Chicago principal claims teacher who made sick Charlie Kirk gesture is the victim

[Chesterton]

The ignore feature is very useful. Just sayin'

Honestly, there's not much value in pursuing conversation anymore...

It's been over a year since I've gained any kind of useful insight, when before, it all the time.

I guess I'm done.

@jacks and @ThatRobGuy were talking about this the other day. The arguments just keep getting weirder and more non-arguments. Keep your chin up.

 

[bèlla]

Why can't you at least just answer the question of what kind of fallout you're talking about?

I’m responding to your position. Revisit what you said earlier in post #126.

“I think you're wrong there. I think you should believe in him. He's the best king America's ever had.”

That was your starting point and I explained where we differed on Trump. I neither trust or believe in him or his leadership. But I expect him to honor his commitments to his financial donors and business associates. I confirmed my stance by sharing the policy proposals he‘s enacted and those in the pipeline. All of which were prepared by the Heritage Foundation and benefit the wealth.

Given your trust and belief in Trump I don’t know why you’re trying to pick my brain. It doesn‘t matter what I think. Nor am I required to enlighten you. If he isn’t addressing the same you should assume it isn’t an issue. But the constant requests for clarity reveal your hypocrisy. Either he’s the person you say he is or he isn’t.

Don’t you think he’d warn his base if there was a problem? Why would need to get that from a non supporter? That’s what I meant about playing the hand you’re willing to lose. You shouldn’t need a thing from me because he has your back. I know better that’s why I bet on the money not the person.

~bella

 

[Chesterton]

I’m responding to your position. Revisit what you said earlier in post #126.

“I think you're wrong there. I think you should believe in him. He's the best king America's ever had.”

That was your starting point and I explained where we differed on Trump. I neither trust or believe in him or his leadership. But I expect him to honor his commitments to his financial donors and business associates. I confirmed my stance by sharing the policy proposals he‘s enacted and those in the pipeline. All of which were prepared by the Heritage Foundation and benefit the wealth.

Given your trust and belief in Trump I don’t know why you’re trying to pick my brain. It doesn‘t matter what I think. Nor am I required to enlighten you. If he isn’t addressing the same you should assume it isn’t an issue. But the constant requests for clarity reveal your hypocrisy. Either he’s the person you say he is or he isn’t.

Don’t you think he’d warn his base if there was a problem? Why would need to get that from a non supporter? That’s what I meant about playing the hand you’re willing to lose. You shouldn’t need a thing from me because he has your back. I know better that’s why I bet on the money not the person.

~bella

What do you suppose he's going to do in the name of Christian principles?

 

[bèlla]

What on earth do you mean by "believe in" Trump?

If you’d bothered to read his post (#126) you wouldn’t be asking that question.

As for the second, I’ve posted numerous examples of the policies Trump supports that were proposed by the Heritage Foundation. I didn’t rely on the mandate alone and shared additional items that weren’t included in the document with a summary and link where they can be read in full and screenshots too. Which includes welfare, education, social security, disability, veterans, government employees and more.

To confirm his alliance with the organization I provided recent pieces that include his acknowledgment of their connection. All of which you can find in my history. Unlike most, my position isn’t political and I have no difficulty addressing wrongs from either side. Nor am I a fan.

My position on him remains unchanged and I’ve said all along the main benefactors of his administration are the wealthy and that’s usually the case for both. The only difference is the narrative. They’ll always eat. I don’t have a problem admitting that nor will I ignore it to gain ground on the issues that may concern christians. But everyone gauges wins differently.

If you want to debate right and left I’m not your candidate nor do I care for either.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

What do you suppose he's going to do in the name of Christian principles?

That’s your agenda not mine. I never said he was a believer or genuinely in the fold. Nor do I support christian nationalism. You know why you voted for him and what others like yourself believe. You’ve been singing his praises for a while.

What you fail to understand is my lack of persuasion. I’m not trying to change your mind or hoping you’ll feel differently. I’m taking you at your word and acknowledging a difference of opinion as I do with others. Much like myself, I expect you to bear the consequences of that decision.

