The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Chauvin. What say you?
33,870 Views |
535 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
No one here blamed you for that, quash. Time for you to forgive yourself and move on.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
I agree with much of what you say here and in other threads, but I just need to point out that you said "We'd just be helping someone financially as we do others without casting them away as sinners" thus repeating the straw man. I guess I didn't convince you of anything. And ironically, this is doing what you had criticized. I'll also say that if your reason is to help the gay couple financially, then you'll need to do the same for all the others in those scenarios I gave, otherwise you'll be challenged for your consistency and have to explain why a gay spouse is deserving of it but they aren't.sombear said:Yes, I agree with your last point. But I don't think we would be validating by paying benefits while still maintaining our Biblical view on marriage. We'd just be helping someone financially as we do others without casting them away as sinners. I emphasize again, though, that this is a very close call for me.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, you are supporting the whole "Baylor denies healthcare based on sin/sexuality" false narrative with your comment. That was one of the original strawman arguments being made, and you seem to be buying into this one. The reason the same sex "spouse" was denied benefits was not due to their sinning. If it were, how is it that BU will cover the same sex "married" employee, but not the "spouse"? Aren't both gay and in the same gay "marriage"? So Baylor will cover a sinning employee, but not the sinning spouse for the same sin? That doesn't make sense, does it?sombear said:Fair point, I just could not think of a better way to characterize one side of the argument other than "love." I totally understand that love can be tough, and I certainly did not mean to suggest the other side of the argument is not loving. I have no problem telling people I think the Bible is clear on homosexuality, and I think I can do that out of love. But I did not go straw man at all. To me, it is consistent, loving, and still sticking to the Bible to maintain the position that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, but still pay benefits to a gay spouse. Wright or wrong (I think wrong based on the law) our Supreme Court ruled gay marriage is a constitutional right. Should we suspend benefits as to a spouse who is cheating? Committing other sin? To take your argument to its logical end, we as Christians should be treating all sinners different and not providing benefits or anything else to them. The problem is, we are all sinners, and many of us are unrepentant sinners because we commit the same darn sins every day . . . . But again, I totally understand your position and do not think you are in any way being un-loving.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why is providing spousal benefits to same sex couples the "love side", exactly? Why is BU giving or not giving these benefits even an issue of loving or not loving one's neighbor? This is a false dilemma/dichotomy. It's the prime straw man in their argument, and despite your distaste for strawmen, you seem to have succumbed to a big one.sombear said:This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.Amy Pagitt said:
Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.
In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).
The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.
BU would similarly deny spousal benefits to an employee's girlfriend or boyfriend. As well as to one who claims multiple wives. If someone tried to claim their maid as their spouse in an effort to provide her much needed health insurance, then once she is discovered not to be his actual wife, BU would cancel it. Would then the "loving" position in all these scenarios be to disregard policy and/or principle, and extend coverage to all? Or to anyone else outside BU who asks, for that matter? Why would NOT giving all of them benefits be not loving, or less loving? What, exactly, makes this about love, and why would a same sex "spouse" deserve this love over all the others? I'm just not understanding. Can you explain?
If you can somehow rationalize this to be an issue of love, then it needs to be asked: is it really loving your neighbor if you validate their sin or delusion, or make them more comfortable in their sin? And what about love for God, which must be above all else? Aren't we to love God with everything, and love others only as ourselves, NOT as we do God? If you compromise what you believe to be true to God in order to "love" others, are you not loving them above God, or as God?
The refusal to cover is not based on what the other person is doing, its based on what covering them means BU is doing. BU sees covering them as an acknowledgement and validation of same sex "marriage" by recognizing the employee's same sex partner as a "spouse". This should not be a difficult concept to understand. Feeding a hungry person is good and loving no matter what sins they are committing, and Christians should do it. But if that hungry person will only receive the food after you've knelt to an idol and prayed to it to bless the food, should a Christian comply with the request? This is an extreme example, but you get my point: it's not YOUR sin of idol worship that is the reason for me not giving you food, it's what that is making ME do and how it would poorly represent myself as a Christian that is stopping me.
So, saying that the logical end to my argument is that we should treat sinners differently means you didn't understand my argument. Put simply, we should be loving others, but not more than we love God. And it is not truly loving someone if you are validating their sins or delusions. Do you agree?
Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
It seems you raised a topic and he addressed it in a way that didn't help your argument. You ran from it and are now accusing him of running.
Also, who knew James Earl Ray was black?
Oldbear83 said:
It's a bad idea to study only a 'Bible' you wrote yourself, to support your personal opinion.
