|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 24, 2019 21:44:17 GMT
“Easter worshippers”? Are you kidding me?!!!
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 25, 2019 0:49:06 GMT
Ben Shapiro is a moron and hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 1:49:40 GMT
1. Why would I, or anyone with half a brain watch any of the crapola vids that you post?
2. WHO TF is Ben Shapiro and what give his opinion any more worth than anyone else's?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Apr 25, 2019 6:52:50 GMT
1. Why would I, or anyone with half a brain watch any of the crapola vids that you post? 2. WHO TF is Ben Shapiro and what give his opinion any more worth than anyone else's? Shaprio is a popular conservative political commentator, writer, and lawyer known for his views on a wide range of topics, he has written ten books, is a violinist(hobby), and is also the cousin of 'Matilda' and 'Mrs. Doubtfire' actress Mara Wilson.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 25, 2019 6:57:23 GMT
Ben Shapiro is a moron and hypocrite. Those are literally two things he is not. That would be the left’s heroes Hillary and Obama.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Apr 25, 2019 7:07:13 GMT
Ben Shapiro is a moron and hypocrite. So what about the actual person in the video talking about/reacting to Shaprio, David Wood? Opinion on Shaprio also aside, what exactly are your thoughts on the matter itself?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Apr 25, 2019 7:09:40 GMT
Ben Shapiro is a moron and hypocrite. Those are literally two things he is not. That would the left’s heroes Hillary and Obama. Well whatever their response is I'm sure it will basically say that Hillary and Obama are saints who have never said or done anything questionable in their lifetimes and tie it all to Trump or something like that, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 25, 2019 7:23:46 GMT
The condolence messages from President Obama and Hillary were made before there was any confirmation of the terrorists who perpetrated the crimes. I was even still seeing articles implying that radical Buddhist monks were involved. This was a very good reason not to specifically call out anybody. The allegation about "Easter worshipers is ridiculous. Obama and Hillary simply used language in a more skilled way than President Trump and his uneducated followers appear to be capable of pulling off. "Easter worshipers" implicitly refers to Christians but also indicates what these Christians were engaged in doing. It conveys more meaning without adding redundant wording. So they should be criticized for their abilities to express themselves more elegantly than those rendering this criticism? This is being petty at best. The word "Easter" is used as an adjective in the the statements from President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It modifies the noun Once again hatred is being stoked here. Why not accept the sincere condolences for what they were, a sincere expression of sympathy? You don't have to like somebody to agree with them about something like this. Why always assume them to be enemies? But even if you do, Jesus said to love our enemies. I sure don't see much love in the replies given here. But why wasn't President Trump's tweet included in the discussion? He didn't use the word "Christians" or "Muslims" either, and yet I take his condolences as being sincere in spite of his mistake about the number killed. “Heartfelt condolences from the people of the United States to the people of Sri Lanka on the horrible terrorist attacks on churches and hotels that have killed at least 138 million people and badly injured 600 more. We stand ready to help!”
President Trump appears to have been equally guilty of what Hillary and Obama are being berated for....does he share their leftist agenda? This is hypocrisy in play in my opinion, but that is typical of ben Shapiro and those who think he has valid things to say.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 25, 2019 7:36:39 GMT
The condolence messages from President Obama and Hillary were made before there was any confirmation of the terrorists who perpetrated the crimes. I was even still seeing articles implying that radical Buddhist monks were involved. This was a very good reason not to specifically call out anybody. The allegation about "Easter worshipers is ridiculous. Obama and Hillary simply used language in a more skilled way than President Trump and his uneducated followers appear to be capable of pulling off. "Easter worshipers" implicitly refers to Christians but also indicates what these Christians were engaged in doing. It conveys more meaning without adding redundant wording. So they should be criticized for their abilities to express themselves more elegantly than those rendering this criticism? This is being petty at best. The word "Easter" is used as an adjective in the the statements from President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It modifies the noun Once again hatred is being stoked here. Why not accept the sincere condolences for what they were, a sincere expression of sympathy? You don't have to like somebody to agree with them about something like this. Why always assume them to be enemies? But even if you do, Jesus said to love our enemies. I sure don't see much love in the replies given here. But why wasn't President Trump's tweet included in the discussion? He didn't use the word "Christians" or "Muslims" either, and yet I take his condolences as being sincere in spite of his mistake about the number killed. “Heartfelt condolences from the people of the United States to the people of Sri Lanka on the horrible terrorist attacks on churches and hotels that have killed at least 138 million people and badly injured 600 more. We stand ready to help!” townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/04/23/why-hillary-clinton-and-barack-obama-tweeted-about-easter-worshippers-n2545189
