Santiago II

So, being able to objectively analyze the situation in front of you, what did Desantis do well?

"Winners are just losers who win"

Great movie. Well worth watching. Very quotable.

I might take the word of local residents:

I wans't terribly impressed overall but how do you come back from running a state where this is an issue:

https://babylonbee.com/news/nation-in-shock-after-gavin-newsom-murdered-on-live-tv ALPHARETTA, GA — Americans are still reeling this morning after the shocking murder of California Governor Gavin Newsom was captured live on air and broadcast to millions of viewers. "I'm still shaking," said one local observer. "He was just there one moment... and in the next moment, he was brutally eviscerated. Torn to pieces. Murdered. I'll never be able to shake those horrific images from my memory." Authorities are still searching for three accomplices they say are persons of interest in the cold-blooded slaughter of California's Governor. Alpharetta's police chief named the three at-large suspects as Sean Hannity, Ron DeSantis, and a paper map of all the human poop covering San Francisco's sidewalks. At publishing time, authorities confirmed the suspects are still on the loose and should be considered extremely dangerous.

This wasn't a debate. It was mudslinging, lying, and curated talking points

I don't think Newsome is capable of telling the truth

Anyone watching this?

Apparently, not everyone was happy with the production: https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pithinthewind/trans-advocates-protest-daily-wire-production-in-nashville/article_4a0226c6-15f8-11ee-97b4-af6bf5fe4626.html

Could Hollywood ever make a movie like this?

That's not a question. I think you were clear about that. You definitely don't need to convince anyone. That's beside the point. In a public forum, it's assumed you're talking to other people. That usually involves more that just asserting, and reasserting, an unsupported opinion. Beyond that, you took a side in a debate. One would think you would at least try to support that position Adams actually addresses your concerns in his own quote. There's nothing about Adam's point that a Constitutional provision would change. He says that outright. "Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. ... Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" You can't pass legislation to make people worthy of this form of government.

There's a lot to unpack there. We went from a passive "lack of faith" that God exists to a very active declaration of will that won't accept the possibility of God. All that without feeling the need to present some rational thought process to support such a strong conviction. But, it really doesn't matter What we care about, what we think we need, or want, have no relevance to this question. Truth is what it is. Facts don't care about our feelings. We can declare independence, but we don't declare truth. I think we all agree on the material aspects of life. Just as animals live and die, so do men. It's the immaterial that we're discussing. Those are the things that separate us from other animals. Adams and the founders believed in greater things like truth, freedom, liberty, justice. They were willing to trade this material life for them. We can sacrifice the temporary for the eternal. That's what makes us human. That is the reflection of God in us. You're repeating the same strawman. The Constitution is for everyone, even to outliers. But it will only survive in the hands of a virtous people and for the reason Adams stated: But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <, Start deletion,and, End,> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other Now, agree or disagree, but Adams made his case. He didn't just declare something to be so. He made an actual argument. Can you do the same?

Over time, the likelihood of that process seem less probable given the advances in science. Even if it were the case, getting to that ocean, and getting to that cell, is still a problem. Getting to the universe is an even bigger problem. So, can you account for the creation of the universe, then the ocean, and then creation of that cell in that universe? Ultimately, you may find some "magical thinking" (your definition) moving you from one place to another

Great topic of conversation. Sounds like something that deserves it's own discussion