https://x.com/robschneider/status/2083417007878230245?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The DEMOCRATS’ PLAN is THIS: Make AMERICAN LIVES so INTOLERABLE so WE will GIVE UP ALL of OUR GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to end the CHAOS. THIS is why we have the 2nd Amendment. When they come, they will quickly learn that WE PATRIOTS have WITH US; The Army, Marines, Navy, National Guard, Air Force, Police and Fire Departments. They have the purple haired people with body dysphoria and body odor."
https://x.com/badhombre/status/2083586051369480344?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Let’s take it from the top again. Here’s the Democrat lineup going into the midterms: - A diagnosed-bipolar Asian chick with a history of self-harm who’s been institutionalized in a psychiatric ward and overdosed on lithium, and wants to get rid of Thanksgiving. - A guy who plays with a Dr. Fauci doll, proclaims his “love for trans kids,” and met his girlfriend at a gay bar. - A guy who dresses up as a mechanic for fun, married his cousin, and knocked her up twice. - A guy who frequents events where participants get pissed on in a kiddie pool while wearing assless chaps, whose claim to fame is lowering the age of consent for men to have sex with boys as young as 12, decriminalizing knowingly infecting others with AIDS, and supports allowing convicted pedophiles to run for school board. - A Haitian chick who thinks the United States is a “f*cking disgrace,” wants to abolish borders, law enforcement, and prisons. - A Muslim guy who believes the U.S. deserved 9/11, is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, and whose wife and father-in-law have terrorist connections."
https://x.com/americandebunk/status/2083329625313124654?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"NEW: David Sacks walks us through the logical endgame of Mamdani’s discounted grocery stores and calls out the ID irony Sacks: “When people go to these stores when they first open and the shelves are full — yeah, people will be delighted. And then over time what’s going to happen is that the store shelves will be empty, it’s going to be incompetently run, and there’s going to be a lot of complaints about it. Then all the free-market stores are going to have to compete with this, they may get put out of business, and then you have fewer choices. It is ironic that they’re going to be checking ID to make sure people aren’t going over from Jersey. But if you want to come over illegally from any country in the world, then that’s just fine.” Jason: “They found a use for ID. By the way, after you get your groceries you have to hide your ID to vote. Shred your ID when you go vote after you pick out your milk. They found a use for IDs.”"
"One of Ayn Rand's very best observations, which has aged like fine wine: "Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.""
40 comments:
I wonder just what the establishment Dems are thinking about the incursion of marxists in their ranks. Do they think it will help them in some way, perhaps by scaring the Dem voters to get to the polls to support them? I don't see how they'd reckon that given the outpouring of support by the stupid, from whom their support has always come, for the marxists. So it's a matter of how many stupid people are left to vote for them as the incredibly stupid see the marxists as providing (they don't really provide anything the stupid thinks they will) what the establishment only pretended to provide.
If those like Bill Maher are going to rein in the incredibly stupid from supporting the total marxists, I think he's doing to have to focus their attention on how much suffering what they're supporting has always brought about. But at best, they'll only go back to the OG leftists who were pushing the nation in that direction more slowly.
I’m beginning to think that the moderate democrats are like the moderate Muslims, they’ll sit quietly by while these socialists take over their party and destroy it.
It might drive turnout, but it doesn’t seem like the DSA voters will support DFL candidates across the board. Given the differences between what the DSA wants as opposed to the DFL.
The problem is that the DFL leadership seems to welcome these morons because it makes them look good. Unfortunately the first event in any revolution is where the revolutionaries get rid of the useful idiots that got them in power.
It’s too bad Dan isn’t an establishment/mainstream DFL voter, or he could tell us. It seems likely that he’s on the DSA train. C
"... but it doesn’t seem like the DSA voters will support DFL candidates across the board."
Actually, I was referring to the more traditional DFL voters who are aghast at what the "progressives" are demanding. Perhaps they will be spurred to show up to vote in greater numbers to deny the DSA buffoons. Probably a fantasy on my part, given how few turned out to put someone other than Mandami in office or Chicago's mayor. This of course doesn't excuse low GOP turnout, but in cities where they're vastly outnumbered, such as Chgo or NYC, it's all on the lefties.
I think that goes both ways to some degree. The DSA extremists will probably have more impact in the primaries, but in the general I think that the less insane DFL voters will play more of a role. Hopefully the base will turn out for the primaries and shut off the idiocy soon.
