OH - Haitian migrants eating cats?

[acptulsa]

Because we can choose to grant them privileges.
Just as we can choose to show mercy and deport them instead of shooting them.

What I am proposing is not the wholesale slaughter of the invaders or the domestic traitors, I am proposing they be evicted alive.

Maybe you should read the things that you quote.

Maybe he should read the things he writes. He isn't proposing such and such. He's just reserving the right to do such and such.

The Bible says we should have faith in God, not men, but he says we should trust him. So how is he not claiming to be God?

 

[Intrepid]

"They are not after you, they are after your dogs and cats. And I am standing in their way."

 

[Swordsmyth]

God is the Potter. He has that right.

You don't.

Read your own Bible. Start with the first three Commandments. Show me where God issued you written orders to kill people.

GOD repeatedly told men to do it and gave help to those engaged in killing invaders whom he did not specifically command.

"Thou shalt not kill" is properly translated "Thou shalt not murder" (unjustified killing).
The Bible justifies and even commands killing in many circumstances.
Killing invaders in defense of your nation is not murder any more than killing in the defense of your own life or the lives of others is, in fact it falls into the latter category.

Yet you figure you can get to heaven by ignoring Jesus (except to occasionally twist His words to suit your purpose) and listening to zerohedge instead.

All right. Let's ignore the plain fact that He was making an analogy and take it at face value. Where does Jesus say it's hunky dory to be the one to escalate thievery to killing? Are you claiming Jesus not only didn't say turn the other cheek, but upped the bet on Hammurabi and said, a life for a tooth and a life for an eye?

The burden is on you to show that Christ changed the rules about killing invaders and robbers, he told his followers to sell their garments to buy swords, and it was not just to look cool walking around with them.
There are times and places to turn the other cheek, and times and places to bear the sword not in vain.

 

[Swordsmyth]

[h=1]Ecclesiasticus 34:22[/h] “He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.”

King James Version (KJV)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiasticus-34-22/

 

[acptulsa]

GOD repeatedly told men to do it...

What part of He is the Potter and you're not, He has the sure knowledge and the right, and you do not, are you hoping people will ignore?

 

[Swordsmyth]

[h=1]John 10:10[/h] “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

King James Version (KJV)

 

[Swordsmyth]

What part of He is the Potter and you're not, He has the sure knowledge and the right, and you do not, are you hoping people will ignore?

What part of standing instructions do you not understand.

And it's clear why you deceptively edited my post, you don't want to deal with this:

and gave help to those engaged in killing invaders whom he did not specifically command.

 

[acptulsa]

[h=1]John 10:10[/h] “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

King James Version (KJV)

Which thief? Let's just explore how much of a collectivist you really are. Which thief came to kill?

And it's clear why you deceptively edited my post, you don't want to deal with this:

I don't want to deal with it because asking you to be specific and properly cite your "facts" is even less productive than asking Kamala Harris to do the same.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Which thief? Let's just explore how much of a collectivist you really are. Which thief came to kill?

The archetypal thief.

Ecclesiasticus 34:22

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.”

King James Version (KJV)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...asticus-34-22/
​

 

[acptulsa]

The archetypal thief.

Ecclesiasticus 34:22

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.”

King James Version (KJV)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...asticus-34-22/
​

So what did your fundie preacher teach you about why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? Just a typo?

You want permission to kill people. So name the one who is taking away your living, who is taking food out of your mouth.

You don't think God prefers we allow people who wrong us a chance to repent? So why did He say vengeance is His, not ours?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So what did your fundie preacher teach you about why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? Just a typo?

You want permission to kill people. So name the one who is taking away your living, who is taking food out of your mouth.

You don't think God prefers we allow people who wrong us a chance to repent? So why did He say vengeance is His, not ours?

I already answered that, to everything there is a time and a season.
Christ said both that those who are not with him are against him and that those who are not against him are with him, a flat contradiction to the simple minded, but an intelligent person understands both are true in different circumstances and that circumstances dictate which one applies.

I also said that we should just expel the vast majority of them, mercy is not something they have a right to, but it is good for us to indulge in.
You are not always required to to do the best thing, but it is the best thing to do.

