Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 7:00:00 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament?

Christians really should, particularly as where Christ's message conflicts with the refitted chunks of the talmud stuck on the front of the gospels somebody claiming our Lord and saviour as their moral guru should favour him over the alternative suggestions offered elsewhere in the bible.
Of course, alleged "christians" who don't know the sermon on the mount from a hole in the ground feel that anything Christ is supposed to have said is far less important than a few lines of Leviticus that seem to support some of their secular prejudices. Bit depressing, really.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 8:24:01 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case.
There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened?
I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either.


I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime.

To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 8:31:08 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?


I'm not sure a bombing would fit with the institutionalised luddism the Amish are notorious for? Running over a few moslems with a horse and buggy (or, depending on the sect, a tractor), or a drive by shooting with flintlocks would be a better fit for Amish terrorism...

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 8:35:16 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms.
It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone

I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine):
    quote:

    Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament.

I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence.
My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question.

I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament).


And every "fire and brimstone" style sermon I've heard is based more on the Book of Revelations.

quote:

However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament?


Nullified? No. But, Christ was a yuge game-changer. The rules changed, but not everything no longer applies.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 8:38:40 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?

I'm not sure a bombing would fit with the institutionalised luddism the Amish are notorious for? Running over a few moslems with a horse and buggy (or, depending on the sect, a tractor), or a drive by shooting with flintlocks would be a better fit for Amish terrorism...


Agreed, but it still can't be ruled out. I know Bama was trying to make a point to not just jump to conclusions (let's just ignore in this post that I hadn't jumped to any conclusions), but by his very example, he was jumping to a conclusion.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 8:56:04 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms.
It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone


I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine):
    quote:

    Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament.


I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence.

My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question.


I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament).

However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament?



My question is Which particular sects of christianity has nullified the OT???


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 9:09:27 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case.
There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened?
I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either.


I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime.

To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?


We can't assume it was anyone.
Your statements seem to implicate white people. Who else would be getting revenge for that totally unjustifiable shooting?
It sure wouldn't be BLM, she was white so they don't care. Maybe a bunch of Australians came over to get even? Any connections with that shooting are tenuous at best (at the present) and would be a terrible development. If white people start taking the law into their own
hands before a ruling is even out like BLM and Moslems civilization may be doomed.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 10:38:28 AM   
Wayward5oul


Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms.
It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone


I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine):
    quote:

    Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament.


I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence.

My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question.


I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament).

However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament?



My question is Which particular sects of christianity has nullified the OT???


None.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 10:44:37 AM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11235
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms.
It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone


I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine):
    quote:

    Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament.


I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence.

My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question.


I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament).

However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament?



My question is Which particular sects of christianity has nullified the OT???


None.



From Mathew:

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But you are far too stupid and insane to understand such simple words

_____________________________

Thought Criminal

(in reply to Wayward5oul)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 10:49:30 AM   
Greta75


Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline 		“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Yup, that's Jesus right there, contradicting the old testament and as I said, Jesus was trying to reform Christianity into something nicer and kinder.

Damn Muhammad came after Jesus and tries to say Jesus teachings isn't accurate and brought back the old testament in the form of his Quran.

Seriously, historically, sequence of events. I can't see how Islam was ever accepted as a nice religion ever.

We all gotta agree the old testament was horrible.

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 11:18:12 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline 		Ecclesiastes is quite nice: there's some good stuff in there.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 12:04:19 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case.
There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened?
I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either.

I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime.
To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?

We can't assume it was anyone.


What you don't get is that my only assumption, is that it was someone. I truly don't believe no one did it. I truly believe it happened. That is my only assumption.

quote:

Your statements seem to implicate white people. Who else would be getting revenge for that totally unjustifiable shooting?
It sure wouldn't be BLM, she was white so they don't care. Maybe a bunch of Australians came over to get even? Any connections with that shooting are tenuous at best (at the present) and would be a terrible development. If white people start taking the law into their own
hands before a ruling is even out like BLM and Moslems civilization may be doomed.


So, let's start over. This is the post where you seem to think I assumed the person that committed the crime was white (Post#146):
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Greta75
    Question is, who did the bombing? And over what motive?

    I did read an article that stated (don't recall which article I read off the Yahoo! News feed, so this may or may not be true) this mosque had a large number of Somali's in the congregation. Since the cop that shot the woman through the cruiser door was Somali, this might have something to do with why it was bombed.
    Again, that might all be hearsay, or it might be true. I don't know.


