Should we deport all military veterans and not let them in the US without extreme vetting?

Yeah of course. Such policies would do wonders for recruitment and retention rates in career fields already regarded as dumping grounds for losers by people wearing flag pins and loudly praising the suckers for doing the jobs that they and their kids wouldn’t touch with a stick.

Not sure who the beef is with, but it still isn’t a good idea.

unless you’re ragingloli apparently.

I suspect there’s irony in the OP (pretty clear if you read the details.)

The first problem with this OP is that it starts with a bogus assumption about military vets and builds on its own error from there. Yeah, I get that he wants to support Islam….have at it. But the whole OP is erroneous and just troll bait.

This link: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/veterans/sd-me-veterans-violence-20170109-story.html gives a good breakdown of the popular myth about returning military vet violence. Yes folks, you’ve been suckered in by Hollyweird again.

@seawulf575 – I am the OP and I would thank you not to lie about me. I would also prefer that you not deliberately falsify what I wrote.

As @janbb observed – don’t know why you can’t understand it – I was railing against the absurdity of Trump;s muslim ban at the same time that we have killers right here in the US.

If you read my entire post and if you understood irony, then you couldn’t have missed what I was writing. But apparently you didn’t read all the way to the end of my post, and went off on me.

Quit putting your words in my mouth.

Sorry, @elbanditoroso but your initial statements about military vets being a definable group with a propensity for violence shows you are a troll or a fool. I gave you a link to show exactly how wrong you are.
If you would like, I will continue to dissect your question to further prove you are either an idiot or a troll and I will let you decide. You propose to deport American citizens. Go look up the definition of “deport”. You can’t deport natural born citizens. Beyond being illegal, where would you deport them to? You could pick on those that are naturalized citizens and denaturalize them if you like…that is legal, but now we are getting really specific and not as broad-brush as you put forth. So let’s see…you have a bogus understanding of military vets, you have no idea what you are talking about concerning deportation, and you prove yourself a complete idiot to anyone that actually cares to take two seconds to look at your OP. I understand that you would prefer I not falsify what you wrote…that would be putting out facts to show your lies. But then, that is who I am. If you write something that offends me, I will always show you EXACTLY where it is offensive, why it is wrong, and how you are a fool. Even your response is horse dookey. How did I lie about you? What did you actually state that was true? I guess if you take the attitude that you are lying and I prove you wrong, you might see that as a lie. But really, it shows you are a liar that got clocked. Unless you can cough up some evidence that shows I am wrong? We could open that can of worms if you like.

Trump never established a “Muslim ban”. He did set up a ban on travel from several nations which are in various stages of open rebellion and systemic breakdown that we currently – or will soon – call them “failed states”. The intent of the travel ban was to prohibit travel from or via countries that have little or no control over their systems for establishing the identity of the persons who are (supposedly, nominally) “cleared” through their passport, visa and other processes.

It so happens – and this is a valid issue for discussion – that those nations are “primarily Islamic / Muslim fundamentalist”. But if he wanted “a Muslim ban” then he would have banned travel from, to and through Indonesia, the most populous mostly-Muslim nation there is.

Worst. Muslim ban. Ever.

(If we are looking for people from failed states not to be able to travel, we’ll be in trouble soon. Just sayin’)

Pretty disappointing question.

Plus, yours truly gets modded when I ask questions that don’t really represent an attempt to get information.

Like I said, disappointing. Not a good way to start 2018.

I asked a question about banning Christian immigration. Pertaining to the ban. Can’t remember the precise question.

Having grown up raised by a mercurial veteran, I would attest that there should be better handling of their mental health.

To the ban.
The ban, is obviously xenophobic, and will only serve to divide the world. There are plenty of great people trying to get out of those countries, or seek education in the US, that would be excellent additions to the country/world. The ban, will hurt the world, far worse than help. The reasons for justifying the ban, are weak at best…

Statistically, the US’s terrorists, are majority domestic and Christian. Not foreign, or non-Christian.

The ban suggests an obvious lack of understanding of how the world works, and fear driven stupidity. Unfortunately, not an anomaly with this administration….

The point of the ban is not to punish those “great people”, @MrGrimm888 (there are great people all over the world and in every country). The point is that with the failure of the state institutions that establish identity, prosecute criminals and preserve those records (or because of the failure, don’t even recognize as crimes what we surely would, and therefore accord “full honors” to outright murders) – there’s no way to tell any more in some of these places “who are the great people”.

I should think that this would have been obvious by now.

I get there is irony in the question, but that doesn’t mean it’s well intended or tasteful. I’d also say when the same question gets repeated after another shooting, that would seem a good time to mention the premise is insulting and doesn’t seem to lead anywhere.

Maybe take it a step further and ask if people with mental health issues should be deported and then vetted. Would that have the same appeal here? Would it be a cute way to frame a discussion regarding presidential policy?

If we hadn’t let the military veterans out of the US in the first place we might not have this problem. American military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen and possibly Syria have helped create the massive refugee problems in these countries.

@funkdaddy Good point.

@CWOTUS . I understand the “reasoning,” behind the ban. Your logic is flawed here. At least, as far as the countries chosen. i.e. There are still civil wars cycling through some Central American countries. There is certainly little law enforcement, or oversight in those areas either. The only thing that the countries banned have in common is a religion…

From what I recall, most US domestic terrorism deaths are caused by white male Christians, not Veterans. It would make more sense to let Veterans in and segregate out white male Christians.

^ Here’s an interesting link for domestic terrorism attacks, and what were thought to be domestic terrorism attacks:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

Looking back to the beginning of 2016, there have been 25 terrorist style attacks in the US. 15 of them were related to Islamists. 5 were left wingers. One was a right winger. The rest were just random criminal acts. Now, some of these you actually had to read the story to get to the bottom of who was involved. None were Christians. Just another blown leftist theory, I guess.

^Uuggh…... Depends on what is considered a “terrorist” attack. Then your numbers change drastically….

Who is Wm. Robert Johnston and is there some reason we should treat him as an authority on anything? I would question his classification of recent attacks. Looking at the biggest ones…

Orlando 12 June 2016. The FBI has called this an act of terrorism and the shooter was a Muslim so I will give you that but he was also an American born in the USA and not an immigrant.

Dallas 7 July 2016 . The shooter was a US army veteran with no links to terrorist groups. His motivation seems to have been racial and it isn’t accurate to class it as left wing terrorism. Again he was American born.

