I think it's completely wrong that he was murdered. Freedom of speech
is a great asset. He used and abused that freedom, and that's okay.
He shouldn't have been murdered. That's truly wrong.
But that he died by a firearm... Well, that's the price of the Second
Most of the comments I've seen call the violence deplorable (especially with his family watching) but for someone who recently said that some people
will need to die to preserve the second amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.
There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.
There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.
Most of the comments I've seen call the violence
deplorable (especially with his family watching) but for someone
who recently said that some people will need to die to preserve
the second amendment, the irony seems overwhelming.
Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?
In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally
which, to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment
since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin
with.
There are a lot of people who seem to be
"celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.
This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its
disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE
of their party towards the center... or further.
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: paulie420 to hollowone on Fri Sep 12 2025 07:43 pm
There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating,"
or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others f their ideas.
This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its
disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE
of their party towards the center... or further.
i just see more deaths and more people at each other's throats
in the future.
no republicans were cheering when those state reps in minnesota
were attacked.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/vance-boelter-indicted-mu rders-melissa-and- mark-hortman-shootings-john-and-yvette-0
here's my reddit post.
i expect to have like 100 downvotes.
they were calling kirk a nazi,etc
https://i.imgur.com/obfxJoi.png
i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't god save them, right?
There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.
This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.
There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.
I don't see the conservatives taking part in this. Regardless of how insane th
left has become, I don't think we'll play ball... we didn't riot in the streets,
we didn't burn down our cities and we'll never use violence towards
those we don't agree with - for me, it shows me more and more why I'm on the right side.
i'm sure poindexter finds it funny and ironic that those
kids in minnesota were killed in a church by a trans. why didn't
god save them, right?
I hadn't heard about that one yet. ;(
I suspect that the people "celebrating" or poking fun at recent
events are not "liberals" but are outright far-leftists.
"Classic" liberals, IMHO, are center-left... they want more social
reforms but some might also be 2A and/or pro-law enforcement
and/or other things that would upset someone to the left of them.
There is only one unfortunately if that continues, civil war and further divisions among the people.
Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-point
just remember this, even a worm will turn. do you want it to get to the
where we murder eachother because of ideas? if no, you should stop your ugly celebrating.
There are a lot of people who seem to be "celebrating," or at least quasi-condoning, this who don't seem to understand what the future consequences are if we start murdering others for their ideas.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-
Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?
Does it make a material difference to his stance?
In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which,
to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the
dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.
The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns.
It was also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to paulie420 <=-
paulie420 wrote to hollowone <=-
This week has shown me what the liberals have become - its disgusting. They don't even realize that they just pushed even MORE of their party towards the center... or further.
The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years.
Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social
networks and the internet have amplified their voices.
Like a bell curve, most of the population lies under the center with 1
standard deviation to the right or the left. They both generally think
murder is wrong, both have similar views, more or less, regarding
government reach, taxation and rights - but lean to the left or the
right.
The internet gives the extreme view an amplified platform - the bell
curve has become a W shape.
But, the reality is that most people don't want violence in their
streets, want health care to be affordable, want fair taxation,
representation in government, working roads and infrastructure, and to
be able to pass on a better way of life to their kids. That seems
pretty reasonable to the center of either side.
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
this kirk guy gets murdered and people are laughing and calling him a nazi and saying there should be more killings.
Did he say that they "need" to die, or that some might or could die?
Does it make a material difference to his stance?
In a whole lot of cases, the gun used were not obtained legally which, to me, means they fall outside of the second ammendment since the dumbass in question shouldn't have had the gun(s) to begin with.
The second amendment doesn't exclude illegally obtained guns. It was
also written in the age of breech-loading muskets.
it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters.
he said he had a past of making violent threats.
of their party towards the center... or further.
The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.
bullshit.
Regardless of how we got away from doing so, we need to get back to
the point where people can be put into psychiatric facilities for
showing clear signs of a potential for violence. With many of these
crimes, the person is known to law enforcement because they have
a past that includes making such threats, yet there is not much they
can do to them until they make good on one.
That shouldn't be how that works.
of their party towards the center... or further.
The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.
bullshit.
What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media
have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about
anyone can broadcast now.
Tis theory is bullshit. His whole game is to downplay things and make it seem that liberals are not deranged. Over the years, they have become deranged.
it hasnt shifted back and forth. Do conservatives scratch swastikas on cars, and have riots in the streets?
The fundamental problem Kirk's assassination has brought to light,
in my opinion, is that a very big sector of the population
actively welcomes political violence against people they dislike.
