Did you vote Love or Hate?

Thistle

Well-known member
Sneering at so-called Christians who admire those who hit back every time they are hit is extremely restrained.
Undoubtedly, you are raising your children to be doormats. Am I right? Is that your covenant with them? The issues on the table now goes to fundamental justice. Turning the other cheek has no application in such matters. Turning the other cheek applies to matters of personal dignity. The same Jesus who bore the cross despising it's shame, also made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple. Principle, "you shall not make my Fathers house a den of thieves;" indignity "being found in the image of a man he was obedient, even to death on a cross." When Trump fights to the last man for the priorities of 72 million American's who voted for him to fight, that is principles of a man who has made a covenant with his voters. Even if no Republican in Washington will stand for your priorities, I will.
 

DieBrille

Member
Undoubtedly, you are raising your children to be doormats. Am I right?
No I tell thme to hit back when hit or to seek redress. Certainly not Is that your covenant with them? The issues on the table now goes to fundamental justice. Turning the other cheek has no application in such matters. Turning the other cheek applies to matters of personal dignity. The same Jesus who bore the cross despising it's shame, also made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple. Principle, "you shall not make my Fathers house a den of thieves;" indignity "being found in the image of a man he was obedient, even to death on a cross." When Trump fights to the last man for the priorities of 72 million American's who voted for him to fight, that is principles of a man who has made a covenant with his voters. Even if no Republican in Washington will stand for your priorities, I will.
So turning the other cheek has no relevance in real life?
Thanks for admitting it.
As a principle it is demented madness in personal life or in international affairs.
As a foreign policy it is suicide.
No-one implements it as a policy unless they want to be treated as a doormat.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So turning the other cheek has no relevance in real life?
As I said it applies only to matters of personal dignity. It has no application in the defense of principles.
As a principle it is demented madness in personal life or in international affairs.
No, that is absolutely not true. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton fought a duel to the death because of a failure to turn the other cheek when a matter of personal dignity was a issue. Would it have been demented madness not to fight the duel?
As a foreign policy it is suicide.
You know, Donald Trump when to North Korea to talk with Kim Jong-un and as near as I can tell the only thing that seemed to be at issue was the personal dignity of prior presidents with a different approach. It appears to me that Kim Jong-un came to believe that Trump would not attack them, if they changed their behavior, and in large part they have. I like that, my son just did a tour in Korea. And I was greatly comforted by Trumps handling of that situation.
No-one implements it as a policy unless they want to be treated as a doormat.
Again it applies when personal dignity is the issue. If I slapped you in the face with a gauntlet, throwing it on the ground, demanding we fight a duel to the death, you don't think, turning the other cheek might apply there? I think a person would be a fool to accept that kind of a challenge. You see that is what BLM tries to do. They get two inches from your face and scream "racist" at the top of their lungs, hoping you will rear back and deck them so they can capture you on video doing it. Not smart. Taking the bait of an insult to personal dignity is being manipulated.
 

DieBrille

Member
As I said it applies only to matters of personal dignity. It has no application in the defense of principles.
You just made that up.
No, that is absolutely not true. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton fought a duel to the death because of a failure to turn the other cheek when a matter of personal dignity was a issue. Would it have been demented madness not to fight the duel?
Utter crap that you just made up.
You know, Donald Trump when to North Korea to talk with Kim Jong-un and as near as I can tell the only thing that seemed to be at issue was the personal dignity of prior presidents with a different approach. It appears to me that Kim Jong-un came to believe that Trump would not attack them, if they changed their behavior, and in large part they have. I like that, my son just did a tour in Korea. And I was greatly comforted by Trumps handling of that situation.
Irrelevant incoherent drivel.
Again it applies when personal dignity is the issue. If I slapped you in the face with a gauntlet, throwing it on the ground, demanding we fight a duel to the death, you don't think, turning the other cheek might apply there? I think a person would be a fool to accept that kind of a challenge. You see that is what BLM tries to do. They get two inches from your face and scream "racist" at the top of their lungs, hoping you will rear back and deck them so they can capture you on video doing it. Not smart. Taking the bait of an insult to personal dignity is being manipulated.
More incoherent drivel.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
You just made that up.
No, I didn't make it up, I explained this thoroughly in post 25.
Utter crap that you just made up.
Honestly, they fought a duel. You can look it up.
Irrelevant incoherent drivel.
Not killing tens of thousands of people is not incoherent and it's not drivel.
More incoherent drivel.
You don't need my permission to deck someone who may insult you. I suppose we'll just see how it works for you.
 

