• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Three ICE detainees shot, 2 dead, at ICE facility in Dallas; suspected shooter committed suicide.

Oompa Loompa

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
10,079
5,370
Louisiana
✟305,231.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There was another part of my post other than musing on your occupation. How about you go back and read that.

And that '...but statistically...' is a crock. If I said '90% of people who hold your views are idiots' then saying 'Oh, but I'm not accusing you of being an idiot. Oh dear me, no', well that doesn't really ring true, does it.
Well. Statistically, if the shoe matches the foot, what am I to say? Again, I emphasize that this is just my opinion, and it is mine alone. However, the statistics support my claim. The claim being that statistically, if I were to die today, more likely than not, you would celebrate it only to come back to this forum to shed crocodile tears about my demise. Again, just going off of statistics and meaning no personal accusations,
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,775
16,367
72
Bondi
✟385,872.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well. Statistically, if the shoe matches the foot, what am I to say? Again, I emphasize that this is just my opinion, and it is mine alone. However, the statistics support my claim. The claim being that statistically, if I were to die today, more likely than not, you would celebrate it only to come back to this forum to shed crocodile tears about my demise. Again, just going off of statistics and meaning no personal accusations,
This is simply just too weird for me. I'll leave you both to it.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,100
3,418
67
Denver CO
✟246,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Look at the stats. The majority of Democrats cannot say that it is wrong to celebrate the death of a political opponent. Which tells me that they are two faced. They will take offthe mask and celebrate my demise with fellow democrats, only to later put the mask back on and shed some crocodile tears on a Christian Forum about how political violence is wrong and should not be tolerated. So based on the statistics, how can I possibly trust any democrat on this forum? Statistically, there are more democrats who would be happy if I had a heart attack only to start a thread to pay their respects. Genuinely, I am not trying to flame or goad, this is literally what the data is saying.
So, do you think you would have fought against Hitler in WW2?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,832
9,307
65
✟440,372.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
hope we can. But like I said, we first have to agree on some objective terminology.
Such as?
But propaganda can mischaracterize positions and create invalid and unsubstantiated opposition. There first has to be clarity through objective language.
It can, but most often doesn't. Again, you are going to.have to provide examples of objective language you want.
Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy.
Objectively I disagree. Thats a left leaning position. Trump is for running the Executive branch of which he is the head of. The boss gets to run the business as he sees fit.
Objectively, real conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution.
Your being subjective in saying real.conservatives would not support something. Real.conservatives don't believe he is ignoring article 1 and the legislative branch. He is using things in the constitution and things passed by Congress. Maybe he is using them.in ways they havent been used before, but that doeant mean its incorrect. At least not until SCOTUS says it is.
That's not an accurate assessment. That's more like propaganda.
No its not. How do I know?
Trump then declared--> whoever wasn't for his wall was not for border security --> and subsequently was for open borders--> and inevitably were for crime.
Because subsequently we didnt have border security and had a flood of illegal immigrants come into the country and they brought crime with them.
Yes. To be clear, taking the objective meaning of the term conservative and subjectively changing the meaning to infer white supremacy, nazis, christian nationalists, etc.. is slandering real conservatives.
On this we agree.

Done for now.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,832
9,307
65
✟440,372.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
but do you think people should not pay attention when Trump's sending people to foreign prisons without due process?
Do you think that's what he is or any of us are saying when we are talking g about referring to people as Nazis and the Gestapo? Somehow "paying attention" is the equivalent?
You probably don't see it through the eyes of immigrants.
You mean illegal immigrants.
Trump expressed the sentiment "poisoning the blood of our country" and also how there is a greater "enemy within",
I'd actually like to see the context of that.
which is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda used against the Jews. People will stand up against oppression and inhumanity.
By standing up meaning its okay to call people Nazis and Gestapo? How about telling people they need to stop it by "any means necessary"?