I haven't been following the case but by the look of it, this guy
wasn't a professional politician. He sounds to me more like a showman
or show personality. Shooting this guy is like shooting a journalist
because you don't like what he says in his articles.
I am a distance education UVU student. I have not been
polarized by the political climate of the past 9-10 years. I have
been ripped apart. And compressed. By actual Great Replacement
Theorists, and actual neo-Nazis, some who were patent goose-stepping
Trump supporters with "Hilary for Jail" shirts. Nobody can control
all their followers, I've been told.
I think that "philosophy" is a great subject. Helps me out a lot,
but I see it as rhetoric with "wings." :) I have learned centrist
techniques like constrastivism from those classes. So maybe I am
dead center politically now?
I am mad as hell about the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Although
I despise trolling and hate. I can't argue with ghosts. I can't
tell them "So what's there to debate? When the love you have is hate
How quickly we fall from grace to earth"
Thank you for the song "Lazarus And The Gospel Plow", Josh Joplin
and there's so many people supporting the murder. we really are
doomed.
Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-
it was a trans guy, had his name changed when
he was a minor. it appears he was fascinated with the other mass shooters. he said he had a past of making violent threats.
Regardless of how we got away from doing so, we need to get back to the point where people can be put into psychiatric facilities for showing clear signs of a potential for violence. With many of these crimes,
the person is known to law enforcement because they have a past that includes making such threats, yet there is not much they can do to them until they make good on one.
That shouldn't be how that works.
Dumas Walker wrote to MRO <=-
of their party towards the center... or further.
The bell curve of political extremism has stretched over the years. Neither end, by definition, holds the majority position, but social networks and the internet have amplified their voices.
bullshit.
What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media
have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about
anyone can broadcast now.
Arelor wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pm
Tis theory is bullshit. His whole game is to downplay things and make it seem that liberals are not deranged. Over the years, they have become deranged.
it hasnt shifted back and forth. Do conservatives scratch swastikas on cars, and have riots in the streets?
The fundamental problem Kirk's assassination has brought to light, in
my opinion, is that a very big sector of the population actively
welcomes political violence against people they dislike.
I haven't been following the case but by the look of it, this guy
wasn't a professional politician. He sounds to me more like a showman
or show personality. Shooting this guy is like shooting a journalist because you don't like what he says in his articles.
MRO wrote to all <=-
and there's so many people supporting the murder. we really are
doomed.
wow shitty kimmel got shit canned because of local stations complaining
to disney and the fcc.
I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively, but
the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...
But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently' instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.
What part of that is BS? I cannot help but agree that social media have amplified the voices of persons at both extremes. Just about anyone can broadcast now.
Agreed... Vocal minority is an actual term...
I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively,
but the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...
But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently'
instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pmNo one wants YOU removed. That's just the fear engine talking.
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to MRO on Wed Sep 17 2025 08:18 pm
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Mon Sep 15 2025 08:15 pmNo one wants YOU removed. That's just the fear engine talking.
No one wants YOU removed. That's just the fear engine talking.
Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Mickey to Jopie on Thu Sep 11 2025 07:55 pm
Gish gallop, non-sequitur, straw-men. He didn't debate. He "gotach'd" inexperienced college kids. A 30 something year old man using
tactics that would get you thrown off any legitimate debate team.
Don't admit that style of debate intrigued you in public, man! All
just a grift.
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Cozmo to Jopie on Fri Sep 12 2025 01:54 pm
Didn't BTK have a family who loved him?
what a baseline terribly low metric to live by. "I got kids!!"
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: MRO to Sol Feace on Sat Sep 27 2025 05:00 am
It's been 30 years, gimme a break.
You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like that. You also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which is generally
what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric. It seems the only people who
think he's been doing great have only recently heard of him.
Besides, I thought political violence was acceptable. January 6th convicts out
front should've told ya. Pardons for all!
Removing someone from a platform isn't the same as wanting you removed from reality, which is what you originally implied.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
I agree with this! I'm not saying lock everyone up preemptively,
but the focus is always on the TOOL and not the mind behind it...
Indeed... well, except people seem to like to know which way they lean politically. Beyond that, most don't seem to care if the person was,
or should have been, on the radar before the violent act.
But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently' instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.
Thinking differently is a good thing.
It is when that thinking
differently involves thoughts of violence that we need to handle better than we are now. There are some domestic terror groups out there that
take advantage of these kind of people being unsupervised. They find
and recruit them via social media.
Sol Feace wrote to Arelor <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Arelor to Sol Feace on Sat Sep 27 2025 01:54 pm
You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like
that. You also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which is generally what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric.
