Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Discussions about politics and goings on around the world. (Please keep discussions civil!)
User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2302
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by edwardmurphy »

And I told you, Rick.

B.W. uses leftist, progressive, and liberal (as well as communist, socialist, Marxist, and fascist) interchangeably. He states that the intended consequence of "leftist" (meaning mainstream) media reporting and leftist (meaning progressive) political talking points is violence against conservatives. So actually I understated his case. He's not saying that progressives are rooting for violence, he's saying that they're working tirelessly to inspire violence.
Last edited by edwardmurphy on Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2302
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by edwardmurphy »

Good post, Phil, but Rick is right. Political violence is as old as politics. You even referenced an example when you mentioned that play. Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by men who feared his political power.

Here's a classic example:

Image

That's Representative Preston Brooks beating Senator Charles Sumner with a cane - on the floor of the Senate, no less. Brooks broke his cane, but lots of his constituents sent him new ones. Then they reelected him.
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by Philip »

Ed: Good post, Phil, but Rick is right. Political violence is as old as politics. You even referenced an example when you mentioned that play. Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by men who feared his political power.
My point is, that we've long had coarse political accusations in all manner of political arguments, but the atmosphere of rampate hate leading to violence, in America, while having occurred randomly, has rarely reached the divide and bitter hatreds of today. Yes, of course there's always been some of this - more at certain times than others - Civil War era, union violence, Vietnam violence, etc. But a huge difference is that now, many of "mainstream" influence in media, etc., are asserting that the cause is UNDERSTANDABLE - but by WHOM? What persons find violence acceptable because they don't like a certain brand of political speech or strong rhetoric? Sick, warped people filled with rage - THAT'S who! But instead of first denoucing the violence as unacceptable, various idiot pundits' FIRST focus is on their assertion that such violence is to be expected and "understandable." Instead of their first focus being that violence is JUST PLAIN WRONG, scary, divisive, and has horrific potential of growing. Then, sure, call people who are using language that is baiting and inaccurate, that is irresponsible, on their role in making things worse. But call people using such dangerous rhetoric - ALL of them - on the left, right, wherever. Don't just be selective in criticizing which side of the political spectrum it's coming from!

As for the play - based upon history - it's dangerous to invoke that while referencing a sitting president - anyone of common sense should realize, in the current atmosphere, with nutjobs all over, from whatever political leanings - it's simply irresponsible to put on such a play - particularly as that heavy-handed modern connection is the REAL draw of the play. So, the writers and producers care a lot more about manipulating such an irresponsible and dangerous thing, just to make money. Again, I'd say that if it targeted Hillary, Bill, Obama - doesn't matter. It's the very same poison!
User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2302
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by edwardmurphy »

And I still disagree about the play. To a sane person the message is that we should watch out for unintended consequences. They killed Caesar to save the Republic and it cost them the Republic. Oops. Sure, an insane person might take the assassination scene as a suggestion, but so what? Crazy people are crazy, so they're as likely to be inspired by an image they see in a sidewalk crack as by some play.

IMHO the biggest problem with the crazy rhetoric isn't that it might incite violence, it's that it makes it damned near impossible for anybody to ever cross party lines and make compromises for the good of the nation.
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by B. W. »

This is amusing and so sad that it is true...

Litmus Test.... to hold office...


-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by B. W. »

I know some folks do not agree with Hal Lindsey, but the first part of his 6-23-2017 show says it all as it relates to this thread's topic...

Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by B. W. »

Now this in the UK added to the anti-Christian laws in Canada along with the above videos...

Orthodox Jewish girls school faces closure for refusing to teach children about homosexuality

Will the same rules apply to Islamic areas in the UK governed by Sharia?

Such things the Post Modernist plan for the USA...

For those of who have worked in the Criminal Justice field dealing and managing sex offenders know that how sex offenders Groom for more and younger folks to exploit sexually. Now we see it in the LGBT where 3 percent of the population desires to groom entire nations in this endeavor.