You are offering excuses for people who do such things.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,336
13,710
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟892,293.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Polls are evidence of what people think. What people think isn’t evidence.
"Isn't evidence" of what? They revealed what they think. Thoughts are usually a precursor to actions, as we have seen evidence of in recent events in the news.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,100
3,418
67
Denver CO
✟246,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For example, using established definitions of liberalism and conservatism found in accredited dictionaries to reason upon when articulating opposing ideologies.
It can, but most often doesn't. Again, you are going to.have to provide examples of objective language you want.
This is an objective dichotomy showing the centralization and decentralization of power --> democracy/autocracy; policies that shift power to the right will centralize power, and policies that shift power to the left will decentralize power. As a general rule objective language would express sentiments that are not opinions and are never based in negative prejudice.

childeye 2 said:
Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy.
Objectively I disagree. Thats a left leaning position.
We need objective language to accurately articulate how we discern a Left/ right dichotomy. Your statement underscored above is based on bias therefore you are not speaking objectively even though you think you are. The proof of bias is that you don't know what autocratic policies I am referring to that Trump has initiated. And this can be seen in the exchange of discourse from the record -->

rjs330 said:
Thats the simplistic view. Even conservatives support change. Liberals support status quo. What matters to both is what is the change and what is the status quo. And both sides move from current positions. We even see it in the current government. Conservatives support the change Trump is making in the Executive.

childeye 2 said:
Objective language would not confuse change to the left with change to the right. Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy. Objectively, REAL conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution.

conservatism​

noun

con·ser·va·tism kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm

pluralconservatisms
Synonyms of conservatism
1
a
: inclination to preserve what is established : belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society


Trump is for running the Executive branch of which he is the head of. The boss gets to run the business as he sees fit.
There exists the separation of powers in the Constitution into three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial.
Your being subjective in saying real.conservatives would not support something.
No, I am not expressing my opinion, I am using the dictionary meaning of conservatism (as shown above). And you're actually misquoting what I said even while you assert without any evidence that it's my statement that is subjective. --> I didn't say "something"
Real.conservatives don't believe he is ignoring article 1 and the legislative branch.
This above is a blank assertion.

Republican Congressman Troy Balderson, who reps an R+18 district in Ohio, says President Trump’s executive orders are “getting out of control.” “Congress has to decide whether or not the Departmnet of Education goes away. Not the president. Not Elon Musk. Congress decides,” Balderson said.
He is using things in the constitution and things passed by Congress.
Executive orders are not required to be passed by congress.
Congress didn't pass anything nor is there anything in the constitution allowing Trump to attack Perkins Coie law firm.
Maybe he is using them.in ways they havent been used before, but that doeant mean its incorrect. At least not until SCOTUS says it is.
To be clear, I am defending this statement as an objective statement --> "Objectively, real conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution".

Even though this diverts from my intent, here is one example of an executive order that came to mind that was rejected by SCOTUS --> The end of birthright citizenship. <-- Good example of a policy change towards autocracy.

childeye 2 said:
Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy.

No its not. How do I know?

Because subsequently we didnt have border security and had a flood of illegal immigrants come into the country and they brought crime with them.
rjs330 said:
Liberals wanted to maintain status quo. Immigration. Conservatives support the change in how we deal with illegal immigration, Liberals wanted to maintain the status quo.

When you say, "we didn't have border security" as proof that you know it's not propaganda, it is contradicted by the numbers of encounters by border patrol agents during the Biden administration. So, assuming you're referring to the high number of 'got-aways' under the Biden administration, it's fair to say there was less border security than under the current administration.

What is unfair, is to blame "liberals" or convey in some way that a liberal would want an unsecure border or illegal immigration. Furthermore, since I don't like to entertain slander, I find it insinuative when people say that the immigrants brought "crime" with them.

Therefore, objectively speaking, your claim that "Liberals" wanted to "maintain" the "status quo" is unqualified. Allow me to qualify the status quo. Liberals would want the civil rights of asylum seekers and all immigrants to be protected in accordance with the asylum laws. The status quo was simply following the laws. Real conservatives would not support breaking the laws.

The problem for the Biden administration was that the requirements of judges and detention centers was grossly underfunded. Congress appropriated about 45 billion dollars for border security during the Biden administration, and Biden had assigned approximately 1500 troops to help in securing the border.

