PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / How to dress like a conservativeBOOM!

Comments

  2. I take offense. I'm a 'conservative' and only one of my outfits consists of guns and torture equipment. Plus there's no homophobic stuff in my 'closet'……..

    ……..unless you count that corset with the matching feather boa. 😛

  3. Hmm..
    Dressing slutty: Making women out to be sex objects instead of intelligent human beings. I cant imagine why people have a problem with that? XD

    Guns: They are why no army has invaded our mainland outright, they would have to fight the citizens too! They are a Constitutional right, nuff said! Because your argument is invalid!

    Torchure: …dont look at me I didnt behead anyone, or put them up on camera to show the world "follow Islam or you will suffer and die!" I guess the Geneva convention only applies to us. I would rather be interrogated by the CIA then the Islamists any day…I imagine i will eventually be on both sides hit list since im a Christian and not willing to change.

    Queers: Its a mental disorder, nature itself tells you what you are supposed to be, look in the mirror! Yes some species can change naturally for the survival of the species…human isnt one of them, I dont think we are in danger of going extinct any time soon lol. Queers are just perverts being dirty, they need help, so quit laughing at them its not funny its tragic! Homophobia nonsense is just a way to legitimize their sin to themselves, like the excuses an addict has once hes deformed mentally by his drug.

    …my 2 cents on it.

  4. +Adventure.Cat There are two real, strategic military reasons why our homeland has not been invaded. They are called the Atlantic and the Pacific.

    It would be near impossible to get an army across either without being detected. Remember the Cuban Missle Crisis? Even back then.

    Note also that Central America is narrow. An invading force from there would be channeled into wide open, mostly barren portions of Texas and Arizona.

    In short — nothing to do with guns. Though the NRA dogma may make you think owning a gun is part of it.

    They do that in order to pump you up. And dupe you into buying more gun than you need, by the way,

    Re: Your Comments About Homosexuals. Seems like we fear most in other that which we fear worse in ourselves. So I am just curious as to what feelings you are trying to deny? Hmmm….

  5. +Leo Walsh The words of the declaration of Independence tell of a reason for the 2nd amendment…that came long before that gun club. I dont need a club, I dont celebrate guns but i respect the purpose to have them, and I dont demonize those who want to exercise that right.

    Im attracted to women like any other normal male, but like its written in the bible if we can contain, its best not to get involved in relations. I see what you are trying to imply, but I know the value of life and pray for my neighbor when I see they are sick.

  6. +Leo Walsh
    Adventure Cat is right about the armed citizenry being a deterrent. During WW II, right after The Pearl Harbor attack, Emperor Hirohito was feeling emboldened by his military's stunning success, enquired about the possibility of invading the American mainland. He was told by Admiral Yamamoto, who had lived and studied in the US, that…'you can't invade the American mainland. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
    It wasn't our military they feared at that time, because it wasn't strong enough to stop the Salvation Army from taking over the country, much less a world class military power. They also weren't concerned about the Pacific Ocean. They had already sailed where no one thought they could go, to pull off one of the biggest surprise attacks in history.
    It may not be as big a factor now, in this day and age, as it was back then, but doesn't every bit of protection count. I know I wouldn't be willing to give up any layer of defense this country has.

  7. +Adventure.Cat Yawn. I'm talking real military strategy. Not some pretend Tea party stuff.

    The only "threat" we've ever experienced was England in 1812. Our population was a bit small to sustain a decent sized army. Luckily, they were at war with France, and were fighting a battle on two fronts.

    Other than that. the Spaniards were in the middle of an economic melt-down since they over-mined silver, causing massive economic turmoil.They — well, their puppet government in Mexico — fell quickly in CA, TX, etc.

    Our other foe was the Plains Indians. Which were technologically behind Europe, had no guns or steel. Worse, their populations were decimated by the small pox & measles we brought with them.

    We've been lucky. And that's a good thing. Since it allowed us to create a great nation that, when it works right, is open to everyone.

    But let's not overstate the guns case.

  8. +West Kagle Doubt it was much of a factor back then either. That's just dogma. The only thing citizen guns helped with was taming the west.

    But, truth be told, the Canadians did it much more efficiently. By sending the RCMP in before the settlers. So instead of lawless lands wither everyone shooting everyone else, there was law and order.