I do want the whack job with mental health and racism issues to win the WI primary. It'll be hilarious to see her running against someone sane.
We'll likely get a better idea of just how insane the DFL voters are!
Again not even really looking at this post but it makes me wonder what you would think of John Piper's views on wealth as he talks about it here. ..
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-rich-christians-downgrade-their-lifestyle
I'd love to hear you address this sort of thing. At some point.
Dan
Craig...
"It’s too bad Dan isn’t an establishment/mainstream DFL voter, or he could tell us. It seems likely that he’s on the DSA train."
You're right about one thing, I'm not a mainstream democrat. Nor am I a moderate as it is mostly defined today. I am a progressive and I join with the majority of the United States, including many conservatives, who are worried about the ultra wealthy abusing their privilege at the cost of mom and pop stores, the environment, our local streams, the poor, and marginalized.
I'm also a practicalist and I recognize that U.S. citizenry is on a spectrum when it comes to all the policy matters. There is a full third of the nation that is willing to vote for people like the ones in this current administration, in spite of the corruption and abuses and the misogyny and the xenophobia. These people are supporting policies that are harming wide swaths of our nation and our better ideals. I'm not sure what we can do with that group but overwhelm them with numbers and basic decency and keep making the common sense arguments for our positions.
But as to the remaining two-thirds of the nation, give or take, the Democrats' main advantage has been that it is a big-tent party. At our best, we recognize that there is a range of views on how best to set up just and rational economic and policy decisions, and we're not all going to agree.
And so I will support those people who promote policies that promote health and well-being and the common wealth. If they have policies that I think are harmful, it will have to be in comparison to the more conservative ones running against them. If Democrat candidate A is promoting ten policies that promote health and well-being and two policies that I find to be problematic and maybe even harmful to some degree, while Republican candidate B is promoting ten policies that I think are actively harmful and undermining a free republic, then I will have to vote for candidate A. This is common sense. With a caveat that I cannot/will not vote for any candidate who is likely a sexual predator or overtly corrupt or who is an abuser of women or children.
Because, of course. We have to have some basic level of integrity and decency in our politicians. If someone presents as being severely lacking in integrity or decency, I will not, luckily, vote for them.
Since you invoked my name. ..
Dan
What a strange and bizarre comment. You acknowledge that you haven't and don't plan to interact with the post at all. Then throw in some random John Piper link as if it makes a point that is even remotely connected with the post.
I'll take a look at it at some point, but based solely on the information in the link I have several immediate thoughts.
1. John Piper is not perfect, not even close. He is one fallible, sinful, man who has good things to say and bad things to say.
2. I suspect that you somehow cherry picked one thing from Piper that you agree with and would vehemently disagree with him on many other issues.
3. Who is Piper (or you) to a) objectively define what rich is and b) tell all Christians in all circumstances what they should do with their resources?
4. Given the fact that the majority of human beings in the US are rich by global standards, this is aimed at you just as much as anyone else. Are you doing or will you do what he says?
5. This seems to be Piper giving his opinion on what should be a matter of Christian liberty and individual conviction.
6. I'd be shocked if Piper was suggesting that this lifestyle change should come from increased taxes and government spending.
7. I am all for people with wealth choosing to live a lifestyle consistent with their faith, their convictions, and their freedom. I would hope that "rich Christians" would be generous with what YHWH has entrusted to them, and acknowledge that everything is YHWH's and that they are only stewards of their resources.
8. Piper is welcome to his opinions on what other people should do with their wealth. Piper is also (almost certainly) "rich" by almost any measure. It'd be interesting to see how he actually lives.
I'd love to hear you address the DSA takeover of the DFL and your thoughts on their platform, and on Momdani's policies.
As a point of fact, democratic socialists have not taken over the Democratic Party. Instead they represent a portion of the Democratic voting bloc and, rightfully, should be considered in the mix. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?
I'll take a look at some of their planks and let you know. Myself I've always been most closely aligned with Green Party positions but I bet I find a whole lot of common ground with the Democrat-Socialists.
I disagree with the language of the idea of defunding police. Reforming police and recognizing that police reforms have not worked well for the poor and marginalized in the past are both something to keep in mind. Still the people who actually live in the poor communities I'm connected with and live in don't want to see the police go away. They just want them to behave better. They want mental health support when it's appropriate instead of a police response and beatings. This is reasonable, wouldn't you agree?