Fort Lauderdale 6 January 2017. Another US army veteran, the shooter was born in New Jersey and had no connection to any terrorist groupings. He acted alone and seemed to have serious mental health issues. It isn’t accurate to classify this incident as Islamic terrorism.

Las Vegas 31 October 2017 Classified as CRI? With 59 dead and 527 wounded I think we can call it criminal for definite, no question mark required. The shooter is another native born American but his motive for the attack is still obscure.

Sutherland Springs 5 November 2017. Classified as criminal and quite rightly. The shooter was a very troubled individual who should never have been allowed near a gun.

@flutherother – great response. I call it stacking the deck to try to prove a point.

As far as I can tell, JOhnston is a space physicist at NASA link

One of his hobbies is terrorism link

Another is photography. Another is Star Trek.

All in all, I would not look at Johnston as an authoritative source whatsoever.

I can respect Wm. Robert Johnston’s knowledge of astronomy but he should leave the classifying of terrorist attacks to the FBI.

@flutherother I find it interesting you are trying to tie these back to US vets or Americans. My list was given to debunk @RocketGuy who claimed most terrorist attacks were by Christians. But let’s continue. I also never claimed, nor did the author of the report I cited, that the attacks listed as “islm” in the report were all from Muslims. I claimed they were Islamists. That, at least to me, includes those that are acting in support of ISIS or some other Islamic terrorist outfit. So down the line…Orlando 2016…Islamist; Ft Lauderdale 2017 – the shooter claimed to have been influenced by ISIS, so Islamist. I will grant you that he has mental health issues, but then, which terrorist doesn’t? As for the one from Dallas 2016, the shooter claimed to be supporting BLM. Doesn’t get more lefty than that, does it? The other 2 you cited I feel were classified correctly by the report. No real motive pointing to anything particular so they are CRIminal.
@elbanditoroso and @flutherother I understand the goal behind trying to discredit the source, but really…were any of the citations he provided wrong? His classifications all came from the stories themselves. Go do the research. Are you saying he missed a whole bunch that would suddenly show that Christians are this secret terrorist group? If so, please produce that link. Did he miss a bunch that were classified as terrorist attacks…period? Please, show us. If you aren’t willing to do that, then the veracity of the list provided by my citation stands. His list can be verified with simple Google searches. Type in the date and the city and you will find dozens of articles all about that given attack. So the information itself is accurate. The classification as a terrorist attack or the motivation generally can be found in those articles as well.

Am I missing something? I do not see anything in the the second article that @seawulf575 linked to that says anything about whether the shooters were veterans. Since there are a fair number of veterans overall, it is not surprising that some of them would be represented. The question is if they show up disproportionately. The first article that @seawulf575 linked to says that they do not.

@seawulf575 I didn’t try to tie the attacks back to US vets or Americans. I just picked the half dozen most deadly attacks in the time period you chose and that is what I found.

Nor did I try to discredit your “source”. Some random guy posting on the internet is not a credible source to begin with. If you think he is you may have a problem.

@LostInParadise I checked the attacks listed in the second article back to the original sources for more information.

@flutherother – I agree with your pushback. The other point is that if someone is positing a source as authoritative, they should be able to verify its authority.

How about this list?: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396612/las-vegas-mass-shooting-terrorism-islam

and: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html

@RocketGuy – leads to a 404 – page doesn’t exist. Maybe you meant that :-)

Fixed the link.

@RocketGuy That isn’t a list…it is a propaganda statement. Yes, it lists a few cases, but it doesn’t list all of them and let the reader decide. It also gives a graph, but doesn’t give the details. It is useless.

As for the SLATE article, it, too is propaganda and a really poor choice to prove that white guys are the evil in this country. It states that white extremists have killed over 60 people in this country since 1995. Take a look at this list:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx

And go back through the same time frame. I count up 3041 dead and 818 injured by Islamic extremists. Do white extremists kill people? Sure. Have they killed more than anyone else? Not even close. And in these days, it is actually liberals that are the most violent and promote the most hatred in this country:

http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=75241

I tried and failed to find a list of actual attacks on liberals by conservatives. I don’t believe it exists

As for the rest, you continue to try casting aspersions on the author of the Johnston list I provided, but you have carefully avoided actually addressing the facts of that list. As I see it, this list gives factual accounts since I went to verify many of them. It also doesn’t seem to have a bias as it lists attacks by the right, the left, and Islamists or Islamic-inspired attacks. It also doesn’t seem to infer much about the cause. In all the cases I looked at, the authorities determined it was a terrorist attack and they gave the motive behind the attack. So while you attack that author and avoid the list, that tells me you have nothing to refute it with so I will assume it is a good list.

^Trump is casting aspersions on the author of “Fire and Fury.” Is it only a strategy he can use?

You don’t believe a conservative ever attacked a liberal? Uh…Ok….

^sniping back and forth I don’t count. If you go that way, then all sides are guilty. And I didn’t say conservatives haven’t attacked liberals, I just can’t find a list of those attacks. And trust me…I looked.

Here is some help for you. Without doing any searching, I came across this story No need to thank me.

^Yes, you can easily find articles about about white extremist groups. No one is saying that isn’t a real thing. What I stated, is that you can’t find a list of conservative attacks against liberals, whereas you can find one of liberals attacking conservatives. Earlier I was pointing out that while the glorious liberal rhetoric is that white extremists are the biggest terrorist threat, the evidence I found doesn’t support that claim. So don’t worry, I won’t thank you.

It is an attack by a conservative. Conservatives don’t generally specifically target liberals. They tend to go after minorities and the poor. Here is a report from Fox News, of all places, talking about the rise in hate crimes since Trump became president. It is a serious problem.

^None of which addresses the two statements. Liberals DO specifically target conservatives, not the other way around. I went in search of evidence to the contrary but couldn’t find it, so that remains undebated. Additionally, I blew the original claim of the Christian extremist being the biggest terrorist threat out of the water. Since that happened, all of you liberal kool-aid drinkers have been trying to change the topic of my claims to something else. If you can’t disprove my statements, don’t bother trying to prove some other point and feel like you managed to shoot a hole in my statements. I won’t let you live that lie.

Conservatives are running the country. If liberals ever take charge then conservatives would be attacking them. Who cares if someone specifically directs a hate crime at a liberal or conservative? The bulk of the hate crimes are committed by conservatives, they direct their crimes at the weakest members of society, and the number of such is increasing since Trump became president. How can that not concern you?

