Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "The Occult: Video 109: Occultism At Odds with Leftism, Especially Fiscally" video.

  1. lol, decaf latte Marxists.
    6
  2. Jesus was named Lucifer, because he bore God's light. what is so hard for Christians to understand?
    4
  3. "Was that "no" to Jesus being the serpent in Genesis, or to one of the other comments?" to the other comments. your theory is fine. at some point the logic breaks down in terms of what is what, symbolically, when you put the new in with the old testament. frankly, i wouldn't put it past the Bible having some fabulist elements in it. after all, Satan was said to be in a goat.... "Isaiah 14:16 .... is this the MAN ... Lucifer was a king of Babylon. . Satan is in heaven tell judgement ref Job and revelations" “How you have fallen from heaven, O [a]star of the morning [light-bringer], son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, You who have weakened the nations [king of Babylon]! 13 “But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly In the remote parts of the north. 14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’" sounds like Jesus to me.
    2
  4. " It's just impossible to work with or even communicate with someone who is fanatically committed to an immaterial cause." you cannot unshorn the reflection out of a mirror. they think they can, which is why all the trouble.
    2
  5. "coffee? COFFEE!? we have bigger things to worry about and you're complaining you need a coffee!?" -- "you don't understand Marx! I NEED MY CAFE LATTE IN THE MORNING! ... hey, HEY! i said decaf DECA--- ooooo FUCK! REMAKE IT!!!" -- " facepalm, i must" -- "...i said no foam!!" whips coffee at the wall MARX!!!!!!!!!
    2
  6. Styx, what History reads would you recommend? any on your blog? i was thinking Life In Death, and Embers Of War. PS: 12:23 -- indeed this. the constitution and declaration are most likely the most important documents to ever be conceived, along with the Magna Carta. they need not be forsook, but they are; it's sad to see.
    1
  7. apologies for my poor assumptions. yeah...i mean...the Bible is a fucking mess. but seriously, Revelations...i tell people, just look, does that look like your average image of Jesus; no, it's a flame-eyed burnished bronze Jesus...might as well have horns. he is the "Morning Star", as titled in Rev. 22: 16, which is a translation from the Vulgate, where Jesus was called "Lucifer" or "light-bringing" -- which is why he is termed the "light-barer" (seems to be the usual title.)
    1
  8. no, they aren't. if you knew anything about translation, and how variable one translation is to one another, then you'd understand that there are different translations of the same title.
    1
  9. i question the validity of climate science as it pertains to climate change being a threat to humanity, but i don't see a problem with the study in and of itself. that study is questioning the nature of "climate change". which is good, because to know is power. i question the validity of gun control, given my talks and inferences, but i also question those who insist that people want to confiscate their guns...obviously the majority of people just want to see more "regulation", ie, more background checks and balances on the selling of guns. i hate seeing that notion mixed up with the notion that "the lefties wanna take yer guns!" that's not really a lefty position, more of a ultra-progressive position (prevarication, but the notion getting confused, nonetheless, is of note as being a "non-questioning" position. it's annoying.) i question the validity of Christian doctrine being foisted into law for non-believers, within certain states, just as much as i question the validity of pure atheism, and their proponents therein, whom insist that all religion is a scourge that must be stopped...i consider it more an antiquated art-form/ritualistic format of belief systems. i question the validity of pacifism only to the extent that it's a viable SOP for when your life is in danger of being taken by another...but not as a means to an end to war; i also see validity in taking up arms, if you or your people are being attacked, though also question the validity of war...not of the senses, and of emotion, but of resources, and of conquering land. i think diplomacy works best, but don't i think we should all intermingle our cultures, as opposed to simply letting some culture in, to reside, without fundamentally changing the original cultures identity. of course, one (the latter) is a fine deal, the former is out of the question. i question the notion of insular society as a "necessity" to mankind's well-being. i also question whether a nation can do away entirely with welfare, or not; consider this: if everyone made "their own way" through start-ups of independent businesses, eventually the market would become watered down, and people would only have the choice between many similar products, by means that would entail that people pick and choose, most likely, what is closest and easiest for them to purchase, while more rural businesses simply wouldn't be able to compete, and they'd have to either move or shut down...this sounds like it'd lead to an overly homogenized, over-crowded, civic center metropolis, which would then be governed entirely different than what we see today.
    1
  10. i think the main argument is about the fact of mass shooters, and mental health screenings, not so much that guns are inherently destructive in society, but some people do think that too, like far-leaning progressives. i don't agree with the sentiment, necessarily; it seems that mass shootings have decreased, almost like as if it was a fad; and the fact is, as well, that those incidences were, on the overall, tiny blips on the radar, something that never really was as "dire" a threat as people made it out to be. in principal, i don't disagree with better mental health screening...but then again, i'm not sure, exactly, how that'd be employed, and what the general effect might be outside of simply constraining the process of getting a gun for certain people whom should be screened for say paranoid, or anti-social tendencies. really, it's a matter of pragmatism; if it can be done without impinging on those whom can actually pass that type of screening, and/or those whom do not require said "screening". but i may be wrong, i have to consider the fact that that seems to be infringing on the constitutional rights of those whom have mental issues -- though, we don't allow criminals to have guns either, do we? so to me, it's quite the conundrum that has no easy answer, so i'm still on the fence about the idea. after all, i don't believe in seeking out "thought-crime", but, then again, we do not allow criminals to have guns, why? because we predict they'll use them in a crime. that's why. so it's quite...insuperable, this conundrum....it hurts my head. oh and gun sales on the black market should be looked into as well. i mean, this is illegal, afterall, and gun sellers are perpetrating against the law, fielding firearms on the black market.
    1