Dumas Walker wrote to SOL FEACE <=-You
You don't have a right to use Facebook, Instagram, or anything like that.
also don't have a right to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, which isgenerally
what Kirk was doing. Absolutely violent rhetoric. It seems the only peoplewho
think he's been doing great have only recently heard of him.
While I don't think that was quite what Kirk was doing, he overall
wasn't helping anything and he does seem to have a lot more fans in
death than life.
He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if
you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.
Besides, I thought political violence was acceptable. January 6th convictsout
front should've told ya. Pardons for all!
Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.
But when we, as a culture, CELEBRATE someone who 'thinks differently' instead of trying to get them help, we, as a culture, pay the price.
Thinking differently is a good thing.
I was referring specificially to trans and LGBTQ. I have no problem
with people disagreeing with what I see as facts and truth, but like
you say that doesn't mean you get to inflict violence if I refuse
to acknowledge your delusion...
It is when that thinking
differently involves thoughts of violence that we need to handle better than we are now. There are some domestic terror groups out there that take advantage of these kind of people being unsupervised. They find and recruit them via social media.
Wasn't aware of that, but not surprised either...
He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.
I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.
For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...
Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.
Never acceptable at all. I wasn't there, and wouldn't have
wanted to be there on January 6th. That being said, there
are reports of FBI people there as well. Does that cloud
anything for you? It does for me!
Can you give an example of something you think was 'violent rhetoric?'
You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?
He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists
baby.
Trans people are like people wearing Black Face.
General anti-vaccination.
Democrat women want to die alone without children.
Gay people should be stoned.
If you want the actual quotes, they're easily searchable. But these
You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.
I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.
For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...
Not necessarily. Religious beliefs and moral values are related in a
lot of people, but melding politics and religion together is dangerous.
We don't live in a theocracy. If someone is running for office and supposedly shares my religious beliefs, but I also believe they would
ruin the country's economy, security, etc., I would not vote for them.
There also seem to be a lot of people who believe that Donald Trump
is a person of high morals and religious values, and I believe that
view is delluded. His expression of his feelings towards his enemies
that he expressed during the serivce for Kirk should have opened their eyes on this.
But, last I checked (which has been months now), you still have people
in FIDO POLITICS who think Trump is Jesus. Last I checked, Jesus
believed you should love your enemies, something Trump has said he does not do.
Only acceptable when it is against people one doesn't agree with.
Never acceptable at all. I wasn't there, and wouldn't have
wanted to be there on January 6th. That being said, there
are reports of FBI people there as well. Does that cloud
anything for you? It does for me!
I don't believe it is acceptable, but there are a lot of folks who do believe it is acceptable so long as it is against people they don't
agree with, but not against "one of their own." That includes both
MAGAs and lefists, by the way.
As for January 6, it does muddle things but, ultimately, if you have a leader who is...
(1) throwing a loser's party in DC on the same day as the
certification of the Electoral College, despite the advice from his advisors that he probably shouldn't do it;
(2) that believes enough that things could get out of hand that he
claims he asked for additional security;
(3) and he doesn't decide to alter or cancel his plans when he finds
out that additional security won't be available...
then you have someone who at least shares the fault in what happened
next. Rather than accept any of the fault, Trump has deflected it all.
TL;DR - If you don't throw an ill-advised loser's party for the FBI to infiltrate, nothing happens... or at least nothing that can be tied
back directly to you.
Sol Feace wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Sol Feace on Sat Oct 04 2025 04:20 pm
Can you give an example of something you think was 'violent rhetoric?'
You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?
Black people were better under Jim Crow laws.
He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.
Trans people are like people wearing Black Face.
Black women can't be taken seriously since they're thieves.
General anti-vaccination.
Democrat women want to die alone without children.
Gay people should be stoned.
If you want the actual quotes, they're easily searchable. But these
were his values and his removal from the world is tragic for his kids.
Oh well. ---
Arelor wrote to Sol Feace <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Sol Feace to jimmylogan on Wed Oct 22 2025 09:32 pm
You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?
I don't think most of those count as violent rethoric because they are
not promoting violence. Things don't count as violent rethoric just because they are controversial, or because you dislike them, or because they are retarded.
Violent rethoric is Che Guevara saying the judicial system should be bypassed so bourgeoisies get executed more efficiently without trial. Violent rethoric would be saying gays have to be stoned, but mro
already bought the subject up so there you have it.
He did help expose some hypocrasy in today's college students, even if
you don't agree with the methods he used to to so, but his melding of religion and politics was objectionable and dangerous.
I'm gonna disagree with you there. Politics is supposed to be
"of the people, for the people, by the people." The 'people' have
a religious belief which is inseperable from their inner being.