I read it off the Yahoo! News feed.
I acknowledge it may or may not be true.
I stated the article claimed there were a large number of Somali's in the congregation.
I showed how that information and that the cop was Somali might have something to do with the bombing. Notice: might have
I end acknowledging it could all be hearsay, or it could all be true, and that I didn't know.

Nowhere in there did I mention that it was a white person, that I assumed it was a white person, or that I was making the assumption that the article's claims were even accurate. I even fucking stated that the article's claims may or may not be true. TWICE!

Now, maybe you mistook what someone else said as something I said. I know that can happen. I've even done it. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is the case.

I know what I wrote. I know you're accusing me of things that I didn't state, nor imply. Based on those two things, I'm just going to assume you have mistaken what someone else wrote as coming from me.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 1:15:47 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case.
There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened?
I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either.

I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime.
To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?

We can't assume it was anyone.


What you don't get is that my only assumption, is that it was someone. I truly don't believe no one did it. I truly believe it happened. That is my only assumption.

quote:

Your statements seem to implicate white people. Who else would be getting revenge for that totally unjustifiable shooting?
It sure wouldn't be BLM, she was white so they don't care. Maybe a bunch of Australians came over to get even? Any connections with that shooting are tenuous at best (at the present) and would be a terrible development. If white people start taking the law into their own
hands before a ruling is even out like BLM and Moslems civilization may be doomed.


So, let's start over. This is the post where you seem to think I assumed the person that committed the crime was white (Post#146):
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Greta75
    Question is, who did the bombing? And over what motive?

    I did read an article that stated (don't recall which article I read off the Yahoo! News feed, so this may or may not be true) this mosque had a large number of Somali's in the congregation. Since the cop that shot the woman through the cruiser door was Somali, this might have something to do with why it was bombed.
    Again, that might all be hearsay, or it might be true. I don't know.


I read it off the Yahoo! News feed.
I acknowledge it may or may not be true.
I stated the article claimed there were a large number of Somali's in the congregation.
I showed how that information and that the cop was Somali might have something to do with the bombing. Notice: might have
I end acknowledging it could all be hearsay, or it could all be true, and that I didn't know.

Nowhere in there did I mention that it was a white person, that I assumed it was a white person, or that I was making the assumption that the article's claims were even accurate. I even fucking stated that the article's claims may or may not be true. TWICE!

Now, maybe you mistook what someone else said as something I said. I know that can happen. I've even done it. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is the case.

I know what I wrote. I know you're accusing me of things that I didn't state, nor imply. Based on those two things, I'm just going to assume you have mistaken what someone else wrote as coming from me.

Ok, np.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 4:15:35 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		FR
Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself.
Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack.

Racist? nah, not at all.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 4:24:42 PM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11235
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Racist? nah, not at all.


Islam isn't a race, idiot

It's a cult.

What are we supposed to condemn. How do you know it wasn't just an accident in vest-making class

_____________________________

Thought Criminal

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 4:37:08 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

Islam isn't a race, idiot

I made no mention of Islam, idiot. Please try to pay attention.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 4:53:24 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself.
Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack.

Racist? nah, not at all.

Again you don't read to well. I have repeatedly that I want to know who did it so we condemn the right people.
And it is treated as bad by your ilk because those horrible white people did it.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 4:54:35 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself.
Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack.

Racist? nah, not at all.

I disapprove of assuming it must be white people, when you have no proof.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/10/2017 8:20:09 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

And it is treated as bad by your ilk because those horrible white people did it.

That's where you are wrong, I have said nothing about who may or may not have done it, I have just mocked you for your rabid defense of white people, even though hardly anybody has blamed them, you continue to defend them oh so vociferously. Methinks perhaps the lady doth protest way too fucking much here. And I also mocked Bosco's obvious and pathetic attempt to justify the attack

You really need to pay far more attention here Bama, you are making an absolute idiot of yourself by making shit up.

But your blatant incompetence when it comes to following an online discussion is really fucking funny, so I thank you for that, and hereby officially award you the title of Chucklebunny.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota - 8/11/2017 9:30:01 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
FR
Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself.
Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack.
Racist? nah, not at all.


I was accused of assuming it was a white person, which I didn't do. I didn't assume the race of the bomber in any way shape or form. Nowhere have I stated there was no attack. In fact, I affirmed that I believe it did happen and that my only assumption of the bomber, was that it was someone.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.203