Liberals ran the country for 8 years. You ought to have plenty of facts to back up your claim. And I never said hate crimes were okay if done by one side or the other. What I have stated and what you have repeatedly tried to avoid, it that Christian Extremists are not the biggest terrorist threat in this nation. Not even close. During my research I also identified that I can find a long list of attacks by liberals on conservatives for no other reason than political ideology. I cannot find a similar list of attacks by conservatives on liberals. You continually avoid actually dealing with these two claims, yet want to continually drag my claims off in other directions, even now to the point of trying to claim I said or felt something that was never stated. Typical liberal. Can’t deal with facts, make it up.

Who cares if the attack is based solely on ideology? Hate crimes are awful whether done for ideological, racist or bigotry reasons. I don’t have the time to do the research, but when Fox News talks about hate crimes done to minorities, then there must be a serious problem. I don’t see them doing programs about there being a spate of liberal attacks on conservatives, as one would expect from them. Do you have any such report from a reliable source? Are you the only one who has noticed this?

^Typical conservative. You choose what you consider “facts.”...
@Hypocrite575
If someone, say Trump, doesn’t call a right winger plowing into a crowd in a car, at a protest a “terrorist act,” it won’t be on record as such. Your “facts,” are skewed by such issues. You’re trying to prove a point with obviously flawed logic.

That guy in Charlottesville, directly attacked those people, specifically because they were liberals, and he was conservative. But it wasn’t labeled a terrorist act, so that’s one that won’t show up.

As mentioned above, most simply attack minorities. Their political leanings are assumed. These attacks, by definition, should all be considered forms of terrorism, and labeled correctly. Then the data would be usable.

If you cannot concede that point, you will definitely not be seeing things objectively. Those acts are committed by white, Christian, conservatives. And yes, Trump has empowered those types of people.

You do yourself no favors by ignoring simple flaws in your case… Your thinking that you routinely “shoot holes” in other’s arguments is amusing. More often than not, you point out more of your own selective memory, and biases.

This question was phrased to point out obvious hypocrisy in our immigration policies. Although I disagree with the veteran analogy, I get the point. Why you choose to take up for murderers, and terrorists, just because they’re Christian, is beyond me. If you’re about to say you aren’t, read your posts again…

^Typical liberal…avoid facts and tout opinion as fact. You said it yourself: “Their political leanings are assumed.” I gave a list that proved far more Islamic attacks than attacks by Christian extremists in the same time frame stated by @RocketGuy. During my research I came across a list of attacks by liberals on conservatives. I found that interesting since I couldn’t find a similar list going the other way. Yes, I know that conservatives have attacked liberals, but it would seem not in the quantity or high visibility as the attacks by liberals. And the best part, since you want to tout individual attacks, is that the list I provided didn’t list the multiple examples of BLM attacks on conservatives and whites. It didn’t list the numerous attacks by Antifa on anyone that they disagreed with…particularly conservatives.
You say I am taking up for murderers and terrorists because they are Christian. I would challenge you to show where I have ever supported them. On the flip side, you and the rest of the liberal mouthpieces on here are defending the liberal and Islamic violence in this nation. @Mrhypocrite strikes again. I gave a list of terrorist attacks in this country. It listed those by Islamists, lefties, righties, and those whose motives were unclear. NONE of you wanted to address this list, you only wanted to discount it because of the author of the list. Yet every item on that list can be tracked back to numerous news reports and it was officials that termed them terrorist attacks. The problem is that the list doesn’t support your rhetorical agenda. I gave you a list that showed indictments of the evil committed by all sides of this coin. I’m not hiding and not trying to push one side or the other. I did it to call out the biased lie put forth by another jelly. Yet fairness is not what you or the rest want…you want agenda, agenda, agenda. When you can finally get to the point where you will stop protecting those that commit crimes because they are “on your side”, you will stop being hypocrites. Until then, you remain so. And all you do by continuing to argue is prove again and again that you cannot or will not admit to truth.

^Apparently you could not infer that my statement invalidated your list. I understand the way you gathered this information. I agree that the attacks you listed are legitimate. What I have failed to bring to your awareness is that just like the BLM, and antifa attacks not being included on that list, there also aren’t many other crimes that should be considered terrorist attacks. Without the ability to even agree on what are considered facts, we have no ability to state a fact based opinion.

I am claiming that without counting every lynching, or cross burning, and as you mention left leaning incidents, that list is vastly incomplete, and therefore irrelevant. So please stop acting as if jellies are ignoring a relevant peace of evidence. You can clearly state that you can prove that Islamic terrorists have carried out terror attacks, but that’s all you can prove… You have presented pieces of a puzzle. Not indisputable fact. Since the information needed to complete the list is not only debatable in definition, and really impossible to quantify, then only opinion can be offered.

What cannot be debated, is that groups like the KKK, have their roots in Christianity. If you count cross burnings, lynching etc, as terrorist behavior, then the numbers of attacks by Christian people would dwarf the number of attacks by Muslims, or liberals. I’m not even going into the witch trials, abortion clinic bombings, and other Christian based violence.

Our immigration policies are hypocritical, in that they do not consider white Christian men a variable in the fight against terrorism, when they are in reality the leading cause of it…