  10. +Adventure.Cat Please come back when you're not intoxicated and can form coherent arguments.

    BTW: "torchure": n: the act of deliberately inflicting severe happiness to a person, often by teasing, flirting, or making them laugh until their face and/or sides hurt.

    +West Kagle "It may not be as big a factor now, in this day and age, as it was back then, but doesn't every bit of protection count." I get the sentiment but that's not the case. IMHO using that as an argument is actual more in the favor of eliminating personal firearms. Not saying or advocating we do that… but that argument really isn't justified when the military budget of the US is more than all of the military budget of the rest of the world combined. So we should either severely reduce the US military budget and let everybody have guns, or stop everybody from having guns because clearly we're spending enough for our military to protect all of us.

  12. Ugh. I looked this up on my tablet and I cannot find it.

    And it's late — and "Better Call Saul" is about to start.

    But the quote was tracked to one of MacArthur's biographers — who took MacArthur's word for it. If I remember, I'll post it tomorrow.

  14. +Leo Walsh
    So your source interviewed Hirohito? Wait……….he's dead. Guess it was Admiral Yamamoto. No wait, he's dead too. And please take into consideration the source itself. You might as well be citing Rosie 'everyone turn in your guns but me' O' Donnell.
    +Paul Spoerry
    I'm a little disappointed. I can't see where you can even remotely equate what I said to being in support of the opposition of my argument. Even if the fact that we have all these weapons only makes our country 0.000000000000000001% more secure, I'd rather have that 0.000000000000000001%, than not have it.

  16. +Leo Walsh
    That page doesn't prove anything. It simply does exactly what that college newspaper said and you repeated. Again, the wonderful folks at factcheck didn't talk to any of the parties directly involved. The emperor, the Admiral, or the General.
    BTW, though you may have found the article vie Google 'scholar', the article itself came from the aforementioned unreliable source.
    One last point, regardless of the validity of the quote, it is an accepted fact that any member of the Japanese military who had studied and spent time abroad in the US, feared the American people as much as the American Military (and at the time of The Pearl Harbor Attack, even more than). If I could up load all the documentaries I have covering the subject (about 2 bookcases full), onto my computer, I'd send them to you, but they are mostly on VHS and I don't have the tec. Even the ones I have on DVD are beyond my capacity to change to digital format (and I wish I knew how. I've wanted to put them on my YouTube channel for forever).

  17. +Adventure.Cat Never mind that Lot offered his virgin daughters to the angry mob and that later in the story they get him so drunk he has incestuous sex with, and impregnates, them. _Great_ example.

    +West Kagle I think I didn't properly complete that thought… certainly wasn't clear when reading it back to myself. My intention might have been better made if I'd made clear I was referencing the potential damage firearms have on our citizens simply by having so many firearms…as in accidental deaths, suicide, etc. versus the potential need of citizens being armed in case of attack. In other words, say all these firearms make us 1% more secure but cause 2% more unintended deaths. I was just implying that because we now have such a massive military, which as you pointed out we did not have back then, that there is less need for firearms when weighed against the damage they cause. To be clear though, I'm not advocating taking all the guns away… I love shooting guns even though I don't own one. My dad was a cop, I've been around them my entire life.

  18. +West Kagle Sure it does. It proves there is not credible source for the quote as of right now. And from a scholar who has spent his life studying WW II.

    The guy would change his mind if he could see it in Yamamoto's writing.

    That is scholarship. And the strength of peer review. The facts are the facts and must be verified. And your interpretation must conform to the established facts.

    Believe what you want about guns. but don't base an argument on something that probably is not true.

    Funny thing is, I'm a hunter. I own guns. I have nothing per se against guns, just overstated cases for or against gun ownership.

  19. +Paul Spoerry Lot was ok'd by God to leave Hollywood..I mean Sodam. He panicked since he didnt want the entire city to violate the two angels, so they stepped in and blinded them all. It was a good example to show what the Lord thinks of perverts and sexual maniacs. But I guess your kind would prefer to be compared to what Moses seen when he came down with the tablets…Woodstock! lol

    Im not sure what is wrong with people these days, its like you consider good things evil and evil things good. Like Paul Harvey mentioned…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GiAYeWGDTM

  20. +Adventure.Cat Dude spin it however you want, the guy god "ok'd" (the bible says he was the righteous one) to leave offered his children to an angry mob and then later fucks and impregnates them. Using that as an example of morality is a seriously flawed argument.