Sorry if this offends you but got to say most people know nothing of sex offenders grooming people for future victims and to see it happening is another thing. But if the stats or correct, 1 percent out of the 3 percent of the LGBT community are sex offenders then maybe that 2 percent is being gamed as well. That is food for thought...

More photos are being illegally taken by perps in unisex dressing rooms against women and children than the news folks report.

Add to this the political violence of the leftist - Houston - we have a problem...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2302
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by edwardmurphy »

B. W. wrote:Litmus Test.... to hold office..
Nope, that's still a lie. Sanders was talking about a high-level government job, not elected office, and he didn't say jack about a litmus test. This is insincere, manufactured, political outrage.
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by Philip »

Ed: Nope, that's still a lie. Sanders was talking about a high-level government job, not elected office, and he didn't say jack about a litmus test. This is insincere, manufactured, political outrage.
EVERYTHING in Ed's quote above is untrue and a denial of what Sanders actually said (look at the outtake transcript at the bottom!). Really, Ed, I thought you were more objective than THAT!

Ed, you are in extremely deep denial on this one! Sanders - YES, his personal (STATED) "litmus test" and attack directly and ONLY referred to the guy's spiritual beliefs - a man who did not hold office, wasn't running for office at the time of what he wrote (and article in defense of his school's decision on firing a faculty member). And THE reason Sanders entire stated rationale for attacking the guy was that his spiritual beliefs made him unfit for office, because He doesn't believe non-Christians are saved. Just like Muslims don't believe Christians and Jews are acceptable to Allah. So, please tell me, if Bernie Boy is applying that reasoning to one Christian who was being considered for office, why wouldn't he apply that to every other Christian - as that is what our faith teaches? Why wouldn't Bernard pursue policies that excluded Christians on that same basis???!!! Because THAT is the basis for Sanders' objection to the guy. Note that Bernie didn't attack the guy's political beliefs, but only based the guy's supposed unfitness upon what He believed spiritually. Would he have raised this criteria for a Muslim???!!! Why would Bernie's take on ANY other Christian who believed only those with faith in Christ will be saved - why wouldn't he believe, they as well, are like-wise unfit???!!! What about Christianity, Jdudaism, and Islams' teachings about unbelievers - what each of those faiths consider to be unbelievers - especially as Sanders is an atheist - ALL three of those faiths teach unbelievers shall not inherit heaven. So, does Bernie also see Christians, Muslims and Jews as unfit for office? Otherwise, he's willing to go after people's spiritual beliefs, for his own political gain.

Note also, practicing/believing Christians, Jews and Muslims all have hope in a beautiful afterlife. Bernie believes there is no such afterlife. He believes ALL religious belief is utter foolishness. Is HE religiousphobic? Doesn't not his failure to acknowledge God offend millions across ALL faiths? If Sanders applied his one test to whom and what faith groups are offended by certain people in office, his own test would render him unsuitable - because HIS spiritual / lack of spiritual beliefs offends millions. What a phony! And what a dangerous guy! No one of any faith should vote for someone with such an attitude. But Christians - they're his first target. Other faiths - too un-PC to make parallel statements. So glad this guy showed his religious bigotry!

BTW, God loves ALL and invites ALL people everywhere to come into relationship with Him - He rejects NO one that does not ultimately reject Him!



Here's the exchange:


Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College . . .

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .


Sanders: I understand you are a Christian! But this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.
User avatar
edwardmurphy
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2302
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:45 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by edwardmurphy »

Phil this:

"Sanders was talking about a high-level government job, not elected office" is an objective fact.

There's nothing debatable about the statement. And repeatedly talking about Christians being unsuited, in Bernie's mind, to hold office strikes me as deliberately provocative and misleading. When we say "office" in the US we mean elected office, not deputy White House budget director. Whether or not you're suited to be the deputy White House budget director is up to the administration that does the nominating and the Senate that does the confirming, and every President and Senator has a bunch of litmus tests. Litmus tests to hold elected office are a completely different topic.
So, please tell me, if Bernie Boy is applying that reasoning to one Christian who was being considered for office, why wouldn't he apply that to every other Christian - as that is what our faith teaches?
Maybe he would. Maybe if he were the President he wouldn't nominate any Christians for his White House staff. Seems unlikely, but you never know.