Do you have a specific policy position that you find problematic?
Dan
OK, I read the piece and it didn't change my initial impression. To be fair, I've met Piper and have read and listened to a fair amount of his output so I was reasonably confident that my initial conclusion would be close.
I agree that the Biblical warnings he mentions are in Scripture and should be heeded, yet none of those warnings forbid wealth, they're literally warnings abut the potential dangers of wealth.
"My position is this: without specifying what measure of wealth is destructive to the soul or to our witness, the New Testament relentlessly pushes us toward simplicity and economy for the sake of the gospel and away from luxury and affluence."
I don't disagree with his conclusion because he rightly stays away from trying to establish a limit, and from suggesting that this "push" come from taxes levied by the government. Further, I see a distinction being drawn between wealth and "luxury and affluence". I would argue that a Christian billionaire who's wealth is primarily in businesses or enterprises that employ people and which provide things that people value or need, (assuming honesty, and ethics in their business) yet lives relatively "simply" and engages in voluntary "charity" would be perfectly capable of making decisions about what level of lifestyle is consistent with their Christian faith. Furthermore, don't see how an outsider questioning that faith is anything but envy.
Finally, some problems.
1. Expecting non-Christians to be held to the same standard as Christians is stupid.
2. You have absolutely zero clue regarding what a "rich" person does with their money or what their faith life is like. It's none of your business.
3. It seems like the root motivation is that the "non rich (who are rich)" are convinced that they know better what to do with someone else's money than the person who earned the money. Which seems like simple envy, with a bit of greed thrown in.
4. There is a tendency of some/many to impose limits on wealth using the government to do so. Yet Piper seems pretty clear that he is talking about individual Christians making voluntary choices regarding what to do with their wealth.
Let's consider a hypothetical.
A Christian starts a business which becomes incredibly successful. This business has a reputation for fair dealing, ethics, integrity, and philanthropy (among other things). The business eventually makes the founder "rich". His stake in the business is valued at a billion dollars. Further, let's say that this business directly employs 200,000 people, indirectly employs 200,000 more, and those employees support another similar number of people. These employees are paid appropriately, treated well, and have access to equity in the company (which might make some of them "rich" as well). Further, these direct and indirect employees pay taxes, spend money and generally have a significant economic impact.
In that hypothetical, what is the appropriate level of lifestyle for the owner as a Christian? For the sake of the hypothetical, let's say that he gives away a minimum of 10% of his income.
For example, is to better to purchase a vacation home in a place that you and your family love to spend time, or to rent there on 1-3 times per year? Better to buy one high quality vehicle which will last for while with fewer repairs, or a series of inexpensive/disposable beaters?
My point here is that you seem to be suggesting that there are Biblical rules or principles which the "rich" must live by in order to maintain their Christian faith?
As you are in the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the world, are you setting the example you seem to expect others to live by?
FYI, according to what is publicly available, Piper is probably worth between $5-10 million.
"As a point of fact, democratic socialists have not taken over the Democratic Party."
Yet, and they may not. The problem is that the leadership of the DFL is encouraging and supporting these candidates who are quite clear about what they plan to accomplish.
I've posted multiple examples of their platform, and information about the candidates, in their own words. But posting their won words probably isn't enough for you.
The problem with "de funding police" language, is that the language actually being used is to "abolish" the police. They want to "abolish" police, "abolish" prisons, "abolish" the Senate and presidency, no merely reform them.
"Do you have a specific policy position that you find problematic?"
Other than the ones I've done multiple posts about, no.
But you'd have to read AND understand to have figured that out.
"I'm not a mainstream democrat."
What a bizarre way to respond. You acknowledge that I am correct, then you launch into a rant. Strangely enough, you don't seem to concerned about the "ultra wealthy" State putting "mom and pop grocery stores out of business". I could be wrong, but putting small business owners out of business through unfair practices would be something you'd oppose no matter who was doing it.
A 5 paragraph rant, with virtually nothing new or that anyone couldn't have predicted, because I was right about something.
Yet something like 70% of DFL voters and 85% of all voters support ID to vote, and y'all are fighting that tooth and nail. Maybe the tent isn't as big as y'all thought.
To think that the ABC folx are willing to share space in the big tent with Muslims who want them killed seems strange.