DieBrille

Member
No, I didn't make it up, I explained this thoroughly in post 25
Christ never said anything at ll like that. You just made it up.
Honestly, they fought a duel. You can look it up.
Ir also is irrelevant to the concept of turning the other cheek since it wasn't an issue.

Not killing tens of thousands of people is not incoherent and it's not drivel.
Nothing about your admiration for Trump's counter punching...

You don't need my permission to deck someone who may insult you. I suppose we'll just see how it works for you.
No, I don't. And it is not just about insulting. It is about actually striking on the cheek. Now stop your idiotic attempt to re-write the NT.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Christ never said anything at ll like that. You just made it up.
You interpret what Jesus said, by what Jesus did. He did not violate the rules he gave others.
Ir also is irrelevant to the concept of turning the other cheek since it wasn't an issue.
What do you mean it wasn't an issue? Hamilton died.
Nothing about your admiration for Trump's counter punching...
If he can not defend himself against his political enemies he can not keep his obligations to his political constituents. The comments have very little to do with is personal dignity as such. The comments are directed at controlling the news cycle.
No, I don't. And it is not just about insulting.
What do you think a slap on the cheek is?
It is about actually striking on the cheek.
A slap on the cheek is about public humiliation. If you were trying to injure someone you would punch them in the nose.
Now stop your idiotic attempt to re-write the NT.
Stop your idiotic attempts to interpret it, you are fathoms beyond your depth.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Why should anyone but a total moron allow the question to be framed in such a moronic fashion?

Do you always feel the need to engage in such petty name-calling ("in such a moronic fashion") whenever you comment?

I watched a number of YT "man on the street" interviews, where the interviewer was asking people who they were voting for, and if they were voting for Biden, why they were voting for him, or one interviewer asked, "How excited are you, on a scale of 1-10, about Biden being President?"

Most said they were only voting for Biden because they hated Trump ("voting for hate", just like the OP video), and regarding the "excitement" question, none were the least bit excited or enthused about voting for Biden. They only wanted to make sure Trump didn't win.

So I guess I don't understand why the question is "in such a moronic fashion", as it seems to be very accurate, in terms of Biden voters.

It makes one wonder... I think the DNC had about 15-20 presidential candidates, and from among all of them, they couldn't elect ONE that they felt excited to get behind.

If you think that is a good question it speaks volumes about you .Trump is busy tearing the electoral system apart

That seems to be a very bizarre comment. It's been the Democrats who have long wanted to "tear the electoral system apart" by trying to get rid of the electoral college, and instead change to a pure democracy that is nothing more than mob rule, and doesn't fairly represent ALL 50 States of the Union.

and here you are dredging Carleson for dingbat talking points.

"dingbat"?
I guess that goes up there with "moronic"..
Way to go, Archie....

(Yeah, it's incredibly ironic you're using an insult made famous by Archie Bunker! ;) )
 

J regia

Well-known member
That seems to be a very bizarre comment. It's been the Democrats who have long wanted to "tear the electoral system apart" by trying to get rid of the electoral college, and instead change to a pure democracy that is nothing more than mob rule, and doesn't fairly represent ALL 50 States of the Union.
And why wouldn't they want a real democracy instead of a plutocracy, since I understand that it's been some time since the states were separate colonies?

And if you still want to keep that undemocratic system, why not at least replace the 538 voters with an automatic system and the election result just determined by a computer which can't be bribed to vote for Colin Powell or Faith Spotted Eagle?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
<sigh>

More smart-alecky comments, I see...