For example, do you vote your religious beliefs? I would assume
so...
Not necessarily. Religious beliefs and moral values are related in a lot of people, but melding politics and religion together is dangerous.
We don't live in a theocracy. If someone is running for office and supposedly shares my religious beliefs, but I also believe they would ruin the country's economy, security, etc., I would not vote for them.
Okay - let me be a little more direct. If someone 'supposedly' shares
your belief but you think they would ruin things, do they really
share your beliefs?
In other words, if someone shares your beliefs about transgender,
that there is only two genders, would you support them? Because
if you believe that's not positive for the country as a whole,
then do you really have that belief to begin with?
Does that make sense?
He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.
He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.
I heard him talking once about something similar and explained
how God was in charge and if God gave a command, the Hebrews
were expected to follow it. If God the creator of the universe
said to do something, they were expected to do it.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
In other words, their religious convictions could match mine 100% but
they still may have ideas that are so bad I would have to ignore the religious similarities and not support them.
Even if I voted 100% with my relgious convictions, I would still have
100% not voted for either major party candidate because neither Trump
nor Harris ticked many/any religious boxes for me. Very, very few politicians ever would.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.
He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.
Criminality can run in families, and may sometimes be genetic, so I
would argue that it does matter who the father is.
I heard him talking once about something similar and explained
how God was in charge and if God gave a command, the Hebrews
were expected to follow it. If God the creator of the universe
said to do something, they were expected to do it.
I had forgotten how hard core OT God was, especially from Exodus
through Deuroronomy. For example, if he told you and I to do
something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly* as I
was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague, or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed his direction
exactly!
Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.
That is pretty messed up!
something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly*
as I was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague,
or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed
his direction exactly!
Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.
That is pretty messed up!
Okay - I don't think I'm communicating my thoughts good enough. :-)
My point is if someone shared my religious beliefs/convictions
100% then we would, by default, agree on policy me thinks...
He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby >He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.
Criminality can run in families, and may sometimes be genetic, so I would argue that it does matter who the father is.
So any criminal or rapist should have their offsprint killed
off? To prevent them from committing same crimes?
I had forgotten how hard core OT God was, especially from Exodus through Deuroronomy. For example, if he told you and I to do something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly* as I was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague, or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed his direction exactly!
Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.
That is pretty messed up!
"Messed up" - by what standard?
Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.
That is pretty messed up!
then he got real pissed off and caused the flood that killed almost everything. and then he realized he went too far and said he wouldn't do it > ever again.
Crash the economy
Lead us into unnecessary war
Cause social unrest to the point of unnecessary loss of life Lead to runaway inflation
etc.
MRO wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: Dumas Walker to JIMMYLOGAN on Sat Nov 01 2025 11:07 am
something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly*
as I was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague,
or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed
his direction exactly!
Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.
That is pretty messed up!
then he got real pissed off and caused the flood that killed almost everything. and then he realized he went too far and said he wouldn't
do it ever again.
Dumas Walker wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Dumas Walker on Sat Nov 01 2025 18:56:48
Okay - I don't think I'm communicating my thoughts good enough. :-)
My point is if someone shared my religious beliefs/convictions
100% then we would, by default, agree on policy me thinks...
I would think it very easy that someone who matched my, or your,
religious beliefs 100% might also be, for example, advocating policies that would:
Crash the economy
Lead us into unnecessary war
Cause social unrest to the point of unnecessary loss of life
Lead to runaway inflation
etc.
I would most certainly not vote for them if I felt that way.
This country is not a theocracy and is not meant to be one, which is a good thing considering that most of those are horrible on human rights
and eventually fail because they don't know how to govern or manage a complex economy.
Dumas Walker wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to Dumas Walker on Sat Nov 01 2025 18:56:48
He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby
He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.
Criminality can run in families, and may sometimes be genetic, so I would argue that it does matter who the father is.
So any criminal or rapist should have their offsprint killed
off? To prevent them from committing same crimes?
No, but it does very much mean that it *does* matter who the father is.
Dumas Walker wrote to jimmylogan <=-
I had forgotten how hard core OT God was, especially from Exodus through Deuroronomy. For example, if he told you and I to do something, and you did it but I didn't (or didn't do it *exactly* as I was told), he wouldn't just punish me. He'd burn, plague, or have the Earth swallow *both* of us up, even if you followed his direction exactly!
Or he'd punish us both until you stoned me to death. Then he'd stop punishing you.
That is pretty messed up!
"Messed up" - by what standard?
So you have no issue with the idea that OT God could tell us both to do something and then would kill us *both* after you did what you were
told but I sat on my hands and did nothing?
I don't have that much faith in my fellow man so, with that in mind, I would see that as messed up. I would find it difficult to be motivated
to do anything if I knew I was going to die anyway.
Create chaos, allowing billionaire sponsors to consolidate power,
create even bigger monopolies, buy distressed assets for pennies
on the dollar and manipulate the markets to allow allies to benefit
from insider trading.
then he got real pissed off and caused the flood that killed almost everything. and then he realized he went too far and said he
wouldn't do it ever again.
He didn't say He went too far, just that He wouldn't do it again.
:-)
MRO wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Mon Nov 03 2025 08:42 pm
then he got real pissed off and caused the flood that killed almost everything. and then he realized he went too far and said he
wouldn't do it ever again.
He didn't say He went too far, just that He wouldn't do it again.
:-)
i remember reading an interpretation where it said he regretted it and wouldn't do it again. if there is a god and all this is true then he probably did have regret since he promised to never do it again.
Crash the economy
Lead us into unnecessary war
Cause social unrest to the point of unnecessary loss of life
Lead to runaway inflation
Create chaos, allowing billionaire sponsors to consolidate power, create even bigger monopolies, buy distressed assets for pennies on the dollar and manipulate the markets to allow allies to benefit from insider trading.
Okay - I don't think I'm communicating my thoughts good enough. :-)
My point is if someone shared my religious beliefs/convictions
100% then we would, by default, agree on policy me thinks...
I would think it very easy that someone who matched my, or your, religious beliefs 100% might also be, for example, advocating policies that would:
Crash the economy
Lead us into unnecessary war
Cause social unrest to the point of unnecessary loss of life
Lead to runaway inflation
etc.
First, my beliefs are for the protection of life and personal
freedom. I don't see how those would lead us into unnecessary
war, not social unrest. However, society is constantly getting
worse and worse, so advocating for morals could be seen as
social unrest. But at the same time I don't advocate for safety
at the expense of lowering moral standards.
I don't have that much faith in my fellow man so, with that in mind, I would see that as messed up. I would find it difficult to be motivated to do anything if I knew I was going to die anyway.
You still didn't answer my question. What standard are you basing that
on?
He regretted making man -
Gen 6:6 The LORD was very sad that he had made man on the earth. His
Gen 8:21 Their smell was pleasant to the LORD. He said to
himself, "I will never put a curse on the ground again
because of man. I will not do it even though his heart is
always directed toward what is evil. His thoughts are evil
from the time he is young. I will never destroy all living
things again, as I have just done.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
I didn't say that your beliefs would. I am saying that someone who
shares your *religous beliefs* 100% might make a great *church* leader
but still be a very horrible choice as the leader of a *country*.
Which brings me back to my original point, people who vote *only* with their religious beliefs can cause a country a lot of problems if/when
they get what they want.
From what it sounds like, you are not one of those people, BTW.
MRO wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
By: jimmylogan to MRO on Tue Nov 04 2025 04:16 pm
He regretted making man -
Gen 6:6 The LORD was very sad that he had made man on the earth. His
just for further notice, if i see scripture i mash the space bar
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
Gen 8:21 Their smell was pleasant to the LORD. He said to
himself, "I will never put a curse on the ground again
because of man. I will not do it even though his heart is
always directed toward what is evil. His thoughts are evil
from the time he is young. I will never destroy all living
things again, as I have just done.
In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all
living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all
living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.
In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.
Exactly! But he didn't say he regretted it. That's the point
I was making. :-)
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
In Genisis 9:12-17, God amends this promise to never destroying all living things *by flood* again. This is also the section where the rainbow is first used as a sign of this covenant.
"all" things by "flood", sounds like His attorney wrote in some
loopholes... :)
Okay - let me be a little more direct. If someone 'supposedly' shares
your belief but you think they would ruin things, do they really
share your beliefs?
In other words, if someone shares your beliefs about transgender,
that there is only two genders, would you support them? Because
if you believe that's not positive for the country as a whole,
then do you really have that belief to begin with?
Arelor wrote to jimmylogan <=-
That is an easy answer. The fact I agree with somebody does not mean he
is apt for a position. I might support his ideas but think he is not a good candidate because he is incompetent.
Okay - so if two candidates are both competent and capable, would you
vote for the one that shares your beliefs or not?
Okay - so if two candidates are both competent and capable, would you
vote for the one that shares your beliefs or not?
Yeah, if there was such a thing as a competent and capable candidate who share
my ideas, I would endorse him before others.
| Sysop: | Glulayen |
|---|---|
| Location: | Santa Rosa, CA |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 126:39:16 |
| Calls: | 39 |
| Messages: | 8,875 |