I suspect that's what happens when everything is looked at through the lens of what group people are in, and assumptions are made based on generalizations of the group.
I am quite sure that you'll be a big fan of much of the DSA platform, and that you'll support them and the DFL as their platform planks become the "mainstream DFL" positions.
Since you asked: Looking at Mamdani's specific planks/positions/policy goals, we see these:
Housing and Affordability
A good start. We all know that the whole US is in need of affordable housing. It's a reasonable goal.
Block by Block Plan: A major housing strategy targeting high-cost and resource-rich neighborhoods for development.
Public Housing Investment: Committing billions to build and preserve publicly subsidized affordable housing.
Tenant Protections: Strengthening enforcement against abusive landlords and expanding tenant support programs.
Construction Standards: Enforcing a $40 per hour minimum wage and benefit standard for construction workers on city-backed projects.
Transportation and Transit:
Fare-Free Buses: Permanently eliminating fares on select or all local bus routes to boost ridership and speed up commutes.
Priority Bus Lanes: Expanding dedicated transit lanes to reduce delays across the five boroughs.
Public Services and Governance
Public Groceries: Launching pilot city-owned grocery stores to combat food deserts and lower food costs.
Community Safety: Creating alternative response models for mental health crises to redirect certain non-violent calls away from the police department.
Small Business Support: Appointing dedicated municipal officials to cut red tape for local shop owners
On the face of it, I have no ethical or governmental problems with these goals and ideas. As always, the devil's in the details and making these things happen effectively without unforeseen negative consequences, that's the problem. That's one of the concerns that I have for Democratic Socialist policies - they may sound great, but what are the unforeseen consequences. Which is, of course, the same concern I have for more "free market" capitalist approaches.
For instance, that last policy: In the real world, we DO have food deserts where the poor and marginalized don't have access to good food products. This can and does result in poorer health and more expenses for those who can least afford it. We have food deserts in large part because that's a predictable result of capitalist "solutions." It might be harder to make a free market grocery store work in such locations and so, the free market gives up. Or, perhaps worse, they replace healthy groceries with cheap "convenience" stores with bad and unhealthy products.
In other words, fixing the food deserts problem is not an easy solution. Capitalism has failed to fix it, at best, and made it worse, at worst.
This report has the right of it:
In the end, for any sort of large scale change to occur, a combination of solutions need to be implemented. The food system needs to shift from an emphasis on profit, to an emphasis on the environment, nutrition, and worker rights.
https://latinolosangelesblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/24/how-capitalism-plays-a-role-in-food-deserts-and-what-can-be-done-to-diminish-those-effects/
And moving away from an emphasis on profit is antithetical to the capitalist free market solution and part of the problem. Will Mamdani's approach work? It will depend upon implementation. But these are not evil or godless or unreasonable goals he has.
Do you disagree?
Craig offered double bigotry, saying:
To think that the ABC folx are willing to share space in the big tent with Muslims who want them killed seems strange.
Don't be daft. LGBTQ people (who you choose to mock, here, and wonder why they don't vote for your charlatans and abusers) aren't stupid or unaware of the world around them. And Muslims here in the US are not any more likely than Christians here in the US to "want LGBTQ people killed."
Bigotry and ignorance always will undermine any arguments you make and cause you to lose before you begin.
Move on. Ignorance is not a compelling data point.
I didn't, but what I do or say rarely has any affect on what you do or say.
Well, you've listed some talking points, but no details. As I've covered the rent control idiocy, the number of units that sit vacant due to rent control combined with city regulations, and a city employee who thinks that the government should be able to simply appropriate housing, one might consider those details before automatically cheering vague bullet points that you copy pasted.
For example, what does the data tell us is the best way to achieve "affordable housing"? What does the data tell us about the state of public housing in NYC? (FYI, I've posted on both of those topics recently)
Ohhhhhhhhh, free buses, that'll fix things.
I've posted extensively on both the idiotic business model of the publicly owned grocery stores, the economic realities of this absurd and unsustainable model, and the abject failure of public grocery stores in other cities. FYI, the abject failure of public grocery stores in dark blue Kansas City actually made the "food desert" worse because they ran other stores out of business. Of course the ID requirement to shop at these paradises, is freaking hilarious.
More vague, non specific bullet points. Not actual policies.
