Don't Call yourself a Christian (if you're a Trumper)

drummerboy said:

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

 Two thoughts -

1. Notice that nothing was mentioned about domestic policy.  Trump's neglect of government activism with respect to economics, the environment, civil rights, and other issues is consistent with a "libertarian" philosophy.  Obama was too "activist" in all those things.  Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he "delivers" on those domestic priorities, which is the same reason he gets the benefit of the doubt from the type of Christians which were the reason this thread was started.

2. Of course American military actions abroad are, at best, not different from under Obama, and are in many ways worse.  In addition, Trump's signature foreign policy move, killing the Iran nuclear deal, isn't even mentioned although it's made the world a more dangerous place.  Instead, reasons are given why Obama was "worse" (some completely baseless; no, slavery in Libya didn't magically appear only after the NATO action there).  

terp said:

I am a pacifist.  I probably don't go as far as say Ghandi.  I had no problem going after Bin Laden, but then we conflated Al Queda qpwith the Taliban and half heartedly went after him in Tora Bora(generals pleaded for more troops).  So then we had to completely blow Afghanistan up.

 I fail to see what invading Iraq, supporting Al Queda on Syria, overthrowing Gaddafi, supporting the Saudis in the massacre of the Houthis, etc does to stop terror.  

I also domt believe the president should have a kill list, and certainly not one with American Citizens.  I don't think the government should listen to all of our electronic communications.  And I don't think real liberals should.  

As you mention the world is a complex place.  But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians.   Trumps rhetoric may be bad, but he has not wreaked havoc on the world like his 2 predecessors did.  In that way, maybe they support the lesser of evils here.  To me evil is causing pain and death in the world where it doesn't need to exist.  By that definition, is Trump evil?  Probably.  But he can't hold a candle to his two predecessors.

 If what you took from my post is "As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians" then either I've failed in my writing, you've failed in your reading, or both. But instead of trying to explain better, I actually want to give a shot at hearing closely from you. You say you are a pacifist, which is a very significant change of view from your earlier support of the second amendment. I'd be very interested in hearing how you changed your mind on this. Was it a specific event, or an accumulation of things over time? You'd also previously rooted your ideas on the second amendment on the right of self-defense -- how has your idea of self-defense changed since you've become a pacifist?

drummerboy said:

If we want to criticize or question the truth  of the adage “Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we learn how to deceive”, one needs to look at Biden and Hunter’s dealings in Ukraine.
How to make a lot of money in the shortest possible time. Wearing your sense of righteousness on your shield as a Campaign tool is foolish, and will be targeted by your political enemies. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunter-biden-hit-with-450k-tax-lien-is-resolved-despite-no-discernible-income-biden-campaign-silent-report

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

 

 Righteous Gemstones is pretty funny. Cannot wait for season 2.

mtierney said:

If we want to criticize or question the truth of the adage “Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we learn how to deceive” ...

I, for one, don’t wish to criticize or question that secular adage. Since the rest of your post was conditioned on our wanting to, I went no further.

DaveSchmidt said:

mtierney said:

If we want to criticize or question the truth of the adage “Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we learn how to deceive” ...

I, for one, don’t wish to criticize or question that secular adage. Since the rest of your post was conditioned on our wanting to, I went no further.

 I'd like to question it. I believe the correct phrasing is "Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

PVW said:

 I'd like to question it. I believe the correct phrasing is "Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

 If we're going to question it, we should first ask how many webs are there? For I do believe that there was but a single web.

"'O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!"

Another way to put it, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we put irrelevant material about Hunter Biden into a thread that's about an entirely different subject, instead of one where it's more appropriate."

mtierney said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunter-biden-hit-with-450k-tax-lien-is-resolved-despite-no-discernible-income-biden-campaign-silent-report

Maybe Hunter Biden used the tax firm Sean Hannity recommends, to get his obligation reduced or eliminated. 

https://rushtaxresolution.com/sean-hannity-tax-relief-results/ 

ridski said:

PVW said:

 I'd like to question it. I believe the correct phrasing is "Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

 If we're going to question it, we should first ask how many webs are there? For I do believe that there was but a single web.

"'O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!"

I always mistook it for Shakespeare, so I wasn’t going to first toss stones. 

By the way, that’s some violet poesy.

And a nice attention to detail. If I ever want to know what color the sky is, I'm definitely asking Ridski.

.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I am a pacifist.  I probably don't go as far as say Ghandi.  I had no problem going after Bin Laden, but then we conflated Al Queda qpwith the Taliban and half heartedly went after him in Tora Bora(generals pleaded for more troops).  So then we had to completely blow Afghanistan up.