^you are the first one that acknowledged the legitimacy of the list I cited. You know that, right? 27 comments later. You are the first one. And I had to corner you to get that. And now you blow it by falling into typical liberalism again.
“You can clearly state that you can prove that Islamic terrorists have carried out terror attacks, but that’s all you can prove… You have presented pieces of a puzzle. ” I pointed to facts that refuted total hogwash from another jelly. And it is telling that you didn’t take this exact same argument to them. They could only state that Christian extremists carried out terrorist acts. Yet they claimed they were the biggest threat. I even acknowledged, as I always do, that Christian extremists HAVE committed crimes. But they are by no means the biggest threat. My citations should have proven that, and in fact you just agreed with my citations being accurate.
“I am claiming that without counting every lynching, or cross burning, and as you mention left leaning incidents, that list is vastly incomplete, and therefore irrelevant.” The original jelly comment about Christian extremist was encapsulating a period from 1995 to present. My citation also addressed that same time frame, as did my comments. The citation about liberal violence was even more restrictive…2016 and 2017. So tell me…how many cross burnings and lynchings were carried out in the same time frame? Enlighten us. Want to go all the way back through history? That gets really murky on so many fronts. Talk about irrelevant!
“What cannot be debated, is that groups like the KKK, have their roots in Christianity. If you count cross burnings, lynching etc, as terrorist behavior, then the numbers of attacks by Christian people would dwarf the number of attacks by Muslims, or liberals. I’m not even going into the witch trials, abortion clinic bombings, and other Christian based violence.” Again…go all way back through history…irrelevant. Surprisingly, the only thing on your list that I agree with is the abortion clinic bombings. Those are modern day acts of violence and terrorism. But again, you are a little late. At least some of those were listed in the list @Rocketman gave to blame all today’s terrorism on Christian extremists. And no…they don’t dwarf those atrocities committed by Islamists. Not in sheer ferocity, and certainly not in total body count.
“Our immigration policies are hypocritical, in that they do not consider white Christian men a variable in the fight against terrorism, when they are in reality the leading cause of it…” Tell you what…let’s start a challenge. You name one white Christian immigrant, legal or illegal, that went on to commit an act of terrorism and I will name one non-white, non-Christian immigrant that went on to commit an act of terrorism. Let’s keep it to the time frame from 1995 on, and we will keep it to this country. Let’s see who runs out of examples first.
“Without the ability to even agree on what are considered facts, we have no ability to state a fact based opinion.” I have been battling opinions presented as facts on these pages endlessly. It is you and those like you that have been presenting the opinions. And when I whack you with facts, you try to dodge them. You try to discount them based on the idea that you don’t like the source or you try to change what the original opinion was stating and what I was battling. And that is the problem. You and your ilk are not using facts…you are using opinions. “Fact based opinions” are just that…opinions based on facts. So far I am the one that has been producing the facts and you are all the ones presenting the opinions.

^Again. The fact that the list is incomplete is what makes it illegitimate. I agreed that the acts listed were probably real, but without the appropriate counter data, we cannot come to realistic conclusions.

So. Again, you are producing facts, but just pieces.

How many cross burnings, lynches, etc? I wouldn’t know, as I don’t hang out with conservatives…

One Christian immigrant? Well, since they are all non-native, how about all of them.

All the way back in history? Is it not you that sights the Democrats were the bigots, in the past? Do you get to talk about the past, when it suits your arguement? Lots of the types of attacks that I brought up happened in the 60’s. There are still people alive who commited these atrocities. Should they now get a pass?

I think that the only unbiased list would go back to the first “terror attacks,” and include all races, ethnicities, and whatever else is relevant to paint a big enough picture to draw an actual conclusion from.

The immigration policies, and travel ban all have an obvious linear thinking pattern. If the government is to judge one group by such standards, they should judge another by the same… As usual, white Christian people are simply beyond criticism.

^I am producing facts, which is more than the rest of the claimants on this site, yet you only come at me. Why is that? Because you are biased and a hypocrite.

How many cross burnings and lynches? You don’t hang out with conservatives so you don’t know. Yet you have no problem throwing it out there like a fact. Again…hypocrite that is now dodging.

Christian immigrant….so your stance is that if someone is a Christian they are automatically a terrorist? That sort of sounds par for the course. People call out for caution when letting Muslims into this country and people like you only scream that is racist and islamaphobic…not all Muslims are bad…it is only a few. Forget they actually have armies that have sworn to make the whole world Islamic. But that is another discussion. However, how it pertains here is that you just automatically branded all Christians as terrorists. Again…you are a hypocrite and now you are a Christianaphobe.

You are the one that opened the door on history. I have gone back on different discussions because it pertains. Now you are only going back to the 60’s. It still pertains here. If you want to get to the heart of the matter, the lynchings and cross burnings were done by Democrats. Just like the KKK was founded by Democrats. Most of them were still Democrats well into the 70’s. And yes, they have been and still are bigots. You areright…those Democrats could still be alive today, though it is doubtful. Want to hunt them down and hang em??

The lists I presented, as I have said repeatedly, were presented to make the point that it isn’t Christian extremists that are the biggest terrorist threat. STILL you cannot admit that, even after I have shown data to support that claim and no one else has done so to refute it. Yourself included. Funny thing about your last statement…“As usual, white Christian people are simply beyond criticism.” If you care to go back and look, I have even stated that there are bad “Christians”, and that they have done horrible things. Again…funny thing…not a one of you has been able to give the same concession on the liberal side of things. Again…hypocrites. And haters. You hate all things Christian…got it. Forget all the charitable assistance they give…they are all just evil. I guess to a hater like you, that’s all that matters.

Interesting. When logical arguments fail, we turn to that old bugaboo, poor christians being persecuted.

Calling a losing argument ‘religious persecution’ devalues real persecution.

@Hypocrite575 .Yes. All Christians are terrorists. ~

If that’s your level of comprehession, and deduction, I’m not surprised you are a Trump boy…

Most of us did concede, when it came to Franken. Not that you would see that…

Again. The “data” that you supply is incomplete, and therefore irrelevant to this thread.

Remind me what charity given to expand a religion does for that religion’s reputation? Are they automatically good people, because they spread the word of their God through “charity?”

Bibles, and bread don’t equal charity sir. They equal a bribe…

^My reading comprehension is just fine. I challenged you to come up with one Christian immigrant, legal or illegal, that went on to commit an act of terrorism, and I would produce the name of one non-Christian. Your response? “One Christian immigrant? Well, since they are all non-native, how about all of them.” Not sure how else I can take that. You apparently believe that ALL Christian immigrants went on to commit acts of terrorism. Or were you making a weak attempt at a dodge of some sort? Not a surprise you’re a liberal stooge. And most of you conceded with Franken?!?! Not until he admitted it and even then you tried playing it off as a prank. I had to hit you over the head with fact after fact and logic after logic before you finally came around to admit that he was slime. And even then there were those that felt he was the best senator the left had and he should never have resigned. And Franken wasn’t even part of this conversation. So now you are having to jump back to other conversations to try finding something, somewhere where a liberal admitted another liberal maybe, coulda, might have, possibly, done something that was probably wrong, but it really wasn’t that serious.
You keep saying my data is incomplete, but miss (or dodge more likely) the point…I’m the only one producing ANY data to support my views. And all you can do is attack me for not producing enough to your liking. And I still don’t see you attacking any of the liberal jellies that make outrageous claims with NO data to support them. So apparently it isn’t the amount of data produced, it’s the side it is trying to support which makes you a hypocrite….still.
Your entire statement about charity expanding a religion says all anyone would ever need to know about you…you hate Christianity for no apparent reason and will speak from ignorance to try pushing that hatred. Hater. Let me educate you a little. I will take my little church. We support a food bank. We give school supplies to needy kids. We feed the homeless. And we never put a string on any of it. We think that people that need help should get it from us without strings. Too bad most liberals don’t believe that. I found this interesting article a while back:

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/

I also found these interesting articles that further highlight the idea that liberals talk a good game but fail to follow through on their talk (hypocrites)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives

Lots of interesting stuff there. But it won’t matter. I just gave you all sorts of evidence of how you are wrong and a hater, but you will claim it isn’t enough or isn’t complete or the sources are bogus, or any of a dozen other dodges so you won’t actually have to look at the facts.