This blame the Democrats for open borders was all propaganda. There was bipartisan support for the senate border act. That bill would have made the necessary changes in asylum laws to deal with the large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees as well as allocate the funds necessary to make the system functional.

Currently, the congress has appropriated approximately 140 billion dollars for border security under the Trump administration, and Trump has assigned approximately 8,000 troops to help in securing the border.


On this we agree.

Done for now.
Yes, I don't like slander.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,100
3,418
67
Denver CO
✟246,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you think that's what he is or any of us are saying when we are talking g about referring to people as Nazis and the Gestapo? Somehow "paying attention" is the equivalent?
I don't understand the question. Maybe you could rephrase the question without asking what I think the poster is?
You mean illegal immigrants.
That's not what I had in mind.
I'd actually like to see the context of that.
The poisoning the blood comment is referring to the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the USA.

The enemy within in the speech I saw is domestic "radical left lunatics". But elsewhere Trump has also referenced Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff as part of the enemy within.
By standing up meaning its okay to call people Nazis and Gestapo?
I mean to convey that people will stand up against oppression and inhumanity because it's wrong.
How about telling people they need to stop it by "any means necessary"?
I see Trump suggesting that the "radical left lunatics" should be taken care of even if he has to use the army. In America he has the right to express his desires as President. But people also have the right to express their concerns about his desires.

You are offering excuses for people who do such things.
In keeping with the commandment to love others as I would want to be loved, I'm compelled by the Spirit to avoid hypocritical judgment.

If on one hand it's okay for Trump to express the same sentiments against others that Nazis used against the Jews, then I don't see how on the other hand it would be wrong for people to say that he's expressing the same sentiments against others that Nazi's used against the Jews.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,832
9,307
65
✟440,372.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
For example, using established definitions of liberalism and conservatism found in accredited dictionaries to reason upon when articulating opposing ideologies.
And I've provided a strong example as to why they are far too restrictive and do t work. Because status quo changes. For example, status quo was to allow children to transition medically. Thats not a conservative position. Thats a leftist position.

In the 90s conservatives were all for welfare reform requiring people.to work. That was a position against status quo. Liberals were against that. I remember the conversations.

So its actually positions on topics that determine conservative and liberal, not simple definitions because liberals can very much be for status quo. Conservatives can very much be for change of the status quo.
democracy/autocracy; policies that shift power to the right will centralize power, and policies that shift power to the left will decentralize power.
Not true at all. Shifting power to the right. Depending on how far you go does lead to autocracy. But no more than shifting power to the left. That also leads to autocracy. The right isnt any more autocratic than the left. Thats yiur bias speaking.


Your statement underscored above is based on bias therefore you are not speaking objectively even though you think you are. The proof of bias is that you don't know what autocratic policies I am referring to that Trump has initiated.
Lol thats your bias position. Ive already shown you how your so called definitions on exactly what is conservative and what is liberal are not accurate.
inclination to preserve what is established :
Except where what is established is a liberal position or ideology. Then the liberals aee conservatives and the conservatives are liberals.

What is unfair, is to blame "liberals" or convey in some way that a liberal would want an unsecure border or illegal immigration. Furthermore, since I don't like to entertain slander, I find it insinuative when people say that the immigrants brought "crime" with them.

I dont think it is. Liberals are the ones who are continually supporting less security as evidenced by the amount of illegals that were let in AND the amount of illegals they want to stay. Security ISN'T just about not letting people in, border security is also about not letting illegals stay.
Allow me to qualify the status quo. Liberals would want the civil rights of asylum seekers and all immigrants to be protected in accordance with the asylum laws. The status quo was simply following the laws. Real conservatives would not support breaking the laws.
Exactly and liberals support rhe status quo, therefore they are conservatives?
Conservatives don't support breaking rhe asylum laws either. Therefore they are liberals?