~bella

 

[Fervent]

What do you suppose he's going to do in the name of Christian principles?

In the name of, or in alignment with?

 

[Chesterton]

In the name of, or in alignment with?

I have no idea. I'm curious to find out, but I don't think she knows what she meant.

 

[Fervent]

I have no idea. I'm curious to find out, but I don't think she knows what she meant.

You're asking the question, which did you have in mind?

 

[Chesterton]

That’s your agenda not mine.

A legitimate question asking you to explain a cryptic thing you said is not an agenda. It's a question.

What you fail to understand is my lack of persuasion.

What I fail to understand are the sentences you type.

 

[Chesterton]

You're asking the question, which did you have in mind?

I've asked her three times to explain what she meant when she said that. She's unable or unwilling to explain herself.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you’d bothered to read his post (#126) you wouldn’t be asking that question.

As for the second, I’ve posted numerous examples of the policies Trump supports that were proposed by the Heritage Foundation. I didn’t rely on the mandate alone and shared additional items that weren’t included in the document with a summary and link where they can be read in full and screenshots too. Which includes welfare, education, social security, disability, veterans, government employees and more.

To confirm his alliance with the organization I provided recent pieces that include his acknowledgment of their connection. All of which you can find in my history. Unlike most, my position isn’t political and I have no difficulty addressing wrongs from either side. Nor am I a fan.

My position on him remains unchanged and I’ve said all along the main benefactors of his administration are the wealthy and that’s usually the case for both. The only difference is the narrative. They’ll always eat. I don’t have a problem admitting that nor will I ignore it to gain ground on the issues that may concern christians. But everyone gauges wins differently.

If you want to debate right and left I’m not your candidate nor do I care for either.

~bella

“Believing in” a politician isn’t a phrase most Christians use comfortably, so I wanted to understand what you meant.

As for the Heritage Foundation, it’s a policy think tank that’s existed for decades — their publications and proposals are not the same thing as executive action. You’re right that Trump, like most conservative candidates, uses their materials sometimes as a framework, but that’s a long way from saying the Foundation itself is his administration or that its interests automatically “benefit the wealthy.” That claim deserves more nuance.

And respectfully, the broader assumption that Republicans or conservatives exist primarily to enrich the elite is out of step with reality. Many are ordinary people who tithe, give generously, and volunteer in their communities. It’s unfair to paint them all as if they were some monolithic upper class exploiting everyone else.

I’m not here to argue for blind loyalty to anyone, but I do think we should guard against cynicism that lumps all policy motives together. Christians should be able to disagree politically without assuming the worst moral motives behind one another’s conclusions

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nor do I support christian nationalism.

I seriously doubt Chesterton is a Christian nationalist.

I posted a vlog post by Doug Wilson - but that doesn't mean I'm one either. I'm simply a Christian who does vote my conscious. I don't look down on people for doing so.

My post is not on Chesterton, and it's not demonstrating that anyone on CF is. It's just a post. I'm not a black economist either.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/poll-75-dont-trust-social-media-make-fair-content-moderation-decisions-60-want-more

a large majority of Democrats (70%) support disciplining employees for their posts, whereas a majority of both independents (54%) and Republicans (68%) say employees should not face repercussions at work.

Even WaPo did a piece about it becoming a growing trend among left-leaning activists back in 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/doxing-far-right-violent-extremists/2021/06/20/35f730e2-ba68-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html

We can make some educated inferences based on other types of polling questions that have been asked & answered.

This is what you said.

But I don't feel much sympathy knowing she would've been the exact same type of person who would've gloated and celebrated at the doxxing and firing of her political opponents 3-5 years ago.

68% of campaign funds from k-12 teachers went to democratic candidates or committees, from the same source you referenced earlier. I found another reference, with just 41% democrats from education week (that actually asked the question about political affiliation, 27% were republican and 30% were independents) so we are down to something like a fifty-fifty chance or less of her supporting disciplinary action by employers. Which I must say is something else than what you said, the gloating and celebrating bit.