^Amusing. You really think that you were the reason why the liberal jellies conceded on Franken…

As for my view of Christianity, I stand by every word, and I don’t believe for one second that your church doesn’t do charity to spread it’s disease. If being anti-religion makes me a bad person in your eyes, I could care less. Everything I say about it is true. Your religion doesn’t care about you, just your time and money which help it spread. And most believers are just contributing to their religion because they think it will get them points for the afterlife. Don’t lecture me because I don’t need that crutch.

You can get bent out of shape, if you like. You are the troll. Nobody is falling for your Russian/conservative propaganda. I haven’t seen a single question posted by you, that doesn’t have a right leaning, or anti-liberal agenda. You are fully aware that this site is majority non-conservative. Clearly, you are just trying to start arguments, not spark debate. I have been guilty of flame bait questions too, but I don’t cry when I get push back.

I am happy that you provided a link from the Huffington Post. Had I sited that publication, you would have denounced it as left wing nonsense.

@Hypocrite575 . I recommend you go back to the Huffington Post, and do some reading. You have much to learn…

As far as being upset about what I say about your religion, think of how the world feels when people like you and your conservative friends judge them because of their beliefs.

In summation, before you go crying about personal attacks, this ain’t nothing… That was the sugar coated version of my opinion…

^No, I truly believe that if I had not been pushing the angle of Franken, you would have all continued to support him and make excuses for him. After all, you did it while I was pointing out your hypocrisy about Moore. I don’t believe a liberal ever really changes their warped views unless the truth is absolutely, 100%, forced upon them.
So now we are getting to the heart of the matter. You like the narrative that Christian extremists are a giant terrorist threat because you hate Christians. It really doesn’t matter what the facts of the matter are. I could compile 3,000 citations that proved that not true and you would still believe it. So I guess from now on, any opinion you give me concerning Islamic terrorism, or really terrorism of any sort, can pretty much be discounted as coming from an ignorant hater. Got it. We’ll go with that.
But I have to pose the question to you…if you hate Christianity so much, please tell me…what do you base your moral compass on if you don’t use Christian values? Please…be specific.
What am I doing? You won’t come close to being specific. In fact, you’ll probably just dodge the entire question. Never mind.
I was more than happy to cite something from Huffington Post. But you know, it’s funny. If I gave you a citation from Breitbart, you would have slammed the source and ignored the substance. So I just gave you two citations from traditionally liberal outlets…HP and NYT. And your response? You praise the source and ignore the substance. In other words, for all your prattling about not giving enough data or incomplete data, you really don’t care about data. You have your narrow-minded view of things and that’s all you want. So I guess from now on, I will just state my opinions and when you ask for sources to back it up, I will just refer you to this and let you do the research. I do find it fairly typical, though. Liberals always talk about being open and inclusive, yet they seem to be the most narrow minded and hateful group I have ever seen.

^No. I like my original narrative. Most terrorist attacks, in America, are carried out by white, male, Christians. But this group is willfully omitted, as a variable in the “war on terror.”

Your question about morality is a common one, from theists. Many cannot comprehend that someone might be capable of seeing what’s wrong or right without some spiritual guidance. In the interest of not talking about religion, let’s just say that your God is working through me. That should suffice.

Most liberals, I know, only dislike groups that they judge to be a detriment to society. The Antifa movement that you mention so often was a push back against the evil sweeping Europe in the early 20th century. In Charlottesville, they served in the same capacity. Liberals aren’t fans of the KKK, for obvious reasons. They don’t just hate people because they are different, like conservatives. Liberals see strength in diversity, and that’s why the pushback on the GOP immigration policies. They believe in helping the less fortunate, so they pushback on repealing the ACA,the recent tax reform, and states that don’t allow medicaid. They’re more likely to care about the environment, and be anri-war. That doesn’t sound like a hateful group. It sounds more like you have a twisted, ignorant opinion of liberals… As I don’t identify as liberal, that’s about as much defending of them I will do…

My guess is, the only liberals you see, are on TV at protests, or in whatever light that right wing media paints them in. So. I will excuse your ignorance.

^And you facts for the claim of most terrorist attacks in America are being carried out by white, male, Christians? Oh wait…that’s right….you don’t need facts, just opinions. It is only those that disagree with you that have to have facts, right?
The question on morality is one I have asked repeatedly to liberals that hate Christians. And not one of you have ever given a straight answer. Our morals are a reflection of what we see as right and wrong. Those choices are based on something. In the case of a Christian, you can go to the guidance in the bible of what is supposed to be right and wrong. But people that hate Christianity then base their morals on something else. Since you can only dodge the answer, I will take that as you too, like so many others, don’t want to look too closely at that question. It will either make you realize you have no morals, or at least no consistent morals since they are based on nothing, or you really believe in Christianity, but don’t want to admit it. Because at its heart, Christianity is a set of morals.
So you have just confirmed exactly what I was saying. All your descriptions about the joys of liberals come down to one thing…what that individual judges to be good for society. No basis for right or wrong, just what that person feels. And by your description of Antifa, you also support terrorism to drive that belief, if that is what that person feels like. After all, the DHS has identified them as a Domestic Terrorists. So if you are a liberal then you can physically attack others and do whatever YOU deem appropriate, regardless of morals or laws, as long as YOU see it is what you want in society. You forget that those narrow-minds also try repressing individual thoughts, opposing thoughts, free speech, free press, etc. Because those are things they see as being bad for society. And yet, even though you hold that belief, you still want to claim white male Christians are the threat? Imagine what this country would be like if Conservative actually thought and acted like Liberals? If that were the case, I would say that your claim might be right. But then I could also then go and find the facts to back it up.
On the flip side of your argument is the facts I already showed you about how liberals and conservatives react to charity. Conservatives give far more of their income to charity than liberals, in all income groups. And if you really cared to dig deeper, you would find they donate ore of their time as well. And much of that is through Christian organizations that don’t make profit from the money or volunteerism. None of that sounds like hateful groups either. In fact it sounds less hateful than, say, BLM or Antifa, or any of the other groups Soros supports. Yet you hate them. My guess is you don’t know any Conservatives and don’t want to take the time to know any. On the other hand, I know quite a few liberals. Some of the more radical ones annoy me endlessly because they think and act like…well….you. But some of the others? Not too bad.