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 25, 2019 7:40:35 GMT
1. Why would I, or anyone with half a brain watch any of the crapola vids that you post? 2. WHO TF is Ben Shapiro and what give his opinion any more worth than anyone else's? Shaprio is a popular conservative political commentator, writer, and lawyer known for his views on a wide range of topics, he has written ten books, is a violinist(hobby), and is also the cousin of 'Matilda' and 'Mrs. Doubtfire' actress Mara Wilson. Thanks for that. You neglected to mention why his opinion is worth more than any one else?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 25, 2019 7:42:41 GMT
The condolence messages from President Obama and Hillary were made before there was any confirmation of the terrorists who perpetrated the crimes. I was even still seeing articles implying that radical Buddhist monks were involved. This was a very good reason not to specifically call out anybody. The allegation about "Easter worshipers is ridiculous. Obama and Hillary simply used language in a more skilled way than President Trump and his uneducated followers appear to be capable of pulling off. "Easter worshipers" implicitly refers to Christians but also indicates what these Christians were engaged in doing. It conveys more meaning without adding redundant wording. So they should be criticized for their abilities to express themselves more elegantly than those rendering this criticism? This is being petty at best. The word "Easter" is used as an adjective in the the statements from President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It modifies the noun Once again hatred is being stoked here. Why not accept the sincere condolences for what they were, a sincere expression of sympathy? You don't have to like somebody to agree with them about something like this. Why always assume them to be enemies? But even if you do, Jesus said to love our enemies. I sure don't see much love in the replies given here. But why wasn't President Trump's tweet included in the discussion? He didn't use the word "Christians" or "Muslims" either, and yet I take his condolences as being sincere in spite of his mistake about the number killed. “Heartfelt condolences from the people of the United States to the people of Sri Lanka on the horrible terrorist attacks on churches and hotels that have killed at least 138 million people and badly injured 600 more. We stand ready to help!” townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/04/23/why-hillary-clinton-and-barack-obama-tweeted-about-easter-worshippers-n2545189 When people respond to me by just copying a link it usually means that they have no valid argument to make for themselves. The article in the link is just more distorted right-wing nonsense like that that Shapiro spouted, so what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 25, 2019 8:03:04 GMT
When people respond to me by just copying a link it usually means that they have no valid argument to make for themselves. The article in the link is just more distorted right-wing nonsense like that that Shapiro spouted, so what is your point? I knew you would just arrogantly dismiss that article. You’re a leftist you cannot help yourself. Uhh no. Christians do not worship Easter. Christians go to church to worship God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hence why we are called Christians. It is actually Obama and Clinton who are guilty of adding redundant wording. You are just like most of the other radical leftists willing to scoff at facts and twist things if it threatens to contradict your precious worldview.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 25, 2019 8:06:17 GMT
Ben Shapiro is a moron and hypocrite. He might be somewhat of a hypocrite, but he is most certainly not a moron. How is he a hypocrite?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 25, 2019 9:58:40 GMT
Did anyone, Hillary, Obama, Trump, etc. mention that the perpetrator of the mosque attack in New Zealand was doing it in the name of Christianity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2019 10:02:06 GMT
They were people worshipping, at Easter.
Therefore, they were Easter worshippers.
Why is that a problem for you 🤷
Those tweets are good messages of condolence and support... You would have to be a total bell-end with a fucked up agenda to find fault with them 🙄
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 25, 2019 10:29:12 GMT
They were people worshipping, at Easter. Therefore, they were Easter worshippers. Why is that a problem for you 🤷 THAT part of it, at least seems a silly quibble.
The degree to which, and how. the world at large calls out specific religions as the basis for terrorism isn't a quibble. But I think it needs to be done diplomatically. Given that ~1/4 the worlds population is Muslim, that means there are 1.75 billion Muslims. Clearly they ALL aren't out committing terrorism. In fact, that means there are probably well over 1.7 billion who are living peacefully. Clearly Islam has its radical elements just like Christians have their radical elements. The background of [one of] the perpetrators in the mosque attacks in New Zealand makes it clear he was doing it on behalf of Christians/Christianity. Yet I wouldn't hold Christians or Christianity in general as responsible for that attack. AFAIK, no public official specifically names Christianity or Christians in condemning those who attacked the mosques.