I don't know that asylum laws have been broken.
This blame the Democrats for open borders was all propaganda. There was bipartisan support for the senate border act. That bill would have made the necessary changes in asylum laws to deal with the large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees as well as allocate the funds necessary to make the system functional.
No it didnt. If it were truly bipartisan then it would have passed. There were legit reasons why it didn't. The propeganda was all on the left side. Propaganda blaming Trump.and the Republicans for all the illegals flooding the country. Yet somehow when Teump.got into office we were able to put a stop to it, without that bill.
Currently, the congress has appropriated approximately 140 billion dollars for border security under the Trump administration, and Trump has assigned approximately 8,000 troops to help in securing the border.
See, it could have been done without the Democrats version of border security which really wasnt.
This above is a blank assertion.
No more blank than yours.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,832
9,307
65
✟440,372.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
I don't understand the question. Maybe you could rephrase the question without asking what I think the poster is?
Do you think paying attention is equivalent to calling people Nazis and gestapo.
That's not what I had in mind.
Your the one who is always talking about precise language. There is a difference between illegal and legal immigrants.
The poisoning the blood comment is referring to the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the USA.
Thats not the context. Where is this context?
"radical left lunatics"
They are the enemy within. When Pelosi and Schiff join forces with them, then they are too.
I mean to convey that people will stand up against oppression and inhumanity because it's wrong.
Except there is no oppression and inhumanity. Enforcing the laws are not inhumane. Maybe the laws need to be re-written. But enforcing them as written is not inhumane. There are a lot of propagandists accusations by the left.
see Trump suggesting that the "radical left lunatics" should be taken care of even if he has to use the army.
Yes, because they are dangerous. If local LE won't do it and they are interfering and attacking federal.agents then the the army has to step in and protect and defend.
America he has the right to express his desires as President. But people also have the right to express their concerns about his desires.
By any means necessary?
In keeping with the commandment to love others as I would want to be loved, I'm compelled by the Spirit to avoid hypocritical judgment.
You are also called to judge with righteous judgement. To recognize wolves when you see them. There are wolves on each side. White supremacists on the right and radical.leftists on the left. You seem to only see the radical right, but offer excuses for the radical.left.
If on one hand it's okay for Trump to express the same sentiments against others that Nazis used against the Jews, then I don't see how on the other hand it would be wrong for people to say that he's expressing the same sentiments against others that Nazi's used against the Jews.

Oh good grief. By that measure I could point out any number of things politicians or people.on the left have said that also express sentiments that the Nazis expressed about the Jews. By saying crap.like that you are providing permissions for violence. Because if they really are acting like Nazis we have an obligation to stomp them out by any means necessary.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,537
46,607
Los Angeles Area
✟1,040,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
  • Informative
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,100
3,418
67
Denver CO
✟246,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And I've provided a strong example as to why they are far too restrictive and do t work. Because status quo changes.
And I said they work fine as subjective approaches towards policymaking. The fact that the status quo changes, doesn't mean that these ideologies would change in their descriptions.
For example, status quo was to allow children to transition medically. Thats not a conservative position. Thats a leftist position.
It depends on which state you live in as to what the status quo is. Liberal/Conservative ideologies will overlap in some degree at the center as pertains to what people think the status quo should be. An example of very liberal might include allowing children to receive gender affirming care even without a parent's permission.

But the status quo has generally been to allow parents to decide what is best for their children rather than the government unless a child's welfare is at stake. <--- That's always been a conservative position. <-- The dictionary meaning of conservative.

In the 90s conservatives were all for welfare reform requiring people.to work. That was a position against status quo. Liberals were against that. I remember the conversations.
You're a victim of propaganda if you think this is a valid left/right dichotomy --> slothful/hardworking. As I recall the issue was more about how to continue to provide assistance to people who legitimately couldn't work and eliminate those people who were gaming the system.
So its actually positions on topics that determine conservative and liberal, not simple definitions because liberals can very much be for status quo. Conservatives can very much be for change of the status quo.
I don't see how the underscored is being contested by the dictionary definitions. As I said, objective language would draw a distinction between a change to the left or to the right. I don't know of any dictionary definitions that are conveying that conservative or liberal ideologies would NOT take positions about policy.