You're always there, to throw shade without substance. You can do better than irrelevant, meaningless posts, right?
sombear said:My brother is a theologian and agrees with you. I agree there are arguments on both sides, but I have a hard time getting around the clear OT and NT references. And not just the negative references but the overall man, woman, how and why we are created, kids, marriage, etc. Buuuuut, I dispute your apparent definition of homophobic. Folks can think it is a Biblical sin but not dislike, fear, or discriminate against them.Porteroso said:I can at least appreciate your point of view. You are homophobic, but not actually hating on the homosexuals. That's a good distinction to make.sombear said:Fair point, I just could not think of a better way to characterize one side of the argument other than "love." I totally understand that love can be tough, and I certainly did not mean to suggest the other side of the argument is not loving. I have no problem telling people I think the Bible is clear on homosexuality, and I think I can do that out of love. But I did not go straw man at all. To me, it is consistent, loving, and still sticking to the Bible to maintain the position that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, but still pay benefits to a gay spouse. Wright or wrong (I think wrong based on the law) our Supreme Court ruled gay marriage is a constitutional right. Should we suspend benefits as to a spouse who is cheating? Committing other sin? To take your argument to its logical end, we as Christians should be treating all sinners different and not providing benefits or anything else to them. The problem is, we are all sinners, and many of us are unrepentant sinners because we commit the same darn sins every day . . . . But again, I totally understand your position and do not think you are in any way being un-loving.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why is providing spousal benefits to same sex couples the "love side", exactly? Why is BU giving or not giving these benefits even an issue of loving or not loving one's neighbor? This is a false dilemma/dichotomy. It's the prime straw man in their argument, and despite your distaste for strawmen, you seem to have succumbed to a big one.sombear said:This is my first post on this thread and haven't read every post. I venture to guess Amy and I disagree on most political issues. I also agree with those who slam strawmen and twitter arguments. The reason I remain off twitter is it's virtually all strawmen and bumper sticker arguments, on both sides. But, I think Amy and a few others on here raise what to me is one of the most vexing questions for Christians on political/cultural issues. That is, how do we reconcile taking firm positions on things we believe are wrong with the command to love our neighbors. It's not easy. On the conservative side, I'm sympathetic to those who argue that to the left, taking any firm position on a moral/cultural issue is "hate." On the liberal side, I understand the argument that sometime conservatives treat things like homosexuality as "super-sins." One of the issues I've always been more liberal on is gay rights. I supported civil unions before the Clintons and Obamas did. BU benefits for same-sex partners/spouses is a tough one. I probably lean to the love side and providing benefits while at the same time not changing BU's position on homosexuality. But I understand the other side. And I don't think it's helpful for Amy or anyone else on either side to so definitively call-out BU and the other side on a difficult issue where well-intentioned Christians can disagree. Y'all are guilty of exactly what you claim to abhor about this thread.Amy Pagitt said:
Nah, I didn't run away. I'm still here watching you guys do the same stuff you always do: pat yourselves on the back for "winning" an argument when all you actually did was respond in bad faith. You don't care to know my perspective, you don't know anything about me or how I formed my own ideas.
In law school, I learned to think about the policy implications for everything. To me, it's not enough to say "the Bible says this is wrong" and not go further to explore how we can live in the way Jesus taught us without compromising on our beliefs. It's not always easy or comfortable to sit and analyze an issue, but it's worth it (to me).
The Bible talks about homosexuality in a few places, but Jesus talks about looking out for the poor, speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves, and loving our neighbors a lot more. It makes me sad when the school I love so much misses the mark. Baylor of course has the right to continue to "other" gay students and employees, but the simple gesture of extending healthcare benefits even to the "unworthy" was an opportunity to love the "sinner" radically.
BU would similarly deny spousal benefits to an employee's girlfriend or boyfriend. As well as to one who claims multiple wives. If someone tried to claim their maid as their spouse in an effort to provide her much needed health insurance, then once she is discovered not to be his actual wife, BU would cancel it. Would then the "loving" position in all these scenarios be to disregard policy and/or principle, and extend coverage to all? Or to anyone else outside BU who asks, for that matter? Why would NOT giving all of them benefits be not loving, or less loving? What, exactly, makes this about love, and why would a same sex "spouse" deserve this love over all the others? I'm just not understanding. Can you explain?
If you can somehow rationalize this to be an issue of love, then it needs to be asked: is it really loving your neighbor if you validate their sin or delusion, or make them more comfortable in their sin? And what about love for God, which must be above all else? Aren't we to love God with everything, and love others only as ourselves, NOT as we do God? If you compromise what you believe to be true to God in order to "love" others, are you not loving them above God, or as God?
I do want to interject that all of this is an extreme watering down of the Bible. If you simply read it without your chosen denomination telling you what to think about it, you'll find that the authors often had conflicting ideas. Even the Gospels tell the story a little differently. Not just from different perspectives, they say different things. When we try to be literalists, when we go through the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize everything in the Bible to our tiny brains, we've put God in a box. We've told ourselves that the authors must have been able to perfectly understand everything they wrote about. I think the truth is different, that it's not so easy. We won't understand it all, the English, Hebrew, Greek languages aren't sufficient to tell it all to us, we just have a tiny nugget of truth, that pertains to us.
I say all of that, because many things in the Bible were sins in the beginning, and later they were not. Most of our 2021 lives would be considered sinful by most religious leaders of the Old Testament. And when it comes to sin, there is always a reason. We were told to not eat unclean meat, because there can be diseases. With better farming, better technology, it became safe and ok. We were told to reproduce as much as we can, when the survival of humanity was in jeopardy. We generally accept now, that it's ok to not have 12 kids in 2021. There was a reason for all of it. I think homosexuality is much the same way. It's hardly singled out in the NT at all. The Greek word can be interpreted as "homosexual assault," and is by some scholars, in reference to the Romans' male sex slaves they kept.