As far as the whole "food desert" subject. Let's consider one of the reasons stores fail or close in urban areas. Retail theft has become an increasing problem across the country and is forcing store chains to close stores. Hell, CA virtually legalized theft of anything under $900 from retail stores.
"Will Mamdani's approach work?"
Long term, not a chance in hell. The NYC budget is already unsustainable, and Mamdani's policies are driving away the wealthy who pay the most in taxes already. They've forced the state if NY to foot the bill so that Mamdani can pretend that the budget is balanced. These policies will increase the number of empty apartments taken out of the rental market, driving up prices for those that remain. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Grocery stores profit margins are around 3%, it's insane to pretend like the small margins are the problem.
Not necessarily "evil or unreasonable", yet harmful and destructive all the same.
Making it impossible for landlords to price their rental properties at a rate high enough to cover their expenses is simply insane. The notion that NYC can magically conjure up billions of dollars to update all of these units after they confiscate the buildings from the landlords (driving down property values AND property tax revenue) is unsustainable as well. More like stupid, idealistic, and detached from reality.
"Do you disagree?"
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know the answer to this.
I'm not "mocking anything", I'm tired of the increasing number of letters and symbols being added to the chain, and I've chosen to simplify.
I just posted a piece by an LG gentleman who strongly disagrees with your Pollyannaish fantasy, but why pay attention to him when you have yourself.
Given the fact that I have heard precisely zero Christians claiming that Christianity demands that ABC folx should be killed, the answer to your question (an absurd question, based on a false premise) is that it is absolutely more likely that Muslims think that the ABC folx should be killed.
Coming from someone who regularly argues from ignorance, that is hilarious. The fact that Islam kills ABC folx regularly is not in dispute. Perhaps you forgot the whole Pulse nightclub shooting, or the recent deadly attack at a pride parade in Germany.
I've never found your ignorance to be compelling, yet you regularly display it.
Craig, ignoring reality, said:
Given the fact that I have heard precisely zero Christians claiming that Christianity demands that ABC folx should be killed, the answer to your question (an absurd question, based on a false premise) is that it is absolutely more likely that Muslims think that the ABC folx should be killed.
I don't know, perhaps it's because you're surrounded by bigots repeating bigoted talking points, but of course, Muslims in the US have faced persecution, attacks and killings.
the most current hate crime statistics have documented hundreds of attacks including arsons at mosques, assaults, shootings and threats of violence - since the beginning of 2015 and the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that hate crimes against Muslims increased to 481 in 2016...
2023: Wadea Al-Fayoume, a six-year-old Muslim boy, is stabbed 26 times in his home in Illinois in an anti-Muslim attack. His mother was also stabbed multiple times, though she survived the attack.
https://naacp.org/resources/hate-crimes-against-muslims
https://www.csis.org/analysis/jihadist-terrorism-united-states
Dozens of Muslims have been killed in targeted, ideologically motivated, or bias-related attacks in the United States over the last two decades. While the federal government tracks thousands of anti-Muslim hate crimes involving intimidation and assault, deadly incidents often draw international attention to Islamophobia and hate-fueled violence in America
~AI
etc.
I know violence BY Muslims against US citizens have happened, but how many Muslims can you cite in the US that are callling for the deaths of LGBTQ folks? Would that be Zero?
Again, it's a given that when ANY religious extremist group tries forming a theocracy or religious domination in a nation, they are/have been prone to abusing/oppressing/killing those they disagree with (which is an argument against any sort of religious nationalism, given the poor human rights record), but the reality is that Muslims exposed to the progressive ideals of human rights for all that are our better ideals here in the US... that they are no more likely (less likely) to commit violence against people than those conservative "christian" extremists in the US.
Also, "christians" in African nations where they are dominant HAVE criminalized being LGBTQ, up to and including the death penalty.
Data and reality matters.
The enemy is religious extremism that displays in acts and policies contrary to human rights, NOT Islam, NOT Christianity.
Craig, STILL speaking from a place of real world ignorance, said:
The fact that Islam kills ABC folx regularly is not in dispute.
ISLAM does not do that. Religious extremists - Muslim, Christian and otherwise - does that. THAT is not in dispute.
Rational people do not blame the group for the actions of some part of the group. I don't blame all Christians for the brutal killing and assaults of LGBTQ folks, only the religious extremists (and those who taught them) who did the actual killing.
Pastors Praise Anti-Gay Massacre in Orlando...