^Ok. I tried to avoid this…

Now I will attack your sources again. This time, I will just go after one, and why it matters…

As you claim to be a Christian, and to have gotten your morality, and personal framework from the religion. I find your almost every thought needs to be scrutinized, as your source for your entire life is in fact a work of fiction, that has been translated into different languages by humans (people who can make mistakes,) and even changed to suit certain leader’s will. The text essentially predates science, and the scientific method. I can’t think of any other text that speaks on human behavior, the origin of the universe and all creatures, that would be considered valid today. And with good reason. If I based my world view, and beliefs on a fiction novel, how should people judge my views, and beliefs? Should I be taken seriously? This source, the Bible, is by far the easiest to discredit. I’m sure you are aware of these criticisms of the book, yet you cling to it out of fear. That in and of itself points to you having a habit of being willfully obtuse. A trait you display like a peacock on this site…

Morality is subjective. Unless you are under the impression that you are a member of the “correct” religion. So, your God must have things right. But every other religion is wrong, if not immoral. Sounding like the views of an open minded person? Not in the least…
So crow your open mind to someone else. You see the world through a keyhole…
I say these things with all due respect…

You fail again at seeing the holes in your “facts.” I’m %100 percent sure that conservatives are considered more charitable than liberals. Many conservatives are religious, and they no doubt claim tything, and other church work as charity when polled. But, as I discussed earlier, this is not charity. There is nothing altruistic about it. It’s only purpose is to spread the religion, and/or enhance the churches political power. There are surely many who are charitable, because they think it will enhance their relationship with their deity. Like the teacher’s pet putting an apple on the desk… So. No. I’m afraid that example won’t work. Not in the way you are trying to use it anyway.

Saying that I may be morally deficient, because I don’t fear imaginary gods, or wish to kiss their rear is pretty foolish, but again, I’ve heard it before. I will not waste my time defending my morality. But you can feel right at home up there on that nonexistent horse…

I can understand your feelings on Antifa. I don’t personally see them as terrorists. I see them as patriots. The groups origin, and path are to keep groups like the alt-right, from forcing their nationalist agenda on those who cannot fend for themselves. I’d rather they use less violent methods, but it is needed sometimes, and it would be wise to judge the instances where they crossed the line case by case. I don’t recall Antifa showing up with assault rifles to these protests. Wait, I have your answer to that already. They need those guns to protect themselves from the sticks and stones. Yeah, ok…

Where you get your opinions on the BLM group is beyond me. You clearly have a tenuous grasp on what that movement is about, at best. And again, this group is a reactive group. Again, in response to environment, and government issues. At what point would you have had enough of seeing unarmed minority citizens over represented in police shootings?

As far as liberals repressing thought, free speech, and free press. Ha! That one knocked me out of my chair. One word; Trump…

Uhh. That was a long one. I hope I covered what you thought I was “dodging.”

Fin…

^So your take on books is that unless it is scientifically proven you cannot learn anything from them. You must have a really small library…full of math books. Apparently this is one more place where we differ and where I see a narrow mind on the other end of this exchange. I believe that when you read, you can learn all sorts of things. Ever hear of philosophy? Yeah, it’s this field of study where people study reality, existence, and knowledge. It helps one think about how we interact in the world. If you hold to a philosophy, you hold to the precepts of that belief, even when there may not be scientific proof. Your beliefs cannot be scientifically proven. Is it wrong to kill? Yes? Where is your scientific proof? Is it okay to just walk up to someone and knock them down for no reason? No? Where is your scientific proof? Your entire diatribe against the bible shows me that you have never read it. There are all sorts of good things to learn in that book about how we interact with each other..i.e. morals.
Morals are indeed subjective. You claim my Christian morals are evil so I asked you what you based your morals on with the proviso that you can’t use Christian morals since they are evil. And you have still dodged that question. You cannot do it. I’m not saying my God is the only one or that you have to believe in Him. I’m telling you what I base my morals on. You cannot do the same….tell me what you base your morals on.
Yes, I know that you would love to discount religious charity because it really does go against everything you believe. If Christians were actually helping people without strings, they might not be evil and you would have to change that belief. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Ever hear of the Salvation Army? They help millions of people every year. And the people working for it don’t make a ton of money. The Commissioner of the SA made a little over $126,000. Compare that with a secular charity…how about United Way? The head of UW made a little over $1.2B. So who is really in it for the money? The Christian organization or the secular one? More of each donation goes to the actual needy. And the last time I checked, they don’t force religion down anyone’s throat. And as much as you would love to deny it, even my little church does many things that are funded by the people in the church, supported with their time an effort, and we don’t push any religion on people either. We get a joy out of helping others. And we are not alone. You obviously don’t go to church nor participate in their charitable efforts so really…aren’t all your arguments from the position of ignorance?
Antifa….You don’t personally see them as terrorists but as patriots. But the DHS does see them as terrorists. You are okay with violence to push your agenda. Got it. So the next time the Dems gain power in the government, it would be okay in your eyes for conservatives to start targeting and physically assaulting liberals at every turn? We should work to suppress liberal opinions? We should riot? We should become that which you like to claim we are already (but can’t really get to the facts on that claim)? Any behavior is okay, so long as you believe in the cause…that’s what you are saying is good morals? OR are you only saying it is okay for liberals? If that is the case, you just confirmed my previous assessment of the repressive nature of liberals. I know, you would love to deflect that to Trump, but you just stated it was liberals. Sorry hoss….you cannot argue both sides here.
And no…you are still dodging. But carry on. The more you dodge, the more holes you open up in your own logic and opinions. I’ll be more than happy to walk right through those holes.

^Yeah…. That’s what I thought, give or take, you’d say.