And why wouldn't they want a real democracy instead of a plutocracy,

Well, the founding fathers didn't create America as a "real democracy" (ie. mob rule), and that was deliberate on their part. They wanted each State to have some level of autonomy.

If you want to live in a Democratic country, you are free to move to one. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any so far. There's likely a reason why so few countries choose a Democratic government. You might want to think about that.

As for your "plutocracy" comment, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer before becoming President, so apparently you don't have to be rich to become President. If you don't like rich people in government, perhaps America could look into setting term limits for Senate and Congress, so we can get rid of no-good leaders like Sanders and Biden, who have done nothing in government but become millionaires.

And maybe Planned Parenthood donations to candidates should be criminalized.

since I understand that it's been some time since the states were separate colonies?

They're still separate States.
They have different laws on any number of subjects (marijuana, cocaine, and gun laws come to mind).

And if you still want to keep that undemocratic system, why not at least replace the 538 voters with an automatic system and the election result just determined by a computer which can't be bribed to vote for Colin Powell or Faith Spotted Eagle?

Apparently you don't know how easy it is to reprogram machines.
There are court cases before judges right now concerning the software that was uploaded to the Dominion Voting systems.

I suggest we go back to the following:
- mail-in votes restricted to absentee voting, and more rigourous security;
- in person voting for the majority of citizens;
- government photo-ID required;
- signature matching;
- observers from both parties overseeing the process
- 100% transparency.
 

J regia

Well-known member
<sigh>

More smart-alecky comments, I see...



Well, the founding fathers didn't create America as a "real democracy" (ie. mob rule), and that was deliberate on their part. They wanted each State to have some level of autonomy.

If you want to live in a Democratic country, you are free to move to one. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any so far. There's likely a reason why so few countries choose a Democratic government. You might want to think about that.

As for your "plutocracy" comment, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer before becoming President, so apparently you don't have to be rich to become President. If you don't like rich people in government, perhaps America could look into setting term limits for Senate and Congress, so we can get rid of no-good leaders like Sanders and Biden, who have done nothing in government but become millionaires.

And maybe Planned Parenthood donations to candidates should be criminalized.



They're still separate States.
They have different laws on any number of subjects (marijuana, cocaine, and gun laws come to mind).



Apparently you don't know how easy it is to reprogram machines.
There are court cases before judges right now concerning the software that was uploaded to the Dominion Voting systems.

I suggest we go back to the following:
- mail-in votes restricted to absentee voting, and more rigourous security;
- in person voting for the majority of citizens;
- government photo-ID required;
- signature matching;
- observers from both parties overseeing the process
- 100% transparency.
That's your choice if you want some of the 538 voters to vote for Faith Spotted Eagle and Colin Powell to be your elected dictator. Or would you prefer that there is only one voter from each state to vote for them as described in the 12th amendment?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
That's your choice if you want some of the 538 voters to vote for Faith Spotted Eagle and Colin Powell to be your elected dictator. Or would you prefer that there is only one voter from each state to vote for them as described in the 12th amendment?

<sigh>
Get back to me when/if you decide to be respectful and courteous.
 

J regia

Well-known member
<sigh>
Get back to me when/if you decide to be respectful and courteous.
What is discourteous and disrespectful about the truth?

And how many of the 538 voters do you predict will vote for Faith Spotted Eagle and Colin Powell in January?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
<sigh>

More smart-alecky comments, I see...



Well, the founding fathers didn't create America as a "real democracy" (ie. mob rule), and that was deliberate on their part. They wanted each State to have some level of autonomy.

If you want to live in a Democratic country, you are free to move to one. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any so far. There's likely a reason why so few countries choose a Democratic government. You might want to think about that.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that America is not a democracy. It is and has been since its inception.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You seem to be under the misapprehension that America is not a democracy. It is and has been since its inception.

Actually, it's a constitutional republic.
That's why the election is based on an electoral college, rather than "popular vote".
I guess you skipped civics class, huh?
 
Top