“The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die,” Roger Jimenez, a Sacramento preacher, exhorted his congregants on June 12, the day of the assault. “The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job! Because these people are predators! They are abusers!”...
In a sermon at a church in Fort Worth, Pastor Donnie Romero told his congregants that every gay person is a pedophile. He was praying that the injured Orlando victims would not survive, he said, “so that they don’t get any more opportunity to go out and hurt little children.”
“I’ll pray to God that God will finish the job that that man started,” he added, referring to the gunman, Omar Mateen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-gay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html
Educational moment:
Every year,
dozens of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals
are murdered in the US,
and the murder of black transgender women is especially prevalent.
Attacks against LGBTQ people generally center on the idea that there is a normal way for people to live, which encompasses all expressions, desires, behaviors, and roles associated with the sex each person was assigned to at birth, known as heteronormativity and cisnormativity.
Over time the number of these acts of violence has increased greatly, whether due to the changing religious and political views, increased community visibility, or other factors. There have been political protests intended to bring about harsher penalties for these crimes....
September 22, 2000 – Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia, and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a "Christian Soldier working for my Lord"; Gay testified in court that "he wished he could have killed more fags"...
Do you agree that such crimes are an atrocity? AND, when they are committed by people who claim that LGBTQ are an affront to god according to their religion (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) are especially atrocious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBTQ_people_in_the_United_States
I’m not going to waste much time with Dan’s off topic filibuster except to say that I doubt that any of these attacks are by practicing Christians because they believe that they were commanded to do it by YHWH.
We could balance this few that Dan dragged up, against the 250k plus rapes in Europe.
As long as the official position of the leadership of the Islamic world, written in the Quran, and enforced by Sharia courts, it’s an Islam problem.
That there is no push by Muslims to stop this crap doesn’t speak well for Dan's fantasy world.
See above. Now do domestic violence among same sex couples.
I’ve posted multiple Muslim clerics in western countries calling for death to ABCs, Infidels, apostates, and dogs. They are Haram.
Dan's substituting incantations for substance, and trying to define reality.
As long as the official position of Islam/Quran/Sharia defines these things as Haram and maintains the death penalty for them, it’s an Islam problem.
More on Christian oppression of LGBTQ folks:
Since June 1, 2022, GLAAD’s ALERT Desk has tracked 150+ anti-LGBTQ incidents targeting affirming faith-based communities in the US. These include 54 cases of vandalism, 38 cases of threats and harassment, 37 protests, 7 attempted arsons, 3 assaults, and 2 bomb threats...
etc, etc, etc.
https://glaad.org/anti-lgbtq-incidents-target-religious-communities/
Texas pastor says gay people should be 'shot in the back of the head' in shocking sermon...
"These people should be put to death. Every single homosexual in our country should be charged with a crime... they should be sentenced to death...
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/texas-pastor-says-gay-people-shot-back-head-shocking-sermon-rcna32748
How much more do you need? I mean, here, I'm only speaking of those who are publicly speaking it from their hate-filled bigoted pulpits, but of course, much more and much worse is said in secret conversations NOT out for public view. Can you acknowledge that much?
Church calls for LGBTQ+ community to be put to death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JwTd7Qw6GA
Pastor Says ‘Solution’ to Gay People Is Executions: It’s in the Bible
https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-gay-people-solution-killings-bible-1714037
He referenced violent acts and called members of the queer community “disgusting,” while suggesting they should be met with extreme punishment. The church later responded to media inquiries by stating Falco was referring to capital punishment for what they describe as “sodomites,” and clarified they do not advocate for individuals to take action into their own hands.
“The Bible teaches that those people are worthy of death,” the church wrote in a statement. “They are supposed to be executed by the government.”
https://www.nbcpalmsprings.com/2025/07/05/pastors-sermon-calling-for-violence-against-lgbtq-community-sparks-outrage
And you know, I hope, I could do this all day long.
Will you at least agree that the MANY (dozens? Hundreds? Thousands??) of pastors/christians saying similar things is violently disgusting and an affront to God, almighty?
Will you rebuke them and say, "To HELL with that sort of violent bigotry?"
Or do you only save that for Muslim extremists?
Dan keeps talking about Islamic "extremists" totally ignoring the truth that the entire religion Islam is based on everything evil and conquering the world. He ignores all history of Islam, ignores all the normal behavior of Muslims worldwide as terrorists. He continues to spew his ignorance as.a useful idiot for islam.