If the Bible is black and white, you're going to have a hard time, and miss the point. It was very black and white to the people that put Jesus on a cross. Jesus didn't just come to fulfill prophecy, he came to change our understanding of God. If you can accept that you might not know everything about God, and that you're not the final judge of all things, life gets easier. You can be free in that knowledge.
It doesn't normally play out that way. The same people who were up in arms against gay marriage now pretend to not discriminate. They can't have it both ways, though in any one of our own brains, we sure can.
Clearly referred to Malcolm X you internet goofus .quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
Not MLK.
That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
1. You ignore all my content-significant posts, then pretend they don't existPorteroso said:Oldbear83 said:
It's a bad idea to study only a 'Bible' you wrote yourself, to support your personal opinion.
You're always there, to throw shade without substance. You can do better than irrelevant, meaningless posts, right?
2 Everything you post on this board is content-free, at least for the last 3 months. Be careful you don't break your hypocrisy meter. P.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
If there is even a hung jury, this video should have a thread of its own. This lady made a terrible mistake , in my opinion. Crowd temperatures don't need to be raised any further, and I think she's pouring gasoline on the fire..A hung jury is a real possibility....and what happens then?Jack and DP said:
2nd. Meets the requirements. Second degree murder is generally defined as intentional murder that lacks premeditation, is intended to only cause bodily harm, and demonstrates an extreme indifference to human life. The exact legal definition of this crime will vary by jurisdiction.
He intended to dominate him physically, and inflict bodily pain upon him. That's why he extracted him from the back of the patrol car instead of taking him to the police station.
He intended to dominate him physically, and inflict bodily pain upon him. That's why he extracted him from the back of the patrol car instead of taking him to the police station.
Absolutely ...Trump got a pass daily .TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
In the media, talk shows, and social media .
Saved by the fact he was white male conservative .
She won't be impeached or even face any harsh criticism from the left, the media, biden admin, pelosi, schumer and you.TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
She'll get a pass+
Not from me. She needs to be held accountable for her actions, as should Trump. You can't excuse her and not excuse him.Rawhide said:She won't be impeached or even face any harsh criticism from the left, the media, biden admin, pelosi, schumer and you.TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
She'll get a pass+
You'r a good example of giving him a pass.Canon said:TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
TexasScientist said:You'r a good example of giving him a pass.Canon said:TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
The cult of personality is powerful.Canon said:TexasScientist said:You'r a good example of giving him a pass.Canon said:TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
TexasScientist said:The cult of personality is powerful.Canon said:TexasScientist said:You'r a good example of giving him a pass.Canon said:TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.
As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
Oldbear83 said:That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
I did confuse the two.
And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?quash said:Oldbear83 said:That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
I did confuse the two.
And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Differing view or opinion doesn't = hate. Calling out someone for who or what they are doesn't equate to hate. Go back to the dictionary you're trying to quote.Canon said:TexasScientist said:The cult of personality is powerful.Canon said:TexasScientist said:You'r a good example of giving him a pass.Canon said:TexasScientist said:Yep, the same reason Trump et al got a pass.Canada2017 said:Obviously.Canon said:Jack and DP said:
Incitement to insurrection right there.
Yet the old gal will get a pass......and we all know why .
Trump didn't get a pass. He just wasn't guilty.
The dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty. But this doesn't matter to you. Hate is powerful.
When others simply don't hate the people you hate, it doesn't mean all those other people worship who you hate. It just means they don't hate who you hate. Your hate blinds you to reason. Your hate inhibits your thinking. Your hate prevents you from reading words accurately and demands you read into them meanings not there.
As I said, the dictionary is a good example of why he wasn't guilty.
""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.Oldbear83 said:Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?quash said:Oldbear83 said:That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
I did confuse the two.
And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
And why use that phrase?quash said:""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.Oldbear83 said:Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?quash said:Oldbear83 said:That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
I did confuse the two.
And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
This is a thread about Chauvin.Oldbear83 said:And why use that phrase?quash said:""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.Oldbear83 said:Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?quash said:Oldbear83 said:That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
I did confuse the two.
And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Answer the question. Why did you choose that phrase when answering Canada, if you were not implying racism?quash said:This is a thread about Chauvin.Oldbear83 said:And why use that phrase?quash said:""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.Oldbear83 said:Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?quash said:Oldbear83 said:That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.quash said:Canada2017 said:Not true.quash said:Canada2017 said:I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.quash said:Canada2017 said:The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.robby44 said:
"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X
Ok.
Now back to that foot on his neck.
Now back to that double standard .
No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.
Now, back to the point.
But you have always excelled in lying .
For you its just a way to pass the time .
Year after meaningless year.
And you keep running. Shock.
MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.
You're a good Sassanach.
edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.
Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.
I did confuse the two.
And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier