And yet Democrats care for the poor and the minorities (LGBT and ppl of color)

Examples?

Elizabeth Stanton didn't even approach the Democrat party when trying to get women's rights bc she knew they were hopeless. Trying to get black rights was difficult because of Democrats, and they were the most hostile ones to her too. Only after the Civil Rights Act (which, according to Thomas Sowell, actually hurt black people more than it helped them), were Democrats considered the party of the blacks (or the n word, as the guy who signed the act said). And guess who founded the KKK? Democrats.
MLK Jr would be hated by liberals if he were alive today bc he was a preacher and wasn't pro-LGBT or pro-socialist.
Dawkins simply lives to piss off any religious people (though liberals got mad at him for attacking Muslims) and he has acknowledged it's impossible to study biology without seeing design, he's just convinced some random alien did it and not God. If you listen to the guy, it sounds more like he's more pissed off with God than he doesn't believe in one.
Don't know too much about Chomsky besides the fact that he majored in linguistics and not politics and science, which is what he always seems to be talking about. In other words, he speaks out of his field and people listen to him bc he has multiple degrees. And there's the appeal to illegitimate authority, a trick the left loves to use to shove their opinions in your face in creative ways everywhere you go.

I don't seem to recall meeting any 160 year olds...
People are not their parents. This generation should show that more than anything.

No it's not, since liberals are supporting Marxists over conservatives, who are closer on the spectrum to liberals than Marxists will ever be. If the Democratic party was full of liberals I would never argue politics, because I hate it all. Only because Marxism is threatening the country (and many others) do I even pay attention to what is happening.

"And yet she had the support of some leaders in the black community"

And so did Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

Leftists were racists when whites were the only voters, and now that minorities are more prevalent, they support them (or shall I say, shame whites into not existing and voting to "help others" [in other words, "vote for us"]). They only care about votes. They don't care about you, me, or anything except money and power. It's hard for me to believe people would have motivation to be that evil, but it's been shown again and again.

There's also no scientific way to prove evolution. I find creationism seems far more sensible when put next to evolution, but since we have no time machines, we can't definitively "prove" anything. This is why assuming there is no God is arrogant; if you're right, nothing happens to me, but if I'm right, then hell is also real, whether you or I like it or not.

It's never been disproven because the media doesn't want to talk about pro-creationist discoveries. They promote what they want you to hear, whether it's intelligent or not. (This also has to do with Marxism, but I won't get into all that). One guy I was listening to (atheists claimed this guy was throwing a tantrum for saying this) pointed out that science textbooks in public schools teach information that has been scientifically disproven between the 1970s-2000s (and i don't even think he was specifically Christian).

Intermediate filaments are hard to come by. Evolutionists try to solve this by the "mutation theory" (i forget what they called it), but that just opens up a new problem. How would more than one animal have the same mutations at the same time so that males and females could even reproduce? If this theory actually happened, life would've died out long before it got to humans.

"Back when white people were the only people who could vote, there really wasn't anybody who would be described as a leftist."

Other than those who made voting a thing?

While the Founding Fathers weren't exactly setting out to be radicals - being snobbish wannabe aristocrats who considered resuming a Monarchy for the US by crowning Washington - they then opted for appointing Presidents, then later voting for one but a right reserved only for monied upper class male landowners of Protestant British/Teutonic background, then expanding on this as the decades went by.
Lording over a rebellious public already proven quite capable of ridding themselves of kings helped facilitate this evolution, especially when the outcome - closer to home - would more resemble that of the French Revolution than the mere severing of ties to the Crown still safe and sound in Britain and their heads being used as bowling balls wasn't exactly clocking high on the Founding Fathers' bucket list.

So while they looked down on the average citizen - the Electoral College was a compromise to alleviate fears engendered by the prospect of the uneducated masses electing someone just as stupid as they are - they came up with the most leftist of concoctions of the times. Pretty much of all times, because with so-called "Communist" revolutions a quick de-evolution back to autocratic has always been the route, soon rendering their citizenry back to the fuedal serf status they already were used to only a notch better-ish so they wouldn't get too upset that their lives still sucked.