Dan's appeal to a WOKE pastor--Piper-- as evidence for Dan's claims doesn't surprise me at all. Piper is not only very woke, but supports heretics and suffers horribly from TDS.
After a quick refresher by looking at the post, and the topic of the post, I'm confused as to why you've decided to stray so far from the post and it's topic. You acknowledged that you didn't read the post, and clearly have no idea what the post says, but you have an agenda and you're determined to force that agenda through the comments thread, regardless.
So you post this random, off topic, Piper thing which I respond to is some detail over several comments, and you ignore my response only to shift to this BS.
But, so that you'll be robbed of your incantation that I don't answer questions, here you go.
"How much more do you need?"
I didn't need any of this, so I don't need more. It's off topic and a waste of my time.
"I mean, here, I'm only speaking of those who are publicly speaking it from their hate-filled bigoted pulpits, but of course, much more and much worse is said in secret conversations NOT out for public view. Can you acknowledge that much?"
No, I cannot "acknowledge" something that you haven't proven and that is based on your imagining people's private conversations.
To the extent that this happens, I disagree with it and would argue (as always) that false teachers should not be in their positions.
"And you know, I hope, I could do this all day long."
I'm confused. When you're asked to answer questions you always have excuses as to why you can't. You're a busy person, you have other things to do, blah, blah, blah. Yet now you have all day to filibuster with nonsense that's off of the topic of the post. Yes, I'm sure you could dredge up imperfect people saying things you don't like, all the while using those as an excuse for your refusal to acknowledge the Truth about what Islam teaches. The difference, I would suggest, is that those you dredge up are saying things that are contrary to Scripture, while the Quran, Sharia, and Muslim teaching all call for the death of ABC folx. It's apples and oranges.
"Will you at least agree that the MANY (dozens? Hundreds? Thousands??) of pastors/christians saying similar things is violently disgusting and an affront to God, almighty?"
Again, I agree that any pastor/teacher who is advocating anything contrary to Scripture is a false teacher and should be ignored. YET, their speech IS protected by the 1st Amendment to the constitution, and as such they are free to say whatever they want. I wouldn't agree that "DOZENS" or even "HUNDREDS" are "MANY" in the context of the number of Christians in the world, but I know you need to make it seem so. I don't speak for YHWH, but I do know that He seems to value Truth very highly and probably isn't a fan of that which is not True.
"Will you rebuke them and say, "To HELL with that sort of violent bigotry?""
As I general rule, I don't go around rebuking people that I don't know based on second or third hand claims from someone desperate to prove a point. I'll acknowledge that they are mistaken in their interpretation of Scripture and should be corrected regarding their mistake. Further, if they every move from protected free speech to actual violence against anyone, I will absolutely call for them to be dealt with appropriately.
"Or do you only save that for Muslim extremists?"
No.
Dan needs for this to be an "extremist" issue rather than a Muslim issue. Despite the fact that his "moderate Muslims" do and say nothing against these "extremists", and do nothing to reform Islam. Dan needs this because he is committed to the false equivalency regardless of evidence.
He needs every incident of "violence" against an ABC person to be completely and totally motivated by some sort of Christian extremism, to prove his point. It doesn't matter what the reality is, he'll spin things to try to support his narrative.
You'll note that he ignored my request that he look at the data on domestic violence among same sex couples.
Glenn...
"Dan's appeal to a WOKE pastor--Piper-"
Wow. Hell, even Craig is going to disagree with you on this one. I imagine.
When far-right extremists like John Piper are "woke" to you, you might be a conspiracy theorist.
Heck, If you think being "woke" and concerned about the poor and about justice is a bad thing, you might be a conspiracy theorist.
Dan
Actually, I'll disagree with you both. Piper has never been a "far-right extremist", and he has moved even further left in recent years. So, (and we're not going to let Dan divert things even further by arguing about whether Piper is woke or not) I'm on the side of acknowledging that Piper, like any human (even Dan) isn't perfect and that he's been right and wrong abut various things over the decades.
What I'm going to note is that Dan brought the whole off topic Piper thing into this comment thread as an off topic diversion, I replied several times and addressed the meat of Piper's piece, yet Dan has ignored what he said he wanted and decided to play more games.
Ignorance, arrogance, and hubris are a fascinating combination.