 

[bèlla]

As for the Heritage Foundation, it’s a policy think tank that’s existed for decades — their publications and proposals are not the same thing as executive action. You’re right that Trump, like most conservative candidates, uses their materials sometimes as a framework, but that’s a long way from saying the Foundation itself is his administration or that its interests automatically “benefit the wealthy.” That claim deserves more nuance.

I’ve shared the proposals and actions with links and screenshots the reader can explore if they’d like. And mentioned the policies that would favor and hurt different groups.

And respectfully, the broader assumption that Republicans or conservatives exist primarily to enrich the elite is out of step with reality. Many are ordinary people who tithe, give generously, and volunteer in their communities. It’s unfair to paint them all as if they were some monolithic upper class exploiting everyone else.

Neither conservatives or republicans are my concern or the source of my comments. I don’t care what you believe, who you follow or vote for. That’s yours to decide. And I know the majority aren’t wealthy or upper class and would never say otherwise. If you like Biden, Trump or someone that’s your business.

I’m not looking for agreement. I share an opinion and that’s it. There’s nothing more behind it. Whether you agree or not doesn’t matter.

~bella

 

[Hazelelponi]

I’ve shared the proposals and actions with links and screenshots the reader can explore if they’d like. And mentioned the policies that would favor and hurt different groups

And rebuttals abound I'm sure.

Neither conservatives or republicans are my concern or the source of my comments.

I find that surprising since you specifically named Trump supporters.

As a reminder:

"I don’t have a pressing desire to save his [Trump's] supporters from themselves. And given the policies they’ve okayed that transgress the Lord’s teachings on the poor, widows, and orphans."

(Trump's name in red is my addition to add clarity of context to the quoted section)

Republican voters are the people who voted for Trump, hence, his supporters. And while the main thrust of your post might have been intended to impart something else, what occurred was this:

“I don’t have a pressing desire to save his supporters from themselves.”

This implies that those supporters are misguided, self-destructive, or in need of rescuing — and that the speaker is above their confusion. It positions the speaker as morally or intellectually superior. The speaker in this case is yourself.

“Given the policies they’ve okayed that transgress the Lord’s teachings on the poor, widows, and orphans.”

This uses Scripture not to call out sin broadly (as the prophets did to all of Israel) but to indict a political group as uniquely unrighteous.

The framing moves from “these policies may be unbiblical” → to “these people have transgressed the Lord’s commands.”

That’s no longer policy argument — it’s judgment.The line between rebuke and derision is crossed when we imply someone is beyond correction or unworthy of compassion.While it’s not slanderous, it is denigrating in spirit. It treats a class of people (Trump supporters) as morally defective rather than fellow sinners in need of grace.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

All other factors aside, it's a lot safer to blow up a boat in open sea than to blow up a truck on the highway. More chances of mistaking the wrong vehicle for the target as well.with trucks

Or we can try to arrest people possibly breaking the law. So they can hopefully have dual process. I'm don't get how this is okay. It's no different , when Putin made terrorist attacks for several years now. And the same for Hamas. This is just terrorist attack, that Trump keeps doing.

 

[bèlla]

That’s no longer argument — it’s judgment.The line between rebuke and derision is crossed when we imply someone is beyond correction or unworthy of compassion.While it’s not slanderous, it is denigrating in spirit. It treats a class of people (Trump supporters) as morally defective rather than fellow sinners in need of grace.

I’m not rebuking you at all. I expect you to be betrayed and hope you’ve had the wisdom to consider alternative positions.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

A legitimate question asking you to explain a cryptic thing you said is not an agenda. It's a question.

I understand your question and it wasn’t ignored. I won’t aid Trump supporters including christians. You’ve chosen and I accept that. My commitment is for those on the wrong side of his policies and if that puts us on opposing sides so be it.

~bella

 

[Larniavc]

What are you, a psychiatrist for the violently deranged? lol

No, just a run of the mill psychotherapists. We have a saying in the UK; ‘there’s nowt as queer as folk’.

So we have social rules and laws to keep order.

 

[Larniavc]

I have no idea. I'm curious to find out, but I don't think she knows what she meant.

Women eh? Does ANYONE understand them?