 I fail to see what invading Iraq, supporting Al Queda on Syria, overthrowing Gaddafi, supporting the Saudis in the massacre of the Houthis, etc does to stop terror.  

I also domt believe the president should have a kill list, and certainly not one with American Citizens.  I don't think the government should listen to all of our electronic communications.  And I don't think real liberals should.  

As you mention the world is a complex place.  But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians.   Trumps rhetoric may be bad, but he has not wreaked havoc on the world like his 2 predecessors did.  In that way, maybe they support the lesser of evils here.  To me evil is causing pain and death in the world where it doesn't need to exist.  By that definition, is Trump evil?  Probably.  But he can't hold a candle to his two predecessors.

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

I agree that the drone war continues.  And that's not good.  It is a continuation of the previous administration.    I have to say that I am disappointed in Trump's foreign policy.  I liked a lot of what he had to say during the campaign.  He talked a lot about getting troops out of some of these places and being less hostile and agressive towards Russia.    

In his defense, the Cathedral fought him every step of the way.  Remember when he tried to pull out from Syria?  The Corporate Media was all "he should listen to the generals!!!"  This is an inversion of our model.  The civilian government makes decisions about when we go to war and when we stop fighting.  Not the generals.

He isn't great on that, but he could be worse.  That's better than we could say in quite a long time.

He has not handled the pandemic well.  However, I do think there is plenty of blame to go around.  I also think that the facts around the pandemic are elusive.  We also have 40-50 million unemployed and small businesses are being destroyed as a result of government action in an attempt to control the pandemic.  It's an all around **** show.

Senator Sam Irvine used that quote , "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" very effectively during the Watergate hearings.

PVW said:

 If what you took from my post is "As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians" then either I've failed in my writing, you've failed in your reading, or both. But instead of trying to explain better, I actually want to give a shot at hearing closely from you. You say you are a pacifist, which is a very significant change of view from your earlier support of the second amendment. I'd be very interested in hearing how you changed your mind on this. Was it a specific event, or an accumulation of things over time? You'd also previously rooted your ideas on the second amendment on the right of self-defense -- how has your idea of self-defense changed since you've become a pacifist?

Being a pacifist is not mutually exclusive to supporting the 2nd amendment.  I am against the initiation of force.  I am not opposed to self defense.  

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

 Two thoughts -

1. Notice that nothing was mentioned about domestic policy.  Trump's neglect of government activism with respect to economics, the environment, civil rights, and other issues is consistent with a "libertarian" philosophy.  Obama was too "activist" in all those things.  Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he "delivers" on those domestic priorities, which is the same reason he gets the benefit of the doubt from the type of Christians which were the reason this thread was started.

2. Of course American military actions abroad are, at best, not different from under Obama, and are in many ways worse.  In addition, Trump's signature foreign policy move, killing the Iran nuclear deal, isn't even mentioned although it's made the world a more dangerous place.  Instead, reasons are given why Obama was "worse" (some completely baseless; no, slavery in Libya didn't magically appear only after the NATO action there).  

 There are quite a few inaccuracies in this post.

terp said:

PVW said:

 If what you took from my post is "As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians" then either I've failed in my writing, you've failed in your reading, or both. But instead of trying to explain better, I actually want to give a shot at hearing closely from you. You say you are a pacifist, which is a very significant change of view from your earlier support of the second amendment. I'd be very interested in hearing how you changed your mind on this. Was it a specific event, or an accumulation of things over time? You'd also previously rooted your ideas on the second amendment on the right of self-defense -- how has your idea of self-defense changed since you've become a pacifist?

Being a pacifist is not mutually exclusive to supporting the 2nd amendment.  I am against the initiation of force.  I am not opposed to self defense.  

 Then your position remains quite unclear to me. If an individual claims self defense as justification for lethal force, you're willing to grant that, but if a government does, you are not. You're going to have to explain the moral principle you're using here to me because I'm not seeing it

ETA - also, I presume you also allow for "defense of others" in you 2nd amendment view. Eg, the "good guy with a gun" scenario. This, I think, also complicates trying to draw a sharp moral distinction between supporting individuals using lethal force and governments doing so.

terp said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

 Two thoughts -

1. Notice that nothing was mentioned about domestic policy.  Trump's neglect of government activism with respect to economics, the environment, civil rights, and other issues is consistent with a "libertarian" philosophy.  Obama was too "activist" in all those things.  Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he "delivers" on those domestic priorities, which is the same reason he gets the benefit of the doubt from the type of Christians which were the reason this thread was started.