Not true at all. Shifting power to the right. Depending on how far you go does lead to autocracy. But no more than shifting power to the left. That also leads to autocracy. The right isnt any more autocratic than the left. Thats yiur bias speaking.
You're not articulating it correctly. You need to understand the terms 'decentralizing' and 'centralizing' as pertains to the delegation of power in degrees, so as to understand the difference between policy that would support democracy and policy that would support autocracy. If you did understand how to reason upon the Democracy/autocracy dichotomy you'd see why bias could never be involved in the equation.
Lol thats your bias position. Ive already shown you how your so called definitions on exactly what is conservative and what is liberal are not accurate.
I didn't write the dictionary definitions, and the fact that both conservatives and liberals can support or not support the status quo doesn't show the dictionary definitions to be inaccurate.

Above, you are not even addressing the proof of your bias on record in my post.

childeye 2 said:
Your statement underscored above is based on bias therefore you are not speaking objectively even though you think you are. The proof of bias is that you don't know what autocratic policies I am referring to that Trump has initiated.


Except where what is established is a liberal position or ideology. Then the liberals aee conservatives and the conservatives are liberals.
Excellent point about the definition. Understanding that an ideology is not the same as a position, I'd say every individual has some degree of liberalism and some degree of conservatism. Objective language would draw a distinction between a change to the left or a change to the right of the status quo as in this dichotomy -> democracy/autocracy.

I dont think it is. Liberals are the ones who are continually supporting less security as evidenced by the amount of illegals that were let in AND the amount of illegals they want to stay. Security ISN'T just about not letting people in, border security is also about not letting illegals stay.
Well, that's your subjective view. Objectively speaking border security implies controlling who is let in and who is not. A liberal would not support unsecure borders. But they would support protecting the civil rights of immigrants whether documented or undocumented.
Exactly and liberals support rhe status quo, therefore they are conservatives?
Conservatives don't support breaking rhe asylum laws either. Therefore they are liberals?
You seem to think liberal views and conservative views can't agree and therefore must disagree. They're just different approaches.
I don't know that asylum laws have been broken.
The whole system is broken. Asylum seekers were supposed to be detained until there cases were reviewed.
No it didnt. If it were truly bipartisan then it would have passed. There were legit reasons why it didn't.
It was drafted by a bipartisan group of senators.
The propeganda was all on the left side. Propaganda blaming Trump.and the Republicans for all the illegals flooding the country.
I recall that the left claimed trump wanted it not to pass.
Yet somehow when Teump.got into office we were able to put a stop to it, without that bill.
We know how. Trump was given more money.
See, it could have been done without the Democrats version of border security which really wasnt.
Since congress appropriated more money than even the bill provided.
No more blank than yours.
I didn't make a blank assertion.

childeye 2 said:
Objectively, real conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution.

Republican Congressman Troy Balderson, who reps an R+18 district in Ohio, says President Trump’s executive orders are “getting out of control.” “Congress has to decide whether or not the Departmnet of Education goes away. Not the president. Not Elon Musk. Congress decides,” Balderson said.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,100
3,418
67
Denver CO
✟246,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you think paying attention is equivalent to calling people Nazis and gestapo.
No.
Your the one who is always talking about precise language. There is a difference between illegal and legal immigrants.
Exactly, and you said -> "You mean illegal immigrants". <- That's not a question but I figured you might have meant it as a question, so I responded, I wasn't thinking that.
Thats not the context. Where is this context?
You can google it. But I found it on YouTube, because I like to hear what people say from their own mouths.
They are the enemy within. When Pelosi and Schiff join forces with them, then they are too.
Trump wasn't exactly specific as to why they're the enemy. Generally, his sentiments indicate that the enemy within is whoever is against his view of reality.
Except there is no oppression and inhumanity. Enforcing the laws are not inhumane. Maybe the laws need to be re-written. But enforcing them as written is not inhumane. There are a lot of propagandists accusations by the left.
Well, maybe you don't see it in the eyes of the immigrants. Jesus said the weightier matters of the law are mercy and justice.
Yes, because they are dangerous. If local LE won't do it and they are interfering and attacking federal.agents then the the army has to step in and protect and defend.
I don't actually believe what Trump says. I don't see a danger from "far left lunatics" happening, nor Hannibal Lectors and murderers sneaking into the country. I see people who don't agree with Trump being called far left lunatics, and I don't like slander.
By any means necessary?
I just meant to speak with one's mouth as in free speech.
You are also called to judge with righteous judgement.
That's what I said, non-hypocritical judgment.
To recognize wolves when you see them. There are wolves on each side. White supremacists on the right and radical.leftists on the left. You seem to only see the radical right, but offer excuses for the radical.left.
I reason upon dichotomies, so I tend to note those who gather the sheep and those who scatter the sheep.
Oh good grief. By that measure I could point out any number of things politicians or people.on the left have said that also express sentiments that the Nazis expressed about the Jews.
I reason upon dichotomies, so I like clarity, not obfuscation. I was specifically referencing Hitler's sentiments spoken by Trump.
By saying crap.like that you are providing permissions for violence. Because if they really are acting like Nazis we have an obligation to stomp them out by any means necessary.
You worry too much. All I said is Trump was expressing the same sentiments against others as Nazi's expressed against Jews, and I don't like slander.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,336
13,710
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟892,293.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No.

