chrysostom

Right Divider

Body part
Not hardly ... I hate trump because I love my country and neighbor (the patriot, anti-trumpers at least) ... I am morally obligated to stand against the evil he represents. However, what I won’t do is argue or even attempt to reason with his congregation of red hatters. If only Jim Jones could have held rallies. ...

In 2016, Trump was the lesser of two evils... it's the same in 2020.

P.S. I didn't vote for Trump.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Not hardly ... I hate trump

Which is what I said.

You hate Trump more than you love your neighbors. Telling me your reasons for it doesn't change that fact.

because I love my country and neighbor (the patriot, anti-trumpers at least) ...

Are not the "pro-Trumpers" your neighbors as well, as well as those who neither support nor oppose him?

And what about Trump himself, is he not your neighbor?

What was it Jesus said again?

Love your neighbor...

Who is your neighbor, Rusha?


Then a Samaritan, a person belonging to a culture that the Jewish people of the time would have despised, takes pity on the man. The Samaritan bandages his wounds, takes him to an inn, cares for him, and leaves money with the innkeeper to continue the care.

When Jesus asks which of these three – the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan – acted as a neighbor to the robbed man, the lawyer answers “The one who showed him mercy.”

As Jesus often does, he turns the question of “who is my neighbor?” on its head and instead answers “who might be a neighbor to me?”


​​​​​​​https://www.goodsamministries.com/who-we-are/who-is-my-neighbor/

I am morally obligated to stand against the evil he represents.

We should definitely oppose evil.

Which is why I don't support him.

But that doesn't mean I hate him. That doesn't mean I refuse to recognize when he does good.

However, what I won’t do is argue or even attempt to reason with his congregation of red hatters.

Do you think I am one of these so-called "red hatters"?

If only Jim Jones could have held rallies. ...

Who?
 

Rusha

Make Lying Wrong Again 2021 ...
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Also, You seem to be trying to paint with a broad brush the entire police force of America due to a few bad apples. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

That would be the question to ask those in blue. Why do they not try to intervene or speak out against their fellow officers who intentionally abuse and murder black people?

Insofar as broad-brushing, that is the way of the right. I no longer feel the need to take the higher road by trying to view their POV with an open mind.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
That would be the question to ask those in blue. Why do they not try to intervene or speak out against their fellow officers who intentionally abuse and murder black people?

You assume they don't?

insofar as broad-brushing, that is the way of the right. I no longer feel the need to take the higher road by trying to view their POV with an open mind.

I'm not asking you to "view their POV with an open mind." I'm asking you to not assume they're guilty before they are shown to be so, such as with the links I and ok doser provided above which, at the very least, calls into question half of your claims (where the other half I still need context for, and the first I'm only presuming that you're talking about the death of Floyd, but which you have neither confirmed nor denied that that is whom you're referring to) based on the evidence.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
That would be the question to ask those in blue. Why do they not try to intervene or speak out against their fellow officers who intentionally abuse and murder black people?

insofar as broad-brushing, that is the way of the right. I no longer feel the need to take the higher road by trying to view their POV with an open mind.

He's trying to hold you to a standard he doesn't keep himself.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
You assume they don't?



I'm not asking you to "view their POV with an open mind." I'm asking you to not assume they're guilty before they are shown to be so, such as with the links I and ok doser provided above which, at the very least, calls into question half of your claims (where the other half I still need context for, and the first I'm only presuming that you're talking about the death of Floyd, but which you have neither confirmed nor denied that that is whom you're referring to) based on the evidence.

She's talking about the Breonna Taylor shooting, from the perspective of one who swallowed the initial false narrative.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
we are talkin about a baby who has survived a botched abortion

Intentionally posting misleading information to make your case doesn't help your case, it makes you look suspect.

You completely ignored my post in your other thread refuting your unfounded allegation so I'll post it here too.

Babies are left on the table to die alone because they somehow survived a botched abortion. This is what the courts have done for us. If they cannot protect life, what can they protect?

Facts:
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/th...-alive-debate/

In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” easily passed Congress — through a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It became law on Aug. 5, 2002. It defined a “person” (or “human being,” “child” and “individual”) for the purposes of any act of Congress or any agency ruling/regulation as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.“

The act went on to define “born alive” as: “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

Are either of these laws necessary to prosecute the intentional killing of a baby as a homicide?

No. Killing a baby is a homicide. “States can and do punish people for killing children who are born alive,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Law and the author of two books on the abortion debate, told us in a phone interview. “Most criminal laws are at the state level not the federal level.”
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
why is a baby who survived a botched abortion left alone on a table to die?
why do we protect two guys living together?
why do we force the baker to put to little guys on top of a cake?
why do we force the sisters of the poor to pay for abortions?
why do we protect those who are not happy with their gender?
why do we have to pay for those who are not happy with their gender?
why can't parents control the gender of their kids?
how do liberals get on the supreme court?
how do liberals get on the supreme court?
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
why is a baby who survived a botched abortion left alone on a table to die?

Facts:
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/th...-alive-debate/

In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” easily passed Congress — through a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It became law on Aug. 5, 2002. It defined a “person” (or “human being,” “child” and “individual”) for the purposes of any act of Congress or any agency ruling/regulation as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.“

The act went on to define “born alive” as: “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

Are either of these laws necessary to prosecute the intentional killing of a baby as a homicide?

No. Killing a baby is a homicide. “States can and do punish people for killing children who are born alive,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Law and the author of two books on the abortion debate, told us in a phone interview. “Most criminal laws are at the state level not the federal level.”















why do we protect two guys living together?
why do we force the baker to put to little guys on top of a cake?
why do we force the sisters of the poor to pay for abortions?
why do we protect those who are not happy with their gender?
why do we have to pay for those who are not happy with their gender?
why can't parents control the gender of their kids?
how do liberals get on the supreme court?
how do liberals get on the supreme court?


It's all about control with you.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I wonder who is controlling anna
she isn't
or
what is controlling anna?
an idea?
or
just victimhood?
just like someone who got the wrong gender
it just takes an operation
you can always be what you want to be
you don't have to accept what you are
first you have to go after those who are controlling you
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
I wonder who is controlling anna
she isn't
or
what is controlling anna?
an idea?
or
just victimhood?

Speculating is your game, and you usually lose.

just like someone who got the wrong gender
it just takes an operation
you can always be what you want to be
you don't have to accept what you are
first you have to go after those who are controlling you

Maybe you could just mind your own business and let people live their lives.
 
Top