I notice when pushed, you capitalized “Him,” when referring to your God. Interesting… That’s a specific habit…

You’re being deliberately obtuse again. I never called Christianity itself evil. I called nazis evil. I maintain that Christianity serves only itself. Greed, and self serving isn’t in and of itself evil. Deplorable, sure. But not as bad as the nazis…

The teachings of your god, are being made a mockery of, by your Trump. I think I’ll start a new thread about that…

Your defense of scientific proof determining whether something is fiction, is accurate. By your own logic, you have now invalidated the Bible. Thank God…

You’re ignorance of my past is understandable. So I will forgive you, for thinking that I don’t know Christianity, or conservatives.

Since you are so harsh on my criticism of your sources, how about “shooting holes” through my Bible ridicule…

I warn you, you’re trying to defend a comic book, as fact…

^Unfortunately, I tried to remove my last sentence, due to it’s more offensive than usual nature, but I was too late. I apologize for letting my passion overtake my senses… The Bible is much more than a comic book, although it is largely a work of fiction… Apparently, I’m not good at not being condescending….

^The part you miss about my statements is that I am not trying to convert you, not trying to make you believe the way I believe. I have stated that there are a lot of very good life lessons in the bible. I have stated that there are great morals in the bible. Those, to me, are facts because I see them through the lens of my beliefs. I believe it is wrong to bear false witness. I believe it is wrong to kill people. I believe that it is good to forgive others. These are all examples of my morals and all of them are taught, again and again, in the bible. You would have a hard time finding a passage that tells today’s people it is okay to hate them and repress them or physically attack them because they disagree with your belief. So I would love to hear where that belief came from.
The capital in “Him” is more than a habit. It is a sign of respect. I believe God has blessed my life in many ways when He wouldn’t have needed to.
No, you never specifically used the word “evil” when describing Christianity. You merely stated that all Christians are terrorists. Maybe that is my misunderstanding since to me, terrorists are evil. But you are right, I could be misinterpreting your words. After all, you don’t feel that a terrorist organization (Antifa) is good. So maybe I need to have you explain your definition of “Terrorism”.
As for Trump making a mockery of the teachings of my God, you are entirely wrong. The teachings are what they are. Whether someone decides to follow them or not, believe them or not, or ridicule them or not doesn’t change the teachings. Nor does it change my understanding of those teachings.
As for shooting holes in your bible ridicule, I believe I just did. You are taking your beliefs and understanding, calling them the only ones that could possibly be valid and then claiming they are garbage. Not my problem if you want to think that way, though it does support my argument about liberals on a whole. As for scientific proof, please scientifically prove that your liberal beliefs are good. I’ll wait. I stated that philosophy is not something that may not have scientific fact. Christianity is a philosophy…a way of living…a set of beliefs. Liberalism is a philosophy…a way of thinking…a set of beliefs. So prove liberalism is correct.
Meanwhile, you continue to dodge the challenge to tell me specifically where your morals are anchored, without using any of those evil…excuse me…TERRORIST Christian morals. Additionally I have challenged you to defend your moral choice that any action is acceptable so long as the individual feels it is good for society. You have dodged that. You make claims about white male Christians yet when asked for proof of your claim, you dodge that. I’m seeing a pattern here. You, as the liberal, don’t actually deal with facts or logic and you cannot actually explain your belief system or where it comes from. So as long as you continue to dodge, please understand I recognize it and do not let you off the hook.

^I’m on a hook?

“your moral choice that any action is acceptable as long as it’s good for society.” I’m not sure where I said that. Maybe you inferred it from my comments that sometimes violence is needed for the suppression of evil. That’s a huge stretch… I’m not dodging this, I literally don’t know what you mean…

“you merely stated that all Christians are terrorists.” Never said that either. I assume you mean when I was referring to all white men being immigrants here, so all white terrorists are immigrants. That was my point, I guess I failed to articulate properly.

“That is an example of my morals” and they come from the Bible. So… There are pyramids on 6 of 7 continents, on Earth. They were designed and built thousands of miles, and years apart. Just because someone else thought of something, doesn’t make any difference. Pyramids are the most stable of ancient construction methods. Humanity, as a species, figured that out without having to pick it up from anyone else. There are billionsof examples like archery, agriculture, sailing, fire making etc…

“Nor does it change my ‘understanding’ of those teachings.” You don’t have any understanding of the Bible. You have an “interpretation” of it’s teachings. You can understand a math book, or a chemistry book. As you can prove those teachings. No doubt many Christians have a different interpretation of the Bible, and a adhere to beliefs dependent on that interpretation. Like yourself.

If you don’t think Trump is making a mockery of your God’s teachings, I disagree.

One thing I find amusing is that you can’t see me as anything but a liberal. My liberal friends would be insulted. I’m very anti-conservative, and some of my ideology aligns with the liberal agenda, but I don’t fit in that box… I don’t claim any political party. But I guess I’ve been called worse, than liberal…