It seems like if Sanders had a bias against Christians serving in Administration jobs it would have come up during the hearing process. Did he question any of Trump's other 103 nominees about their Christian beliefs? I doubt it, since the grievance collection branch of the conservative media hasn't mentioned it, but I don't know for sure. It would be informative to have that information, but this is a non-issue and I don't care enough to look it up.

Either way, so what?
Why wouldn't Bernard pursue policies that excluded Christians on that same basis???!!! Because THAT is the basis for Sanders' objection to the guy.
Again, we're talking about a White House staff position. As President he certainly could choose not to have any Christians on his staff, although there'd be massive backlash and it would be politically untenable. Also, since the vast majority of Americans, including progressives, are Christian it might be tough to find good non-Christian candidates. But so what?
Note that Bernie didn't attack the guy's political beliefs, but only based the guy's supposed unfitness upon what He believed spiritually. Would he have raised this criteria for a Muslim???!!!
I guess we'll find out when Trump nominates a Muslim for a role in his administration.

Oh, wait, no we won't because Trump will never do that because all Muslims will fail Trump's clear and obvious litmus test by being Muslims and therefore won't get nominated. So what? Trump wants to surround himself with rich old white guys and he has the right to try. Whether or not he succeeds is up to the Senate. Since the Republicans have the majority at the moment his odds are pretty good.

Maybe instead of wringing your hands about how one (Jewish, not atheist) liberal senator might want to exclude Christians from holding jobs in the administration you should feel thankful that it would be nearly impossible to do so. And while you're at it, you could take a second to consider the fact that it's being done to Muslims (and probably atheists - again, I don't care enough to check) right now and nobody cares.

Christians are not being persecuted in the United States and they never will be.
Why would Bernie's take on ANY other Christian who believed only those with faith in Christ will be saved - why wouldn't he believe, they as well, are like-wise unfit???!!!
He surely might, but he's responsible to his constituents, not to you. They elected him knowing that he has opinions like that, much like the good people of Texas elected Ted Cruz knowing that he was a demonically possessed wax figure. Of the people of Vermont want a more conservative senator they'll elect one, just like the people of Texas will elect a human if that's what they want. Meantime it is what it is.

So anyway, this is a non-issue.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by Kurieuo »

The irony in Sanders' statements is that Christians believe in an afterlife that there is hope for people to inherit everlasting life with an all-just, all-righteous and all-loving God, however with Atheism all are lost and doomed and ultimately all life ends up meaningless. At least one provides some hope and meaning.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
User avatar
Philip
Site Owner
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Leftist Propaganda has intended consequences:Shooting

Post by Philip »

Ed: Phil this: "Sanders was talking about a high-level government job, not elected office" is an objective fact.
It's the same issue, Ed! So, Bernie thinks no Christian should be qualified for a high-level government job? Based upon WHAT??? That is very dangerous - and no doubt, given the power to do so, he would enforce that belief upon all Christians seeking high offices - whether elected or appointed - doesn't matter. You are arguing some irrelevant technicality as to what type of office the guy was up for. What matters is we have a Senator, potential presidential contender that has exposed his religious bigotry - and very selectively, as he sure as heck wouldn't say this about other faiths. I have a MAJOR problem with anyone in government or judicially asserting a Christian's beliefs disqualify him or her for office - don't keep dodging the issue, Ed!
Ed: There's nothing debatable about the statement. And repeatedly talking about Christians being unsuited, in Bernie's mind, to hold office strikes me as deliberately provocative and misleading. When we say "office" in the US we mean elected office, not deputy White House budget director. Whether or not you're suited to be the deputy White House budget director is up to the administration that does the nominating and the Senate that does the confirming, and every President and Senator has a bunch of litmus tests. Litmus tests to hold elected office are a completely different topic.
Blah, blah, blah - so, you think Bernie's thinking is correct - that the guy's Christian beliefs should disqualify him??? And why would anyone believing this not apply that thinking to any office administrating people of other faiths? Would you disqualify a Muslim from holding ANY office - elected/appointed, because they don't believe Christians and Jews will share heaven with Allah? I sure as heck wouldn't - as long as I felt they would objectively and equally serve people of all faith types. Now, if there is a vote, depending upon the opponent, I may or may not vote for the Muslim. I voted for a Mormon - and I don't believe they are saved. What Bernie believes shows just how intolerant the radical left often is
!