 

[acptulsa]

Christ said both that those who are not with him are against him and that those who are not against him are with him, a flat contradiction to the simple minded...

I'm simple minded enough to want my questions answered directly (so I don't know why I ever attempt to converse with you) but that doesn't look anything like a contradiction to me.

You're still reserving rights unto yourself that neither you nor any other mortal can lay claim to.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I'm simple minded enough to want my questions answered directly (so I don't know why I ever attempt to converse with you) but that doesn't look anything like a contradiction to me.

You're still reserving rights unto yourself that neither you nor any other mortal can lay claim to.

I have to agree with your own mental assessment.
What you are missing is that those who are not explicitly for or against him are placed in either the for or against him camp in different situations.

And I reserve nothing that is not given by GOD in the Bible.
You trying to ignore everything that contradicts your advocacy for invaders and traitors and pretending that there are not circumstantial rules (like killing in self defense or the defense of others) creates an impossible and self contradictory doctrine, but you don't care because you only care about quoting scripture to your profit.

I render unto GOD that which is GOD's, and unto my nation that which is my nations.
They do not contradict eachother.

 

[Invisible Man]

Whoever told her that is a liar.
Invaders do not have any rights, let alone a 2A right to be armed.

Are we talking about a person who has been found guilty by way of due process of whatever crime you are referring to when you call them an invader?

Or are you thinking that we should all be assumed guilty of this crime and prohibited from buying guns unless we first prove our innocence by providing paperwork?

 

[acptulsa]

Are we talking about a person who has been found guilty by way of due process of whatever crime you are referring to when you call them an invader?

Or are you thinking that we should all be assumed guilty of this crime and prohibited from buying guns unless we first prove our innocence by providing paperwork?

You forgot the third possibility: Like any prog, he just wants to be put in charge so he can kick out anyone he doesn't like.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL
I've said Vance may have made a mistake by citing a particular case, you won't admit all the other cases that are real and you cling to the official denials by the liars who are importing the pet stealers and eaters.

FFS dude! Admit what? That accusations are sold proof of anything? How many accusations are there about Trump and Trump supporters? Some turned out to be true and some turned out to be false. You are a freaking cultist. There could actually be a fruitful discussion about what people agree on, like the fact that there is a gravy train of government spending that should be dealt with, and instead you want to double and tipple down on stupid. Trump shouldn't have said "Their eating the cats" without having anything but accusations that "they're eating the cats." He could have said "The federal government is subsidizing migrants to work for less than Americans, black white or other, are willing to work for in Springfield Ohio. And these migrants are getting cars and driving them without drivers licenses and its dangerous." Nobody would have had any come back to that. It would have gotten the same amount of positive coverage and no negative coverage. If Trump loses it will be because of stupid stunts like this where he takes a winning issue and makes it a losing one.

 

[Invisible Man]

Honest question:

With this story, or whatever it is or isn't, now having the attention it has, are there any serious investigative journalists going to Springfield and making an effort to get to the bottom of it, and publish a serious story that lays out exactly what the facts actually are, who was an eyewitness of what, what evidence either supports them or weighs against them, and separating the misinformation from the things that have any measure of likelihood?

If not, why not?

 

[PAF]

Honest question:

With this story, or whatever it is or isn't, now having the attention it has, are there any serious investigative journalists going to Springfield and making an effort to get to the bottom of it, and publish a serious story that lays out exactly what the facts actually are, who was an eyewitness of what, what evidence either supports them or weighs against them, and separating the misinformation from the things that have any measure of likelihood?

If not, why not?

The lady in that video already let the cat out of the bag.

She stated that cats were a problem a couple/few years ago and TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] dealt with it, which is why cats aren't seen hanging around as much. TNR is everywhere, including in my locale, and I can vouch for that.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Because we can choose to grant them privileges.
Just as we can choose to show mercy and deport them instead of shooting them.

Are rights, rights, or are they just privileges?

 

[PAF]

Are rights, rights, or are they just privileges?

He already said that rights are privileges which are/should be granted by politicians/government.