^ Let me help you. You already stated that liberals decide what should be good for society. You also gave this statement about Antifa:
“I can understand your feelings on Antifa. I don’t personally see them as terrorists. I see them as patriots. The groups origin, and path are to keep groups like the alt-right, from forcing their nationalist agenda on those who cannot fend for themselves. I’d rather they use less violent methods, but it is needed sometimes, and it would be wise to judge the instances where they crossed the line case by case.”
Antifa is all about suppression of others, violence, and mayhem. But according to you, that is okay. Basically, anything is acceptable so long as liberals deem it good for the cause. To argue otherwise would be foolish. It would be like me saying the KKK is okay since they give to charity, but we should consider some of their actions only on a case by case basis. But they are doing what they see is good for society so it is okay.
The Christian Terrorists: So what you are now saying is that you were only trying to dodge so you wouldn’t actually have to support hour garbage claim that white, Christian males do most of the terrorist attacks in this country. Funny….I pointed out to you several comments ago that those were really the only two options for your comment…that you felt all Christians were terrorists or that you were trying to dodge. It took you 7 comments to finally try sweeping that one under the rug. So it was a dodge….got it. Thank you for clearing that up.
Morals and the bible: That would hold true if you were a Buddhist and we were debating religion. Many of the same tenets apply to Christianity and Buddhism. But your statement was that Christianity is self serving and greedy. Not sure how a philosophy can be self-serving and greedy unless you are saying all the beliefs of that philosophy are self serving and greedy. And so you obviously don’t like Christian teachings. So, since I have the bible as a basis for my moral compass, I have challenged you to specifically state where you base your moral compass. And really you can’t use Christian morals since you view them as self serving and greedy. Still waiting and you are still dodging.
My understanding of the teachings: If someone is teaching you something and you get an understanding of it, it may not be a complete understanding. You bring up a math book and a chemistry book. Okay..ever take a math class or a chemistry class? Ever get a question wrong on a quiz or an exam? Guess your “understanding” of math and chemistry is right either, eh? If your understanding of these things was right, you would ace every test, every time. I’ve never claimed that my understanding was perfect, nor did I say it was the same as everyone else.
Trump and God: So let’s go back to your Chemistry or math class. Ever see anyone that was really bad at one of those? had a hard time passing if they could pass at all? Do you consider them to be making a mockery of the class? No? Why not. They didn’t follow the rules perfectly. And did their failures change the teachings from those classes? Not one iota. The teachings are what they are. Just because someone isn’t good at something shouldn’t change your views of those teachings. AND God really doesn’t need me to defend Him against anyone.
You being a liberal: Let’s see, you aren’t a conservative and your ideology aligns with the liberal agenda…but you aren’t a liberal? Really???? Might want to look at that logic a little more closely. I found this as an apt definition of liberalism: the holding of liberal views. That pretty much describes you to a T. And a Liberal is nothing more that someone that believes in liberalism. To hammer that home, I did the search for the definition of Liberal: a person of liberal views. Yep…that’s you. You claim that you don’t claim a political party. I can believe that. But liberals aren’t a political party. On the flip-side of that, though, is your reaction to all things Democrat. You have a really hard time admitting that a democrat could be bad. Throughout our times of discussion, you avoid having to say that yes, there might be something wrong with that democrat. You came close with Franken, but you still tried making excuses for him for the longest time. It was a joke, it was a prank, he used to be a comedian, it isn’t that bad…all excuses you used. So even though you may not register as a democrat, I’d put good money that you have never voted for a Republican and almost never voted for an Independent. Contrarily, you continually confuse me with a Republican and call me Trump’s boy. Yet unlike you, I have said bad things about Trump. I have stated things like if he actually has done something wrong, then he should be punished for it. If you look most of my support for any of the Republicans you all hate comes from the moderate view. I generally am pointing out your (the collective you) hypocrisies. I am calling for things like actually waiting for proof before you convict someone. And I HAVE voted for democrats, republicans, and independents. I look to see what the person is about. Unfortunately, the one democrat I really liked in my area quit. Guess he couldn’t stand where the party was going. Maybe he had too much self respect.

I’ll address your morals comment now.

You are confusing Christian morals, with Christian actions. Another false analogy. You do yourself no favors by putting words in my mouth, or twisting what I’ve said… Not very Christian of you…

I’ll try to get to the rest later…

@MrGrimm888 – join the crowd – @seawulf575 put words in my mouth in a different thread about ten days ago. That appears to be a tactic employed when other arguments fail.

The fact is that the discussion has moved way off of the original question, which had to do with the identity of people who shoot others as a means of terrorizing.

Yeah, my bad. You only attacked Christianity, not the actions of specific Christians. Let me help you. I’ll put YOUR words into YOUR mouth: “As for my view of Christianity, I stand by every word,” You then went on to attack all churches and all Christians. You cast all Christians into the mold of terrorists. Again…YOUR words into YOUR mouth: I challenged you with the challenge to : “You name one white Christian immigrant, legal or illegal, that went on to commit an act of terrorism…” And your response…YOUR response was: “One Christian immigrant? Well, since they are all non-native, how about all of them.” I have even given you chances to recant or support your views and you have dodged. As you are dodging now. So all that is left is that you hate Christianity, which is a philosophy, which is a set of belief, which is the basis for a set of morals. No false analogy involved in any of this. Your words, your beliefs. Not mine. Not my words. And all you are doing with this statement now is to try dodging the need to actually name where your morals come from. In the end, you are in a corner. You want to claim Christian ethos, but want to maintain that Christianity is bad because that is what Liberals believe is good for society. That is how you have described the workings of the Liberal agenda. Again…your words, not mine. So I would suggest when you find you have dug yourself into a hole, you stop digging.

@elbanditoroso Sorry…please wipe your eyes. Your mascara might run.

@Hypocrote575 . You don’t have very thick skin, for someone engaging in online debate. You might want to check YOUR mascara, because YOU’RE the only one crying attacks…

Saying things that are true, isn’t an attack. I still stand by my actual words. Christianity is, like most organized religions, self serving. I’m sorry there is more wool pulled over your eyes than a sheep could stand. I’ve already explained my stances, and tried to clarify when needed. I’m happy that you think I’m in a corner. I don’t feel that way. Maybe you can pray for me to understand what you’re saying that I haven’t clarified.

Just because I know something is completely fraudulent, doesn’t mean I hate it. Hearing the truth is hurtful sometimes. That’s why I dodged your question about my morality. To avoid telling you about my thoughts on your religion. You wouldn’t take the nice version, so I told you some things that were probably offensive to you.

Your words, not mine. You base your life views on a work of fiction, designed to imprison the minds of the weak. You willfully ignore the facts about the book, although you otherwise claim that facts are the only important thing in a debate. Your entire life is based on fact-less religious propaganda. I can’t think of anything less valid, in regards to thinking, and understanding.

There’s your precious data. Your all valuable facts. Spew whatever other data you can, none of it will validate your thought process. None of it will change what the Bible is. A tool to spread a religion, to gain power, currency, and political favor.

It’s quite simple.

You have twisted, mixed up, or strait misrepresented my words so much, I don’t even know what you’re getting at anymore. Your last long winded blitherings, are all over the map. Lots of confusing analogies, crying over attacks, and lots of bragging about imagined accomplishments. You definitely sound like your boy Trump…

As mentioned, we have indeed high jacked this thread. If you would like to collect your thoughts on Christianity, and perhaps have a point, you can start a new thread, that I will reluctantly join. I don’t enjoy talking to people about their religion. But since you think you are on some moral high ground, I will gladly educate you on why you aren’t. It won’t be a challenge. But maybe you can vent, which is what I think you were trying to do here went you went off the rails. Maybe you can bring up some of the based on reality stuff in the bible. Like some ancient cities that actually existed. But I’ll probably just say New York city is real, but teenage mutant ninja turtles aren’t. Don’t forget about the man living in a fish, flaming bushes, and my favorite the Ark.

More dodge. But you are right, we have sort of hijacked this thread.

We did. I’m sure the passengers were waiting for us to crash it into a building…