The problem I see with the Shapiros of the world...wishing to call out Islam and Muslims specifically is that I don't see how it helps anything. For me, anyways, I think it all comes down to how can the rest of the world support and encourage the moderate and peaceful Muslims? Maybe it's by clearly identifying when some terrorists are doing it in the name of Islam. I don't know for sure. But I'm guessing that those who respond like Hillary and Obama aren't doing it JUST to irritate Christians and protect radical Muslims, but rather it's because they are trying to minimize the importance of the Islam religion in these terrorists attacks vs the fact that there are radical elements of all worldviews...Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. As I have said elsewhere, naming Islam in these extremists attacks only lends strength to THEIR cause...the cause of the radical Islamic terrorists...they WANT to be seen as radical...radical in their fight for their version of God. The other Muslims would probably rather NOT be associated with these terrorists attacks so are chagrined when it is pointed out that these extremists are doing it "in the name of God." So I don't see it as hypocrisy but at trying to be diplomatic. At worst it might be a mistake, but best it might be a better approach than the approach Shapiro and the dude hosting the video.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 25, 2019 12:16:35 GMT
They were people worshipping, at Easter. Therefore, they were Easter worshippers. Why is that a problem for you 🤷 THAT part of it, at least seems a silly quibble.
The degree to which, and how. the world at large calls out specific religions as the basis for terrorism isn't a quibble. But I think it needs to be done diplomatically. Given that ~1/4 the worlds population is Muslim, that means there are 1.75 billion Muslims. Clearly they ALL aren't out committing terrorism. In fact, that means there are probably well over 1.7 billion who are living peacefully. Clearly Islam has its radical elements just like Christians have their radical elements. The background of [one of] the perpetrators in the mosque attacks in New Zealand makes it clear he was doing it on behalf of Christians/Christianity. Yet I wouldn't hold Christians or Christianity in general as responsible for that attack. AFAIK, no public official specifically names Christianity or Christians in condemning those who attacked the mosques.
The problem I see with the Shapiros of the world...wishing to call out Islam and Muslims specifically is that I don't see how it helps anything. For me, anyways, I think it all comes down to how can the rest of the world support and encourage the moderate and peaceful Muslims? Maybe it's by clearly identifying when some terrorists are doing it in the name of Islam. I don't know for sure. But I'm guessing that those who respond like Hillary and Obama aren't doing it JUST to irritate Christians and protect radical Muslims, but rather it's because they are trying to minimize the importance of the Islam religion in these terrorists attacks vs the fact that there are radical elements of all worldviews...Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. As I have said elsewhere, naming Islam in these extremists attacks only lends strength to THEIR cause...the cause of the radical Islamic terrorists...they WANT to be seen as radical...radical in their fight for their version of God. The other Muslims would probably rather NOT be associated with these terrorists attacks so are chagrined when it is pointed out that these extremists are doing it "in the name of God." So I don't see it as hypocrisy but at trying to be diplomatic. At worst it might be a mistake, but best it might be a better approach than the approach Shapiro and the dude hosting the video.
LOL
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Apr 25, 2019 12:34:22 GMT
Better to jerk off about the left instead of feeling sad for the people killed.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 25, 2019 12:50:16 GMT
Better to jerk off about the left instead of feeling sad for the people killed.
Yeah because calling out the left’s clear hypocrisy means one doesn’t give a shit about the people killed. Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 25, 2019 13:52:40 GMT
THAT part of it, at least seems a silly quibble.
The degree to which, and how. the world at large calls out specific religions as the basis for terrorism isn't a quibble. But I think it needs to be done diplomatically. Given that ~1/4 the worlds population is Muslim, that means there are 1.75 billion Muslims. Clearly they ALL aren't out committing terrorism. In fact, that means there are probably well over 1.7 billion who are living peacefully. Clearly Islam has its radical elements just like Christians have their radical elements. The background of [one of] the perpetrators in the mosque attacks in New Zealand makes it clear he was doing it on behalf of Christians/Christianity. Yet I wouldn't hold Christians or Christianity in general as responsible for that attack. AFAIK, no public official specifically names Christianity or Christians in condemning those who attacked the mosques.
The problem I see with the Shapiros of the world...wishing to call out Islam and Muslims specifically is that I don't see how it helps anything. For me, anyways, I think it all comes down to how can the rest of the world support and encourage the moderate and peaceful Muslims? Maybe it's by clearly identifying when some terrorists are doing it in the name of Islam. I don't know for sure. But I'm guessing that those who respond like Hillary and Obama aren't doing it JUST to irritate Christians and protect radical Muslims, but rather it's because they are trying to minimize the importance of the Islam religion in these terrorists attacks vs the fact that there are radical elements of all worldviews...Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. As I have said elsewhere, naming Islam in these extremists attacks only lends strength to THEIR cause...the cause of the radical Islamic terrorists...they WANT to be seen as radical...radical in their fight for their version of God. The other Muslims would probably rather NOT be associated with these terrorists attacks so are chagrined when it is pointed out that these extremists are doing it "in the name of God." So I don't see it as hypocrisy but at trying to be diplomatic. At worst it might be a mistake, but best it might be a better approach than the approach Shapiro and the dude hosting the video.
LOL Yes, to you it's a big joke...LOL. But would you have been comfortable if they had called the mosque attackers as extremists for Christianity?
|
|