  21. +Paul Spoerry Go back and read it, and understand the situation he was in before you dismiss his panic. His daughters got him drunk because they feared they where the last people on earth. How stable would you be after going through a night in which you lost your wife/mother and believed it was the end of the world?
    Dont take things outta context, its a cheap trick. You can mock it if you want, but take a community who actually follow the Lords teaching and compare it to a liberal one, then tell me about crime, drugs, STD's, immorality and violence..

  23. +Adventure.Cat The reputation of the town of Sodom was known to Lot (Genesis 13:13)… so he put himself in that place if the first place and decided to stay despite his knowledge of the it.

    As for his daughters… are you seriously making the excuse for incest because they thought it was the end of the world? LOL. And keep in mind this didn't happen just once… they did it two nights in a row.

    Considering you're arguing the story of Lot it's safe to assume you're anti-gay, or at least consider it immoral according to the bible so I'll just leave this here in response to your claim of biblical community being more moral… the bible belt is the largest consumer of gay porn:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/03/bible-belt-leads-the-nation-in-consumption-of-gay-porn/
    http://oscarloveslife.blogspot.com/2011/12/bible-belt-states-lead-us-in-gay.html
    http://www.alternet.org/story/154539/the_bible_belt's_love_affair_with_(gay_and_straight)_porn

  24. +Leo Walsh
    First, I'm on just as solid ground as you are, if not more so, as it's the word of someone close to the individuals involved. and not a scholar's opinion that it's untrue (it was a story that Hirohito had shared, and he lived till 1989, so you don't need written proof from someone who died in 1943).
    Second. I don't know this scholar or how old he is, But if he's around my age, we've been studying the same subject for about the same time (that is if he started as early as I did). The only difference is that I didn't spend a ton of my parents money to have someone else teach me about it.

  25. +West Kagle The research is attributed to a scholar, who has studied Pearl Harbor for his whole professional life, and wrote the definitive book on it.

    Plus, the link I posted was to FactCheck — affiliated with the Annenberg Foundation at the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck is well-regarded source that verifies information before publishing.

    So let's see. A report from a solid source. Quoting a person who spends his whole life researching the Pacific front during WW II.

    Versus information gleaned from an anonymous chain email. Or from the echo chamber that repeats without verifying.

    Hmm… Hard choice. But I gotta go with the expert…

  26. +Leo Walsh It was the customs of the area, in the middle east, even today you have to defend your guests with your life if nessisary while they are under your care, it wasent like western culture, you treated your guest like it was your only chance too, it was actually a point of public pride for your familys name (good standing) that a guest would be pleased at your generosity and manners to see to their comfort. Im not being a wiseguy, but read up on the traditions and customs chiseled into that culture.

    Its just like when people say the bible promoted slavery, that isnt true ether, people offered their services since money wasent as plentiful. One of them even worked as a servant for 5 years, in exchange to wed his daughter. God just laid out rules for this so the employer didnt mistreat the employees.

  27. +Adventure.Cat Nah. Lot was a coward. Anyone who would offer up his or her daughter to be raped is a creep. Or de-humanized women, finding a rape of them less odious than the rape of adult males.

    Hmm. Maybe that's it.

    So Lot is either a coward or an inhuman misogynist. Either way, not a man worth emulating.

    You can rationalize. But it is wrong. Better to go down in a blaze of glory, protecting innocents, than adhere to convention.

  28. +Paul Spoerry Not all people who claim to be Christian will be accepted, the Lord said not many would make it because they didnt do as he asked them, dont blame God, hes righteous..its the disobedient that have fallen short in the big picture. Just because your scoffing is louder, doesnt make you right, it just makes you louder. If you dont want to believe me Im ok with that, but give the Lord a fair chance, hes had to endure countless people who denied his love and wisdom. I think hes been beyond patient for all of us, and your right I dont support queers, why would I, its perversion. They need help to over come the mental sickness not to be pushed further into dirtier imaginings.