Exactly, and you said -> "You mean illegal immigrants". <- That's not a question but I figured you might have meant it as a question, so I responded, I wasn't thinking that.

You can google it. But I found it on YouTube, because I like to hear what people say from their own mouths.

Trump wasn't exactly specific as to why they're the enemy. Generally, his sentiments indicate that the enemy within is whoever is against his view of reality.

Well, maybe you don't see it in the eyes of the immigrants. Jesus said the weightier matters of the law are mercy and justice.

I don't actually believe what Trump says. I don't see a danger from "far left lunatics" happening, nor Hannibal Lectors and murderers sneaking into the country. I see people who don't agree with Trump being called far left lunatics, and I don't like slander.

I just meant to speak with one's mouth as in free speech.

That's what I said, non-hypocritical judgment.

I reason upon dichotomies, so I tend to note those who gather the sheep and those who scatter the sheep.

I reason upon dichotomies, so I like clarity, not obfuscation. I was specifically referencing Hitler's sentiments spoken by Trump.

You worry too much. All I said is Trump was expressing the same sentiments against others as Nazi's expressed against Jews, and I don't like slander.
Were the Jews in Nazi Germany committing the crimes that we keep hearing about illegal immigrants committing? Were the Jews back in those days being caught after committing those crimes and then released back onto the street to commit more crimes because Hitler thought cashless bail was somehow more "equitable"?
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
6,100
3,418
67
Denver CO
✟246,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Were the Jews in Nazi Germany committing the crimes that we keep hearing about illegal immigrants committing?
Of course Hitler was slandering Jews. Slander is of the spirit of the devil you know. Yes, as a tool of demagoguery they were committing atrocities and were all considered vermin from the eldest to the children. Spiritually it's a sentiment of negative prejudice as I think you know. <-- not meant as a derogatory.
Were the Jews back in those days being caught after committing those crimes and then released back onto the street to commit more crimes because Hitler thought cashless bail was somehow more "equitable"?
Above I said that of course "Hitler was slandering the Jews". The premise of the question above I would think is therefore irrelevant unless you disagree that it was slander. All people have to do to stop the lies, is not believe slander.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
43,336
13,710
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟892,293.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Of course Hitler was slandering Jews. Slander is of the spirit of the devil you know. Yes, as a tool of demagoguery they were committing atrocities and were all considered vermin from the eldest to the children. Spiritually it's a sentiment of negative prejudice as I think you know. <-- not meant as a derogatory.

Above I said that of course "Hitler was slandering the Jews". The premise of the question above I would think is therefore irrelevant unless you disagree that it was slander. All people have to do to stop the lies, is not believe slander.
I see that you aren't responding to my question as to whether or not they were committing the crimes that the illegals here are committing--and then being released back onto the street after being caught for.
Try answering my question rather than attempting to paint a specific narrative.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,537
46,607
Los Angeles Area
✟1,040,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Were the Jews in Nazi Germany committing the crimes that we keep hearing about illegal immigrants committing?
The German citizens kept hearing about the crimes the Jews were committing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: childeye 2
Upvote 0