A simplistic atheist’s view of God. God is certainly not luck.
If the Dems were the ones doing this, I’d be just as angry at them. Actually, I’d probably be more angry, since Dems have less of a delusional media than the RW does to explain away crazy beliefs.
Is there a relationship between reasonableness and necessity, ie actions that may not be reasonable under certain conditions may become reasonable under the necessities imposed by changing conditions?
If so, what is necessitating an increase in voter requirements?
Signal your concession of the point by not answering.
Actually, He is omnipotent, so He knows how the universe is going to happen, and it is happening exactly the way He set it in motion, so an individual’s fate is pretty much up to luck. You gonna get cancer and die at 14? Sucks to be you, it was foretold.
Bullshit.
Massachusetts’ legislature engaged in blatantly obvious manipulation to remove, re-instate, remove again, and re-instate again the governor’s ability to appoint a replacement Senator, based entirely on what political party the governor belonged to. The de facto rule in Massachusetts is: the Democratic governor can appoint a replacement Senator; the Republican governor cannot.
And you loved it.
Does God favour those born into certain religions? That’s certainly something an individual has no control over, ie he benefits through no action or choice of his own. In other words, luck.
Nothing. Current laws in Texas, Wisconsin, etc. are perfect.
I think it’s been pointed out to you thirty or so times that the situations are not analogous.
Here’s thirty-one.
Well, we’ll see in a few weeks what the outcome of perfection is. I trust you’ll be open to the idea that such outcomes may be rather less than perfect.
Did I? Can you cite that? I’m pretty sure I consider that shady, although nowhere near as shady as manipulating the electoral system for lasting partisan gain.
Consider this: You want to win because of immoral cheating. But you consider yourself the moral superior to “liberals.”
So, in your mind, you must convince yourself that “liberals” would be just as, or more prone to immoral cheating, they just aren’t skilled enough to pull it off.
You’re creating a delusion that satisfies your sense of superiority, while denigrating those on the other side.
I’m not sure if you actually know if you’re doing this, or if a lifetime of sublimating your critical thinking to your church has so warped your capacity to think about things clearly.
It’s a conundrum.
Only Jesus’ purple cock head is perfect! Say ten Heil Marys and goosestep yourself down to Flagellation for some penance. If you hear children screaming from the Monseigneur’s office, ignore it. We just got in some new recruits.
I figure that’s the main reason Bricker keeps bringing up that Massachusetts thing -
-He wants legislative power to be held in reverence.
-On this board, Republican legislative acts that are sleazy are not revered.
-Therefore, point out a Democratic legislative act that was sleazy, claim it was revered.
…?..
-Win!
I’m sure to him it makes perfect sense.
Well, now, just hold on a minute, we don’t have the updated definition of “perfect”. “Eligible” has been taken care of, neatly packaged and shipped, but we need the newest refinement of “perfect” before we can hazard any guesses.
Is the new, revised **Bricker **Standard Dictionary available for consultation and perusal, or will you be supplying such definitions on a case-by-case basis?
The current solution, if it includes the voter ID requirements pushed by Republican officials, is immoral.
I’m surprised that you seem totally uninterested in trying to convince us that it is not immoral.
I’d suggest the system is okay, as systems go - it just unfortunately indulges immorality.
Why should he? He’s decided we’re immoral.
I can’t imagine approaching you for advice on morality. I don’t believe you and I share any particular basis for morality, and I won’t approve your attempts to legislate morality. You favor the killing of unborn children, after all. So I will decline your attempt to discuss morality; as far as i am concerned, you are at best amoral.
Yes. “Massachusetts” has more letters than “Texas,” I know, so that makes the two situations vastly different. :rolleyes:
In fact, the precise same principle is in play. The pious claims that you would object too if your side tried to gain some untoward advantage by leveraging political power are laid bare. Save those claims. Anyone who’s reading this knows those claims to be false.
Bullshit. You love it. You’ve devoted pages and pages to decrying the stuff you’re truly upset about.
What dispositive event are you expecting to happen in a few weeks?
Voter ID laws have been in place since 2007. There’s nothing new coming up.
You’ve fallen so far.
People used to respect you. Your evidence that I don’t find it shady, is that I didn’t devote pages to decrying it? Interesting.
Can I have a cite where I said I loved it, or where I showed that I loved it. Or where you sat on my lap, felt my erection, and attributed said erection to my excitement that the Massachusetts state legislature flipped who appoints replacement senators.
Yeah, stop it Massachusetts legislature, you’re gonna give me boner-overload! I’m gonna rupture something unless you back off… no Massachusetts legislature… nooooo!!1
Uhhhhggg… [/blood&semen]