  30. +Adventure.Cat I grew up in a Christian household. I majored in philosophy and studied religion in college. I don't blame god because I find that notion as ridiculous as blaming a unicorn. And I'm not scoffing at god either, if anything I was scoffing at you. I wasn't doing it louder (unless you have a mic hidden at my house and can compare my keyboard clicks to yours)… remember you came to my post not the other way around. I'm not on your post trying to convince you not to be Christian or to not believe in god, or in the righteousness of Lot. So you continuing to push the subject doesn't make you right, it makes you an asshole. I get you believe it, cool for you man. I don't… I think the "Lord" has a fair chance any time he want (all present, all powerful, all knowing right?! but where is he?!). He can show himself any time. All it would take to convince me is one single, verifiable, shred of evidence (and no some ancient text where EVERYTHING in the text took place in a tiny spot of the planet in comparison to the total size of the planet isn't evidence).

    "… and your right I dont support queers, why would I, its perversion. They need help to over come the mental sickness not to be pushed further into dirtier imaginings." At least we're both clear that you're a bigot.

  31. +Leo Walsh
    I'll leave you with this.
    I don't read or open chain letters. I would put my knowledge on WW II up against the so called scholar any day (there isn't a person alive who I'm afraid of when it comes to that topic). I guarantee, I have studied far more information on the subject than one of these left leaning, history-revisionist 'intellectual' elitist. …..and, Last time I looked, someone swearing by another's erroneous facts, dose not the truth make. ¬_¬

  32. +Paul Spoerry
    Well, you know where I stand on the issue of whether there are too many gun owners in the country already. This is one of those subjects where we'll not see eye to eye. I think that everyone should own a firearm, trained in how to shoot it, and taught how to properly and safely use, maintain and store it.
    I read somewhere, and I don't know if it's true or not, that there is a city, where there is a law on the books, that very adult (or maybe it was household), is required to maintain a firearm. Apparently, It's not strictly enforced, but the mere presence of such a law makes criminals think so hard on that fact, that there is zero violent crime.
    I'll try and find where I read it and If it was on-line, I'll send you the link (if it looks like a reliable source).

  33. +West Kagle Well, your word against a respected scholar whose looked at the actual documents? Sorry boss.

    It never fails to amaze how people — both Right and Left — deny facts that run contrary to their beliefs. That is what makes scholarship in general valuable.

    You may be a great person, but you have no proof. Just an idea that can be verified or not.

    And by the best evidence available, Yamamoto never said there would be a gun in every US window.

    So that meme appears to be false.

  34. +Leo Walsh
    Ok ………one last, last thing.
    Maybe go back and read the entirety of my comments, instead of skimming, because you feel I'm not equal to an 'almighty' scholar since he has a 25 cent piece of parchment hanging on his wall.
    Even if the conversation did not occur. It was the common opinion of the members of the Japanese military leadership who spent time studying and living in America, that the American populous was to be feared far more than the US military.
    You can come over and watch interview after interview with former Japanese Imperial Military leaders, stating that fact (of course you'd have to lower yourself to cavorting with a peasant, instead of a prestigious intellectual elite……..sorry).

  35. +Paul Spoerry Hmm, that does explain your inability to accept it, philosophy is an endless bucket of what-if's that really answer nothing, it just creates more questions. i think its fear to take that chance to believe like i had to face. I grew up Catholic and thats what turned me off from it at one time, but Im open minded enough to give something a chance, if you begin something without giving it a chance it will fail or you wont find it. So automatically disbelieving and shutting him out doesnt open that world to you, hes shown you the door, a few times, but it has to be you that opens it. I had to let go of foolish pride and fear to open it once and have no worry or regrets now for it. Im not pushing anything, im answering your responses, I was going to say "the heck with him, let him lye in his bed" but it was selfish of me because I do have a conscious and do care about my fellow man. Open up your mind to to the possibility it could be true, make a nest and the bird will come to you. Debates do get heated, but dont dismiss people over them, i nearly made that mistake with you and think dispite our disagreement we shouldnt leave with anger towards one another.

    as for queers, they arent a race, its neither a design of nature and certainly nothing from God. But those people should be helped, its a fesh desire brought about by dark imaginations, nothing more. Men are designed for women, and women for men…if you dont know what you are look in the mirror, (quick answer!)

  36. +Paul Spoerry
    Well, apparently there is more than one town that now has this 'law'. The first was Kennesaw GA in 1982 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gun-town-usa-in-kennesaw-georgia-254624
    That comes from the socialist nanny-state, the UK, so it's virulently anti-gun, but it shows that it is a fact.
    The second one is Nelson GA:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-towns-law-gun/story?id=18863226
    And the third is Nucla CO:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/28/less-than-700-residents-no-stoplights-and-a-law-requiring-a-gun-in-every-household/
    Plus it looks like more town and cities are planning to do similar things. These last two on the list were both done after 2010, so this is something of a new trend.

  37. +West Kagle "I think that everyone should own a firearm, trained in how to shoot it, and taught how to properly and safely use, maintain and store it." I think those are critical points and one of my biggest critiques, particularly concerning conceal and carry. For a conceal license you take (typically) a one-two day course with any weapon and you can then carry any weapon. 1) Two days isn't sufficient 2) A 22 isn't the same as a 45! I'm a big pressed for time but I'll try to come back and take a look at these other links. I'm curious to know if they really have such low crime, the size of these cities, and what is their incident of accidental firearm accidents? (not that you have to point those out, just that I'll come back and comb through them when I have some more time).

    +Adventure.Cat Why do you assume I didn't give it a chance? I didn't automatically disbelieve or shut down anything, in fact I not only studied Christianity but many of the worlds faiths. It's not pride or fear preventing me from seeing something… it's the lack of something being there. Again, show me one single, verifiable, shred of evidence there is a supernatural being and I'd be on board. But you can't… since you're so fond of sharing videos to make your point I'll do the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RECuQaaGGfA

    Can you even imagine
    (Way back in the past when)
    We thought that storms were caused by petty gods
    Fightin’ on top of a mountain.

    And yeah I like a good story
    But eventually it’s gonna bore me
    If it doesn’t have that truth;
    That incontrovertible, testable, repeatable proof

    I Fuckin’ love Science
    I Fuckin’ Love Charles Darwin
    Cause I don’t think it’s bold to question what you’re told
    If you’re told that the world’s a thousand years old.
    There’s nothing here to argue against,
    It’s a process not an ideology,
    And I fucking love science.

    Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1][2] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

    And a little more science on it… scientists investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. The results were pretty clear, only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

    Additionally, hate to break it to you but homosexuality occurs all throughout nature. So even if you believe in god, he created all the creatures on the earth and clearly some of them engage in homosexual behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

    The question people who are so against homosexuality need to ask themselves is this: What does who I have sex with have anything to do with you such that you should be in any position whatsoever to morally judge me? The answer is none.

  38. +Paul Spoerry Not everyone wants a firearm. My ex would never touch a gun — even my hunting rifles. Which sit, locked in a safe, unloaded.

    To be honest, unless I hunted, I wouldn't own a gun. And I would never conceal carry. Since it seems to do more harm than good, with people who own a firearm for self-defense being more likely to die a violent death.

    No idea why. But I think it's someone charging ahead and playing hero — like George Zimmerman did — when it makes more sense to call 911 and let them deal.

  39. +Paul Spoerry
    I agree. The mandated requirements for obtaining a conceal carry permit is laughably insufficient. Even simply owning a firearm should require a far more intensive and compulsory amount of instruction. If you are going to take it upon yourself to have the ability to deprive another of their life, whether in justified defense or foolish accident, you should also bear the burden of becoming as proficient as you can, in terms of marksmanship, maintenance, and above all, safety. To do any less is a disservice to yourself, responsible gun owners, and especially the public at large.

  41. +Leo Walsh Hunting is legit and fair. Yeah Zimmerman is a crazy edge case but a good example (and he's now on his what… third assault?).

    +West Kagle Absolutely! There are tons of firearms in Israel and they don't have the gun problems like we do (they have their own set of problems!). Compulsory military service is very likely the reason…. they get a lot of training.

    +Adventure.Cat No thanks. I'm aware of Carl Wieland. Hes' a young Earth creationist and that's enough to stop me from even needing to waste my time.

  42. +Paul Spoerry Its a shame, you already draw conclusions on things without further study and comparison. Darwin was in school still when he wrote his paper on apes, his professor ran with it because there was money in it, at the time people still strongly believed in the bible openly but the newness still got them a grant.

    But I guess fear drives many people to close their minds, most cant accept something greater then themselves and thats why humans oppress one another and feel they have to control each others thoughts and lives. Think back to your university years, if you disagreed with your professor, he would get huffy and try to mock you before the class, if you got him stuck he would claim your disrupting class or crazy…the cheap way to avoid confronting they are wrong. Most liberal arguments tend to be weak at best, with made up info, and once confronted by it resort to calling you names and discrediting you through mockery instead of admitting they are wrong or trying to just think on it for a moment.

    As for the exposing yourself part of the picture, its up to them, but women shouldnt have to feel like they need to exhibition themselves off for attention, unless their profession requires it..O.o

  43. +Adventure.Cat Again, you assume… you inaccurately assume I know nothing of creationism or young earth ideas.

    I have no idea what your Darwin statement is supposed to mean. If you're using it as an argument against evolution you fundamentally don't understand evolution or that fact that since it's science and not dogma that it's been adjusted as new information presented itself. Additionally, we have mountains of scientific evidence that just keeps piling on in favor of the side of evolution. Creationism cannot say the same.

    Fear doesn't drive my opinions or positions on this subject. I can accept something greater than myself, just not something that has nothing to back it up. I'm not trying to control your thoughts or life… again, you came to my post not the other way around.

    If you're referring to my philosophy professor you couldn't be more wrong. I was in school in the biblebelt of the Midwest. I frequently challenged my professor and fellow students. Only the students objected (I literally had a bible thrown at me), the teacher was awesome about it.

    "Most liberal arguments tend to be weak at best…" Really? Cite your source. Actually… don't bother.

  44. +Paul Spoerry I guess my point is you gave up too quickly. For someone who seeks truth (myself included) you have to let go of what cant be seen or heard, kind of like when I was introduced to quantum Mechanics, it seemed very far fetched, because my teacher was asking me to accept something that was impossible and didnt work with normal physics. I hope you understand what I mean, not everything can be explained on a chalkboard or shown to you out right, for it to exist or function. The Lord is the same way, some answers are right in front of your face, but few can see it. If your waiting for a sign, maybe you keep getting one and just haven't opened your mind to seeing in a different way yet, and the answer eludes you. Im not saying this to be mean, but being as your familiar with science, you should be familiar with my reasoning…arent you the least bit curious that there is a science thats above your head…some see it and are changed forever by it. You would be surprised at the proof available, if you where more open to learning…and not from people trying to hit you with a bible lol.

    I know you look down on me, but these kinds of debates are what drives us to move forward and grow. We have the opportunity to share what we know and possibly pick up something we dont.

  45. +Adventure.Cat
    "For someone who seeks truth (myself included) you have to let go of what cant be seen or heard.." Sure I get that. I meditate every night. I've also spent days, intentionally, in complete silence.

    "Im not saying this to be mean…" I get that you believe that.

    "…but being as your familiar with science, you should be familiar with my reasoning." I'm familiar with it, but I don't think it's sound reasoning.

    "arent you the least bit curious that there is a science thats above your head" – yup, but I don't need to invoke something supernatural for that.

    "some see it and are changed forever by it." Some take hallucinogens and are changed by if forever too. What they take from the experience may be real, but what they saw… was not.

    "You would be surprised at the proof available…" I certainly would; but there isn't any. Not "proof", not something verifiable. You simply cannot believe in the supernatural without taking a leap of faith.

  46. +Paul Spoerry Every great venture begins with a leap of faith. Im sure your also aware that things we cant explain are always dismissed as supernatural…thats just a lazy way of hiding the truth like the papacy did to Galileo! To be honest, I wish you wouldnt just think up ways to dismiss something without further study, I think all things CAN be explained by science, since I believe God did make all things, and all things would have to fit together perfectly, for his perfect design. Its the joy of any hungry explorer to seek things out, you just have to have the stomach to reach into places most are afraid to go.

    Im also no stranger to the theory of having time, space and thought as compatible with one another. Its a deeper level of science, even the governments worked on this, but they seem only interested in weaponising it and always fall short from missing the point. I just hope you dont pass up an epic and vital opportunity in your life, just to be trendy in a politically correct world. Its true you will be treated like me, but it would be worth your time.

    Feel free to contact me, if you want to discuss this or science in general. if your really are into science I would like to compare ideas about a number of things, if your willing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.