2. Of course American military actions abroad are, at best, not different from under Obama, and are in many ways worse.  In addition, Trump's signature foreign policy move, killing the Iran nuclear deal, isn't even mentioned although it's made the world a more dangerous place.  Instead, reasons are given why Obama was "worse" (some completely baseless; no, slavery in Libya didn't magically appear only after the NATO action there).  

 There are quite a few inaccuracies in this post.

 which part and what are they?

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I am a pacifist.  I probably don't go as far as say Ghandi.  I had no problem going after Bin Laden, but then we conflated Al Queda qpwith the Taliban and half heartedly went after him in Tora Bora(generals pleaded for more troops).  So then we had to completely blow Afghanistan up.

 I fail to see what invading Iraq, supporting Al Queda on Syria, overthrowing Gaddafi, supporting the Saudis in the massacre of the Houthis, etc does to stop terror.  

I also domt believe the president should have a kill list, and certainly not one with American Citizens.  I don't think the government should listen to all of our electronic communications.  And I don't think real liberals should.  

As you mention the world is a complex place.  But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians.   Trumps rhetoric may be bad, but he has not wreaked havoc on the world like his 2 predecessors did.  In that way, maybe they support the lesser of evils here.  To me evil is causing pain and death in the world where it doesn't need to exist.  By that definition, is Trump evil?  Probably.  But he can't hold a candle to his two predecessors.

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

I agree that the drone war continues.  And that's not good.  It is a continuation of the previous administration.    I have to say that I am disappointed in Trump's foreign policy.  I liked a lot of what he had to say during the campaign.  He talked a lot about getting troops out of some of these places and being less hostile and agressive towards Russia.    

In his defense, the Cathedral fought him every step of the way.  Remember when he tried to pull out from Syria?  The Corporate Media was all "he should listen to the generals!!!"  This is an inversion of our model.  The civilian government makes decisions about when we go to war and when we stop fighting.  Not the generals.

He isn't great on that, but he could be worse.  That's better than we could say in quite a long time.

He has not handled the pandemic well.  However, I do think there is plenty of blame to go around.  I also think that the facts around the pandemic are elusive.  We also have 40-50 million unemployed and small businesses are being destroyed as a result of government action in an attempt to control the pandemic.  It's an all around **** show.

 You're doing it again.

When Trump goes up against the Cathedral and loses, he gets an "In his defense".

When Obama does the same thing, it's wall to wall opprobrium for him.

PVW said:

terp said:

PVW said:

 If what you took from my post is "As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians" then either I've failed in my writing, you've failed in your reading, or both. But instead of trying to explain better, I actually want to give a shot at hearing closely from you. You say you are a pacifist, which is a very significant change of view from your earlier support of the second amendment. I'd be very interested in hearing how you changed your mind on this. Was it a specific event, or an accumulation of things over time? You'd also previously rooted your ideas on the second amendment on the right of self-defense -- how has your idea of self-defense changed since you've become a pacifist?

Being a pacifist is not mutually exclusive to supporting the 2nd amendment.  I am against the initiation of force.  I am not opposed to self defense.  

 Then your position remains quite unclear to me. If an individual claims self defense as justification for lethal force, you're willing to grant that, but if a government does, you are not. You're going to have to explain the moral principle you're using here to me because I'm not seeing it

ETA - also, I presume you also allow for "defense of others" in you 2nd amendment view. Eg, the "good guy with a gun" scenario. This, I think, also complicates trying to draw a sharp moral distinction between supporting individuals using lethal force and governments doing so.

I don't take issue with governments acting in self defense.  However, that is certainly not the tendency with our government. 

drummerboy said:

terp said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

 Two thoughts -

1. Notice that nothing was mentioned about domestic policy.  Trump's neglect of government activism with respect to economics, the environment, civil rights, and other issues is consistent with a "libertarian" philosophy.  Obama was too "activist" in all those things.  Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he "delivers" on those domestic priorities, which is the same reason he gets the benefit of the doubt from the type of Christians which were the reason this thread was started.

2. Of course American military actions abroad are, at best, not different from under Obama, and are in many ways worse.  In addition, Trump's signature foreign policy move, killing the Iran nuclear deal, isn't even mentioned although it's made the world a more dangerous place.  Instead, reasons are given why Obama was "worse" (some completely baseless; no, slavery in Libya didn't magically appear only after the NATO action there).  

