MLK was a convicted felon.
Gandhi was a convicted felon. (sorry Mahatma, spell check failed me.)
Nelson Mandela was a convicted felon.
Maybe "convicted felon" isn't the impediment to high office some think it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Jesus was a convict, too. I guess Trump is like Gandhi, MLK, Mandela and Jesus.
Good Lord.
You understand the difference between the thief who was hanging on the cross because he was actually a criminal and Jesus, who had done no wrong, right?
In other words, it's not the conviction that means someone is good. It's their lives and what they did (or didn't do) to get convicted of something.
When you all do this kind of thing... it just makes people shake their heads.
THIS is why you come across as being a defender of Trump. In the context of this week, with the pervert king being actually convicted for actual crimes/misdeeds, when that pervert king has a long history of abuse, corruption and actual misdeeds... in THIS context, to say, "Sometimes, being convicted is like what happened with MLK and Gandhi..." to say that, is to suggest a defense for your leader you keep voting for and defending.
Words matter. Context matters.
"Jesus was a convict, too. I guess Trump is like Gandhi, MLK, Mandela and Jesus."
That's True. Good call. Although I'm not sure that they actually had felony as a class of crime back in the first century.
"You understand the difference between the thief who was hanging on the cross because he was actually a criminal and Jesus, who had done no wrong, right?"
Yes, yes I do. But I never mentioned him, as he's not relevant.
"In other words, it's not the conviction that means someone is good. It's their lives and what they did (or didn't do) to get convicted of something."
Well, that is your hunch.
"When you all do this kind of thing... it just makes people shake their heads."
Hopefully in amusement.
"THIS is why you come across as being a defender of Trump. In the context of this week, with the pervert king being actually convicted for actual crimes/misdeeds, when that pervert king has a long history of abuse, corruption and actual misdeeds... in THIS context, to say, "Sometimes, being convicted is like what happened with MLK and Gandhi..." to say that, is to suggest a defense for your leader you keep voting for and defending."
This is why you come across as an idiot who reads all sorts of things into what others say, and then argues against YOUR misinterpretation instead of what I actually said.
"Words matter. Context matters."
They do and it does. When you base your entire argument on what you think I really, secretly, meant because you've chosen to read all sorts of your biases, prejudices, and hatred into my post, it makes you look foolish because you've simply attacked one more straw man.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-always-been-criminal-opinion-1907733?utm_source=push_notification&utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=fullauto&utm=1717591399399
Dan
Note Dan's link states clearly it's someone's opinion. That someone is a Trump hater, too, but provides it as some kind of evidence of truth. This is what for Dan passes as "supporting" his claims. Finding someone who does no more than state the same opinion.
But let's say all in Dan's link is true. That still doesn't make the charges against Trump in these current show trials legitimate. If a hit man didn't murder the victim he's accused of killing, his history as a murderer doesn't justify falsely charging and convicting him for a murder he didn't commit. But Dan embraces grace, so lying about the hitman would be somehow an example of that.
A conviction only speaks to the charge for which one is found guilty. It has nothing to do with the convicted's life history, as that history doesn't stand as proof of guilt for the crime for which the person was guilty. Thus, "In other words, it's not the conviction that means someone is good." is a stupidly moot and irrelevant point, particularly since no one is making that case. All that matters is the New York Trabues perverted the legal system to charge and convict Trump. It proves the New York Trabues aren't "good" anymore than the Louisville Trabues are. They're evil. No one pervs like Dan pervs.
Dan has been clear that he believes that Trump should be convicted based on his previous "crimes", not necessarily for the actions alleged in this current trial. Which seems like a strange position for someone who claims to be interested in justice.
Dan has no case against Trump for anything other than that which we both have criticized often enough that I will not do so again. He cannot defend his position against Trump as president, for he never speaks of his policies and actions as president. Worse, he can't for the life of himself argue that his alternative picks are more worthy. Evil ignores truth and seeks to distract from it. This is Dan's MO...assuming he knows anything at all one can label as truth or fact. That's totally in doubt given his perverse history on the blogs.
Dan's a joke, and not the funny kind. His only value is to highlight what the worst of America looks like...to highlight what a false teacher looks like.
One of Dan's defenses of various DFL politicians is that they haven't been charged with anything, so they are therefore innocent. With Trump, he assumes that the lack of charges for things he personally believes should be illegal is that rich white guys don't get charged. So he starts off with a double standard. Then I have yet to see Dan actually accuse Trump of a specific act which violates as specific law. I know he whines about "not paying" people, but those are debts discharged through bankruptcy which is a completely legal things to do. It's much more about Dan wanting things to be illegal, which aren't.
RE Dan as a false teacher.
I've often wondered if propagating false information on one's blog qualifies one as a false teacher. It is clearly possible that someone could go to any random blog, read what is written, and be led into error through that "teaching". It seems like there should be a little caveat emptor when it's a blog by some random person with zero qualifications to teach. I'm not specifically talking about Dan, because there are plenty of blogs that are engaged in "teaching" to some degree or another.
"I've often wondered if propagating false information on one's blog qualifies one as a false teacher."
Yes. Yes it does. Why wouldn't it when it's doing the basic necessary for application of the label. No one could read it ever and it wouldn't change that fact.
I do agree that one must be discerning as heck with regard to what one reads on blogs or other social media...as well as corporate media. It is our individual responsibility to do our due diligence...at least as is necessary to determine one's sources are reliable. But even then, it doesn't hurt to make sure to the best of one's ability.
Where I have question is that most of what I see in scripture appears to be directed at people in actual teaching roles. I can't help but think that the repsponsibilites and warnings scripture talks about for pastors and similar roles applies to some rando on the internet pretending to know stuff. I do suspect that any of us that blogs would likely be held accountable for anything that led people astray. But I'm not sure if some uneducated, ignorant, rando qualifies as a teacher. I could be wrong, and I try to keep that in mind when I write, but I don't have a great answer.
After my mom died, one of my nieces was looking for answers online. She and I had a long talk about the pitfalls of googling a topic and treating everyone with a video with equal weight. This is actually why I've come full circle on denominations. I'm now convinced that for a pastor to have some ecclesiastical body behind them as a means to keep them in check or exercise discipline is not a bad thing. Obviously, some denominations are so far off the reservation that they need the same sort of thing, but I do think that some sort of framework is a good idea.
When one has been supplied with tons of information to explain the problems with that person's positions, yet that person nonetheless continues, without credible information to address those problems, that person is then a false teacher if that person continues perpetuating the same debunked and invalidated lies. That would be Dan in a nutshell. One can rightly call him a false teacher. I just call him a liar. Either works because both are true of him.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm pointing out that the internet has made the notion of what is a teacher harder to pin down.
It's easy to identify Osteen as a false teacher, he's in an official teaching position, he's clearly teaching falsehoods, and he's got a following of millions.
When it's some random idiot on a blog, it's harder because we don't really know if they are "teaching" anyone. We certainly don't know if there is fruit from their "teaching" or if people actually pay attention to what they say and believe it.
It's probably best to err on the side of caution.
Post a Comment