In a world ruled by Monarch/Gods or Monarchs annointed their birthright by Gods, this was about as pretty far leftist as a society could get.

I know people act like the left was different then than it is now, but it's really not. The biggest difference between then and now in the Democrat party is that it was once run by liberal politicians, and is now being run by total leftists, who trick liberals who wouldn't support their ideologies into voting for them because they're "in the same party." But the left has never ever been pro-minority. They do everything for votes.

You should care about what Thomas Sowell says because he has a background in quite a few different belief sets (Marxism included) and he studies actual history, something most leftists don't ever do.

Do you know who founded them, or are you just saying that?

He supported some socialist policies but not the entirety of the idea. Also Margaret Sanger was not always honest on her stances, so supporting her would not be much different than supporting LBJ or the left, which dupes black people.

Yeah, a biologist is always constantly rambling about theology (there's more of that speaking out of one's field again), but since he's so hostile to religion, he's smart and promotes science education. Since we can't physically see God, we should either consider both atheists and creationists as scientists, or neither should be (which makes no sense, but at least it's actually consistent [another word which never applies to the left or the science community]).

He actually did, and whether or not he did, would it really matter? He's certain plants and animal DNA are both obviously designed, while also certain there's no creator. And yet, he's an intelligent scientist.

Actually, anyone pulling Dawkins or Chomsky into a debate is appealing to illegitimate authority, since they both speak out of their field constantly. I do believe people treat MLK Jr as the ultimate authority a bit too much (don't get me wrong, i respect the man a lot) but he still was human and was susceptible to being tricked, just like all people; you and I included. And while I support racial equality and the whole "I have a dream" speech, I do believe he believed some wrong things.
However, I don't recall saying you did that in this conversation.

No, they most definitely weren't. The whole "party switch" lie was made up by Marxists who saw minorities were rising in population and would one day affect elections, so they pinned their hatred of minorities on the other party. Most socialist or communist dictators have racist records. Marx (who called socialism the same as his idea) called his daughter's Cuban husband a gorilla once and disowned her for marrying him. He called him many derogatory terms. Stalin and Lenin were both racists.

Did I say they were all southern? Also all conservatives didn't support blacks or women having rights, but that number was far more than the minimal to zero Democrats supporting it.

Margaret Sanger was a blatant racist, and there are recordings of it (something that only seems to count against conservatives and never leftists). But she wouldn't tell black people specifically that she hated them, just like the left never would.

Like I said, MLK was human and did not see everything going on at the time. Do you know FDR supported Stalin and simply chose not to believe anything terrible he heard about them (sounds like the modern left when hearing about Sanger, LBJ, or any communist dictators). But Stalin constantly used him to get what he wanted. It was only a couple months before FDR's sudden death that he realized Stalin had been taking advantage of him all along (which i actually find suspicious because I happen to know his right hand man and some of his advisors were secretly spying on him for Stalin).

Yes, I have heard dumb things from preachers about science, but I've also known of some preachers who majored in some scientific fields. I also know preachers that quote scientists they know irl or know of, and thus they're appealing to legitimate authority. There's a difference between that, and acting like you yourself are an authority in a science field you didn't study for. Also no preachers have the popularity of Dawkins in fields they didn't study for. Also part of theology is apologetics (defending the scientific argument for a God's existence), so that's not an intelligent thing to critique.

Actually some scientific books I've read have called out erred ways creationists have criticized evolution, while still maintaining that there are arguments that disprove evolution. Some of the biggest problems for evolution are the fossil record and amino acids.

Amino acids basically destroy evolution because DNA relation has absolutely nothing to do with the whole "simple to complex" evolution scale. There are complex, four-footed animals whose DNA is closer to yeast and certain bacteria (that would be considered the original simple life forms) than animals that would be next to them on the evolution scale.

This is sad yet hilarious at the same time.

"There are complex, four-footed animals whose DNA is closer to yeast and certain bacteria (that would be considered the original simple life forms) than animals that would be next to them on the evolution scale."

There is an example of this that comes to mind, but it's a certain subset - a demographic, if you will - from a particular bipedal species of primates whose life processes are more akin to fermentation if you catch my drift and I believe you do,,,

I've seen him say they're designed before.

Good. Don't just tell your opponent thier wrong, show them. Now as long as they don't come up with more examples than you, you're good.

Do you just assume that everyone is Christian or something? Bc you said the same on another post with no indication that he was Christian

OM likes to stalk a number of us, so he is basing that on previous conversations. He has nothing to say about the OP, so he has to resort to ad hominem attacks, which are outright lies about what I believe, and what the Bible teaches.

It's his thing. Somehow, he has turned being an imgflip stalker into a full time job. I would have to guess that by churning things up and increasing clicks, he somehow benefits. That might be giving him WAY more credit than he deserves- it is just as believable that he is just a loser, desperate for attention.

"by churning things up and increasing clicks, he somehow benefits" - some people are certainly more equal than others when it comes to their relationships with the mods and how they seem to be able to get comments and memes taken down, timers implemented, and accounts locked.

Yeah I noticed he knew a lot before. I also think Modda is his alt.

Tell us more about morality when you explain why we should give a rip if there's no God, and thus no such thing as right and wrong, or falsehood and objective truth (which Orwell said is fading out of this world)

Who decides what's right and wrong? Truth becomes subjective, meaning everyone decides what's right and wrong to them. Nothing matters, also. Whether or not you ever became Christian or I became atheist, neither would matter.

Where did we get the idea of possession? If I feel like I need what you have and have no qualms stealing it from you, why should you or anyone be shoving your moralities down my throat? I don't have to have them. (What's ironic is that Marxism is actually against the idea of possession, excluding government possession)

I could go on with this.

Genesis 3:22 says this knowledge of good and bad came from the same tree the GodS got it from, and that the God you're referring to got mightily upset over this, and feared Eve & Adam would partake of the fruit that gave them life eternal.
He never gave people that which he didn't want them to have in the first place and has cursed them ever since they got it thanks to the Serpent God.

"I found it much easier to go the route of blocking them"

the ccp blocked me for posting winnie the pooh

What was Winnie the Pooh doing at the time? And why would you send the CCP a post of Pooh?

You, at least, are more amusing than those other two. If this is just another alt account for one of them, then congrats on being more affable as Mantis.

a) i didn't lol

b) winnie the pooh will invade us all one day :)

"If this is just another alt account for one of them, then congrats on being more affable as Mantis"

i have this theory that i'm behind the alt accusations since i managed to gather quite a few of the more outspoken leftists in a secret place back in '16-17 under a different name. because we'd raid many threads in a group, the only way to comprehend how that could happen on a place dominated by largely conservatives was that someone was meticulously using several accounts at once. nowadays politicsTOO has taken all of the former glory and only does the preaching to choir part; nothing of what made the original m/liberals special.
also the fact that i went rogue

It’s funny bc he actually told me to pay attention 🤣

Wish that I could see the rest of that, it cuts off on number 3. It might actually be something that I would agree with and/or get a chuckle out of.

And how do you know that?

"Fe4R_Delta (483)
Joined 2021-05-06"

Who are you again?

Is there anything wrong with new users?

1.5 yrs ain't a new user.

Suddenly reappearing after an extended dormancy and jumping into the fray targetting specific users is suspect.

New user? Naah, alt.

Ok

Did you just join today?
The assumptions are yours and yours alone.

Profiles are available here, do look.

In order for something to be mythological, nobody has to believe it. Greek gods are mythological. Also i missed the part where an Almighty Explosion (it's our Creator, right?) is even remotely scientific. But a maker is unscientific.