 There are quite a few inaccuracies in this post.

 which part and what are they?

 Trump has been plenty activist on the domestic side.  We are spending like crazy, he out the screws to the fed to print $$ at the fastest pace ever, he is waging a tariff war.  And he is much better on FP than Obama as he did not get involved in new conflicts.  Don't get me wrong, his FP is an absolute embarrassment.   It's just better than his predecessor's.

On the Cathedral, the corporate press and the beaurocratic arm of the government was hostile even prior to his swearing in.  And it was based on a conspiracy theory.

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

 yeah, except Trump is arguably responsible for the deaths of more Americans (via covid) than his two predecessors. So there's that.

Also, don't think that Trump isn't wreaking his own havoc across the world. Drone strikes are still going on, more than ever before. They just don't report them anymore.

Again, you're willingness to give Trump the benefit of the doubt is a bit weird.

 Two thoughts -

1. Notice that nothing was mentioned about domestic policy.  Trump's neglect of government activism with respect to economics, the environment, civil rights, and other issues is consistent with a "libertarian" philosophy.  Obama was too "activist" in all those things.  Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he "delivers" on those domestic priorities, which is the same reason he gets the benefit of the doubt from the type of Christians which were the reason this thread was started.

...

terp said:

 Trump has been plenty activist on the domestic side.  We are spending like crazy, he out the screws to the fed to print $$ at the fastest pace ever, he is waging a tariff war.  And he is much better on FP than Obama as he did not get involved in new conflicts.  Don't get me wrong, his FP is an absolute embarrassment.   It's just better than his predecessor's.

That doesn't identify any "inaccuracies" in my post, with respect to domestic policy.

terp said:

On the Cathedral, the corporate press and the beaurocratic arm of the government was hostile even prior to his swearing in.  And it was based on a conspiracy theory.

 talk about conspiracy theories.

ETA: and to think it was unusual for there to be so much opposition to such a grossly unqualified con-man and a just generally a putrid specimen of humanity (and that's being kind), is kind of odd.

terp said:

PVW said:

 If what you took from my post is "As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians" then either I've failed in my writing, you've failed in your reading, or both. But instead of trying to explain better, I actually want to give a shot at hearing closely from you. You say you are a pacifist, which is a very significant change of view from your earlier support of the second amendment. I'd be very interested in hearing how you changed your mind on this. Was it a specific event, or an accumulation of things over time? You'd also previously rooted your ideas on the second amendment on the right of self-defense -- how has your idea of self-defense changed since you've become a pacifist?

Being a pacifist is not mutually exclusive to supporting the 2nd amendment.  I am against the initiation of force.  I am not opposed to self defense.  

 Hahaha! So you are pacifist NRA member? You are so full of ****

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:

PVW said:

 If what you took from my post is "As you mention the world is a complex place. But I guess that doesn't apply to Christians" then either I've failed in my writing, you've failed in your reading, or both. But instead of trying to explain better, I actually want to give a shot at hearing closely from you. You say you are a pacifist, which is a very significant change of view from your earlier support of the second amendment. I'd be very interested in hearing how you changed your mind on this. Was it a specific event, or an accumulation of things over time? You'd also previously rooted your ideas on the second amendment on the right of self-defense -- how has your idea of self-defense changed since you've become a pacifist?

Being a pacifist is not mutually exclusive to supporting the 2nd amendment.  I am against the initiation of force.  I am not opposed to self defense.  

 Then your position remains quite unclear to me. If an individual claims self defense as justification for lethal force, you're willing to grant that, but if a government does, you are not. You're going to have to explain the moral principle you're using here to me because I'm not seeing it

ETA - also, I presume you also allow for "defense of others" in you 2nd amendment view. Eg, the "good guy with a gun" scenario. This, I think, also complicates trying to draw a sharp moral distinction between supporting individuals using lethal force and governments doing so.

I don't take issue with governments acting in self defense.  However, that is certainly not the tendency with our government. 

 This seems inconsistently applied? There are, after all, many many examples of individuals using guns in ways we all would agree are not self defense. And yet, I haven't seen you support any measures or policies to address this.

I know that just because someone doesn't post something online doesn't mean they don't have positions or opinions on the issue, so here's your chance to fill in the blanks that I either missed or that the opportunity to post on never came up -- what measures do you support to prevent individuals from using lethal force outside of self-defense?

The title of this thread could be a Noel Coward song if you add “Mrs. Worthington” to the end.

That is all.