I have the evidence for my charge against Piper. He used to be good but then he started supporting LEFTISTS and heretics and has a serious case of TDS. I think I'll have to do a blog post on him.
To be clear I wasn't trying to change the topic of this post and didn't address Piper beyond my first question. I was just curious if you had heard Piper's comments on this line of teaching, which very much is in alignment with what I have to say or think about what is clearly biblical as it relates to wealth and poverty.
Piper may or may not be an extremist. I don't know him well enough to say... but he's clearly far right. That was my only point in response to young Glenn, here.
Again if the Russell Moores, John Pipers, and the plethora of at least slightly more rational conservatives who are actually quite far-right conservatives are not far-right enough for you, you might be an extremist.
Dan
You literally came on this thread, acknowledging that didn’t bother to read it and posted the Piper thing.
You’re either stupid, think that everyone else is stupid
It’s what you do, you go on off topic tangents.
Then admit that your “extremist l” claim was pulled out of your ignorant ass based on nothing but your prejudice.
All this idiocy and you still won’t bother to acknowledge the fact that you got the response you wanted.
Why are you so hostile all the time? I literally came on here, said this is off topic but here's a question I'd be interested in. I further noted that I wasn't interested in this post because I don't think you have valid opinions or sources. I was just curious about what you thought about Pipers views on the Bible and wealth and would have been interested in seeing you address it at some point, not necessarily on this post or in this thread.
You chose to respond, and I did not respond to it because it was off-topic. Communication doesn't have to be this difficult.
If you would like me to address your thoughts on Piper and his views of wealth and poverty, Tama Akan. I was being respectful and not accepting because it was off topic. If you want me to respond, just say so.
Dan
Glenn,
I knew who it was when you commented, and we're not arguing about Piper and where he sits on the R/L continuum. I let Dan drag this far enough off topic, but I thought I was clear that we were not going there.
Let's start with the simple reality that I'm not "hostile all the time", and acknowledge that.
In this case you decided that you should drop an off topic comment, from someone you clearly don't agree with (because you think he's a "far right extremist") for some unknown reason.
Your first comment started as "Again not even really looking at this post but..."
You literally and factually did not note " that I wasn't interested in this post because I don't think you have valid opinions or sources.".
1. We know this because it is possible to look back and see what you REALLY said because it's literally preserved.
2. If you didn't "even really look(ing) at this post", then how could you have possibly evaluated the sources and opinions?
3. What better source for what someone believes than their own words is there?
So, let's start with your lie about your initial comment.
The we move to this.
"would have been interested in seeing you address it at some point, not necessarily on this post or in this thread."
So you've concluded that I'm "hostile" because I allowed your off topic comment, AND I addressed it (fairly extensively) right away. How is this "hostile"?
Then, this.
"You chose to respond, and I did not respond to it because it was off-topic. Communication doesn't have to be this difficult."
Yes, you are correct that I chose to respond to your off topic comment in a thread on a completely different subject. Strangely enough, your "response" t my showing you the grace to address your question, was to do nothing and sudden;y decide to respect staying on topic. Not even a "Thanks for addressing this here.". Not an acknowledgement, not a response, nothing. Yet somehow my responding, promptly and in some detail, is what makes "conversation difficult"?
In all honestly, I couldn't care less about your thoughts on Piper's piece. The fact that you, for some unknown reason, tracked down some random Piper thing (again given your opinion that he's a "far right extremist), posted it as an off topic comment, and expected me to respond to it, tells me pretty much exactly what your thoughts are. It's merely one of your weak gotcha attempts which are obvious.
So, respond or not, I don't care at this point. The fact that you were too stupid to take my multi comment response as (at a minimum) a reason to acknowledge the fact that I'd responded makes it painfully clear that you aren't interested in any actual response I had, but were merely hoping for whatever response you wanted. Had I given you what you wanted, I suspect you would have responded.
Anyway, after your long history of off topic tangents and demands for responses, your concern for staying on topic rings hollow.
Especially given your bizarre behavior in turning a thread about "What makes and American" into you repeating your "trans" talking points and driving the thread further and further off topic.
I suspect that your problem with other people's hostility is that you divorce their REACTION from your ACTION. You don't seem to believe that it is possible that anyone could find you frustrating or difficult and respond based on that. Unfortunately, you are wrong.
Post a Comment