theocrats as you do with right wing theocrats?

a reply to: NihilistSanta

"Honey" I hate to break it to you but the subject is not theocracy. The subject is about infiltrators.

No, it isn't.

The OP is about the people who want to make a Theocracy. YOU are the one that brought up infiltrators.

a reply to: Klassified

As to the dominionists. I think the problem in the little debate over the last few pages has been one of convolution and extreme examples. The issue at hand isn't necessarily the shredding of the constitution, so much as the influence dominionists could exercise from small towns to big cities, to state and federal governments, given time and numbers.

That's exactly right.

The articles in the OP do say that this Lane guy is hoping to get them on city councils, school boards, etc.
What bothers me is how many of the current "Republican" presidential runners are group members of those SAME PEOPLE.

a reply to: NavyDoc

do you do or do not take the same umbrage with leftist theocrats as you do with right wing theocrats?

What?

I was offline for a few hours - but, "leftist theocrats"? Like whom?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

As a Christian man this makes me sick. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. What is not understood here?
The church is not meant to be some vehicle to try to get into politics.
Is it really any wonder Christianity is such a joke to so many now?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And the basis for your outrage being......that they are infiltrating government positions (attempting to) in order to do this correct? Otherwise whats to discuss? America is not a theocracy nor will it ever be.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If they adhere to the Constitution, then there shouldn't be a problem, should it?

they have every right to run, but these aren't the run of the mill Christians. These are dominionists, they believe in following the old testament and look forward to sparking Armageddon. They have the right to pursue power, but what they'd do with their power is terrifying.

So basically, what I see is that you guys need to have your boogeyman. It's like you see the right worrying about communists/socialists, so you have to find something to fear and you have the scary dominionist.

Aside from left wing sources, I can't even find evidence this really exists. It's slightly McCarthesque, and then you mentioned Brownback and that really put the final nail in the coffin.

And if this is an actual movement from inside Christianity itself and not leftist construction, you ought to be able to find lots of actual Christian sources, not outside sources looking in.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did you not click on the links?

americanrenewalproject.org... is THEM

www.7culturalmountains.org... is THEM


These people are serious, ketsuko. They have their own websites. If you don't want to believe it, then don't.
They aren't kidding around, though.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So they inspire Christians to get involved in national life? How is that any different from any one of hundreds of liberal groups who inspire progressives to do the same?

I see nothing there about working to bring about the End Times.

Again, all I see is an attempt at making a boogeyman. If you are so afraid of seeing a Christian in office, then simply say you have a litmus test when you vote. You refuse to vote for Christian because then that person's morals will inform their decision making process, and you can't abide knowing they might think about God when they make a vote in Congress.

a reply to: ketsuko

I never said ANYTHING about them wanting to bring on the End Times.


They just want to take over everything.

I added their video for you so you can see for yourself. Check my last post again.


WATCH THE VIDEO, please.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

I never said ANYTHING about them wanting to bring on the End Times.

They just want to take over everything.

You've said before. You have accused Cruz and his father of being scary Dominionists who want to take over and bring about the End Times.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They want to be represented and in a Constitutional Democracy. They absolutely have that right if they win the elections.

a reply to: ketsuko

No, I did not.
The Dominionists want to make this a THEOCRACY.

That is the topic. The people freaking out about 'the End Times' are mostly here on ATS.

Please, watch the 5 minute and 12 second video before replying to me again.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

OH NO! They want to basically do what the progressives did.

How dare they try to fight progressives in their own arena ... And yes, this is what progressives did. They infiltrated and took over those same seven institutions and they do indeed filter what you see, hear, learn and everything else that disseminates to popular culture.

So you fear theocracy through cultural indoctrination? 1. There is no way they are going to be nearly as successful as you are hysterically fearful they will be ... unless you are afraid there really are that many of us who dislike where the culture has gone in this country. And if that is what is really freaking you out, it's mainly because you realize that we've been pushed too far and pendulum is swinging back with a potentially ugly backlash.

That's what happens when you grab the bit in your teeth and take all you can grab without regard for what a lot of other people want or might be comfortable with. Greed and pride bring about your downfall in the end.

a reply to: ketsuko

Pointing this out to people so they know about it is not 'hysteria'. It's dissemination of information.
You didn't even believe they exist.

And you call yourself a "Christian."

I remember when Kennedy ran for president there was alot of concern that his allegience to the pope would be stronger than his allegience to the country. And this concern was coming from other branches of christianity.
There is nothing wrong with us asking the same question about the dominists, matter of fact, I think that there is more reason to ask it! Will they place their allegience to God above the country, will they be representing their constituents or their belief system?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


The Communists and progressives have been doing this for years in the US.