Ed: It seems like if Sanders had a bias against Christians serving in Administration jobs it would have come up during the hearing process. Did he question any of Trump's other 103 nominees about their Christian beliefs? I doubt it, since the grievance collection branch of the conservative media hasn't mentioned it, but I don't know for sure. It would be informative to have that information, but this is a non-issue and I don't care enough to look it up.
It would not surprise me. But guess what - I take Bernie at what he said - and what he said was based upon a person's spiritual beliefs - but the coward wouldn't make that comment about Muslims, or Jews, or atheists who would be administrating over people of theist faiths - WOULD he???!!!
Ed: I guess we'll find out when Trump nominates a Muslim for a role in his administration.
Nice dodge - and switching mirrors on me. Even if Bernie PERSONALLY wouldn't want to nominate a Christian for whatever office, given he had enough non-theists to choose from, THAT wouldn't necessarily bother me nearly as much, because he'd just be going with his own preferences. But when one wants to apply LAW to such a decision, and say people of this or that faith are unqualified because of what they believe about eternity - THAT, I have a major problem with! He'd just love to stack courts with judges who start looking at those verbalizing or living out their Christian beliefs as hate speech. Again, he believes MY spiritual beliefs about eternity are insulting - but what about whatever theists about HIS unbelief. What a phony baloney!
Ed: Oh, wait, no we won't because Trump will never do that because all Muslims will fail Trump's clear and obvious litmus test by being Muslims and therefore won't get nominated. So what? Trump wants to surround himself with rich old white guys and he has the right to try. Whether or not he succeeds is up to the Senate. Since the Republicans have the majority at the moment his odds are pretty good.
Ed, you are the master as not staying on topic. We're not talking about Trump. But IF Trump were to say being a Muslim should automatically disqualify someone from ANY office, ONLY because of their spiritual beliefs - I would not like it. That's a dangerous path and viewpoint, from a legally applied standard. Because the same rights that protect Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and non-theists, protect everyone in our democracy. Deny one person of whatever faith their rights based upon their spiritual beliefs, then who is next?
Ed: Christians are not being persecuted in the United States and they never will be.
You're blind! While certainly not blatantly widespread, we can definitely see the seeds and intentions of many in politics and law, and various agenda-driven groups.
Philip: Why would Bernie's take on ANY other Christian who believed only those with faith in Christ will be saved - why wouldn't he believe, they as well, are like-wise unfit???!!!

Ed: He surely might, but he's responsible to his constituents, not to you. They elected him knowing that he has opinions like that, much like the good people of Texas elected Ted Cruz knowing that he was a demonically possessed wax figure. Of the people of Vermont want a more conservative senator they'll elect one, just like the people of Texas will elect a human if that's what they want. Meantime it is what it is.


But He is ALSO responsible to the CONSTITUTION and laws of the land - which are obviously very inconvenient for him. Course, he'd love to change them. Ed, that you think what Bernie thinks about denying someone their office due to their Christian spiritual beliefs about eternity isn't a big deal - don't even pretend to be tolerant of others' spiritual beliefs. I don't want anyone with such views about ANY person of ANY faith to be anywhere near high office. And that Bernie selectively applied his thinking - what a hypocrite he is!

As long as a person can and is willing to serve all of those under his or her office equally, and I think their actions and words show them to appear to be a good candidate, they should (and ARE) eligible, and I'd consider voting or installing them.

Note also that Bernie ignores that the potential appointee's spiritual beliefs are ALL-inclusive as to whom God finds acceptable - AS LONG AS they are willing to have faith in Christ. He also ignores that the guy specifically stated: "As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . ."
Post Reply