Have we crossed the line yet?

[abelcainsbrother]

There are some people who think it is possible we could see Michelle Obama run for President,and there are Democrats and pundits like Michael Moore making the case that only Michelle Obama could beat President Trump.It is not clear if she is going to run yet,but I suspect that if she does it could be then that this info about Obama not being born in the US will come out.

Ok, so your prediction is that if Barack Obama's wife were to run for President her political opponents would use the same racist conspiracy that they used against her husband against her?

Wow. That's truly a stunning insight.

Except this time it would be proven,not only with these videos but documented evidence too that proves it.Of course,there are some so caught up in Trump Derangement Syndrome that no amount of evidence would change their mind.But most Americans are not like that,if you show them the evidence they will change their mind.

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
But most Americans are not like that,if you show them the evidence they will change their mind.

Talk about do as I say and not as I do.

See also
•hypocrisy

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
Now if you disagree please explain how Obama was taken out of context because I just don't see it after watching the video you posted and the video I posted.

Because in the video I posted, near the beginning, Obama states that the first time he was in Kenya, was when he was 27 years old. How can he mean that he was born in kenya, if the first time he was in kenya, was 27 years after he was born. He's from Kenya, in the sense that he has Kenyan heritage on his father's side. That's why it's important to see the proper context. And we can't see proper context, when we pull short clips out of a larger video.

And again, it's very troubling that you STILL won't recognize this!

I see your point about in one breath he claiming when he first came to Kenya he was 27 and yet at another time he states he came from Kenya.It seems like a contradiction but he says both.At about the 5 minute mark is when he states he came from Kenya and yet at the start he claimed he did not come until he was 27. I think you are hung up on this because you saw this video as some kind of proof Obama had not come from Kenya,but that has not been the point.It is you that made this video your focus,not me.I was not even talking about that video.I was talking about the other video. But even if it is not so clear in the first video you brought up,it is much clearer in the video I was talking about. I also think that you've missed my whole point going off on a tangent about that video you posted. My point has been that this will be proven and exposed. I have not said nor implied it has been proven now. If you thought I was showing you the video as proof then you missed my point. I mean eventhough the audio is not clear you can hear Obama say "I was not born in Hawaii,I was not born in the Unites States of America. I came from Kenya." but I never said nor implied it was proof,only that it is evidence from Q that it is going to be proven at some point. Now anybody can go back and hear it for themselves and it is not out of context.

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
Now if you disagree please explain how Obama was taken out of context because I just don't see it after watching the video you posted and the video I posted.

Because in the video I posted, near the beginning, Obama states that the first time he was in Kenya, was when he was 27 years old. How can he mean that he was born in kenya, if the first time he was in kenya, was 27 years after he was born. He's from Kenya, in the sense that he has Kenyan heritage on his father's side. That's why it's important to see the proper context. And we can't see proper context, when we pull short clips out of a larger video.

And again, it's very troubling that you STILL won't recognize this!

I see your point about in one breath he claiming when he first came to Kenya he was 27 and yet at another time he states he came from Kenya.It seems like a contradiction but he says both.At about the 5 minute mark is when he states he came from Kenya and yet at the start he claimed he did not come until he was 27. I think you are hung up on this because you saw this video as some kind of proof Obama had not come from Kenya,but that has not been the point.It is you that made this video your focus,not me.I was not even talking about that video.I was talking about the other video. But even if it is not so clear in the first video you brought up,it is much clearer in the video I was talking about. I also think that you've missed my whole point going off on a tangent about that video you posted. My point has been that this will be proven and exposed. I have not said nor implied it has been proven now. If you thought I was showing you the video as proof then you missed my point. I mean eventhough the audio is not clear you can hear Obama say "I was not born in Hawaii,I was not born in the Unites States of America. I came from Kenya." but I never said nor implied it was proof,only that it is evidence from Q that it is going to be proven at some point. Now anybody can go back and hear it for themselves and it is not out of context.

Equivocate much?

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
Now if you disagree please explain how Obama was taken out of context because I just don't see it after watching the video you posted and the video I posted.

Because in the video I posted, near the beginning, Obama states that the first time he was in Kenya, was when he was 27 years old. How can he mean that he was born in kenya, if the first time he was in kenya, was 27 years after he was born. He's from Kenya, in the sense that he has Kenyan heritage on his father's side. That's why it's important to see the proper context. And we can't see proper context, when we pull short clips out of a larger video.

And again, it's very troubling that you STILL won't recognize this!

I see your point about in one breath he claiming when he first came to Kenya he was 27 and yet at another time he states he came from Kenya.It seems like a contradiction but he says both.At about the 5 minute mark is when he states he came from Kenya and yet at the start he claimed he did not come until he was 27. I think you are hung up on this because you saw this video as some kind of proof Obama had not come from Kenya,but that has not been the point.It is you that made this video your focus,not me.I was not even talking about that video.I was talking about the other video. But even if it is not so clear in the first video you brought up,it is much clearer in the video I was talking about. I also think that you've missed my whole point going off on a tangent about that video you posted. My point has been that this will be proven and exposed. I have not said nor implied it has been proven now. If you thought I was showing you the video as proof then you missed my point. I mean eventhough the audio is not clear you can hear Obama say "I was not born in Hawaii,I was not born in the Unites States of America. I came from Kenya." but I never said nor implied it was proof,only that it is evidence from Q that it is going to be proven at some point. Now anybody can go back and hear it for themselves and it is not out of context.

Equivocate much?

As Q would say "Dark to Light"

[Hortator]

Rick, I am getting really tired of this schtick.

The whole “Both sides are wrong” argument is silly and you are silly too, Rick, for using it.

If you are being your usual funny self, that’s fine, but please try to make it more apparent when you do.

However. Pick a side. Yes, it IS black and white when dealing with atheists, now choose. I would rather not see you on the side of some Luciferian chronic liar who has plagued a Christian website for years as multiple persons and has only gotten worse in his time spent tormenting it.

09C5EFD3-78C6-4653-AE73-9860C84D1DC5.jpeg (156.37 KiB) Viewed 6714 times

[RickD]

Rick, I am getting really tired of this schtick.

The whole “Both sides are wrong” argument is silly and you are silly too, Rick, for using it.

If you are being your usual funny self, that’s fine, but please try to make it more apparent when you do.

However. Pick a side. Yes, it IS black and white when dealing with atheists, now choose. I would rather not see you on the side of some Luciferian chronic liar who has plagued a Christian website for years as multiple persons and has only gotten worse in his time spent tormenting it.
09C5EFD3-78C6-4653-AE73-9860C84D1DC5.jpeg

Tired of this schtick?

You've made a grand total of 3 posts since March of 2018. What in the world are you railing on about? You haven't been participating in these discussions.

I don't pick sides other than my own side. I point out errors in whatever "side" makes them. It's called being objective. You should try it some time.

Yes, that's right we as Christians can be wrong. We can make mistakes. We can even treat atheists as the enemy, despite the fact that they are not, because Christ died for them too.

Contrary to what some here may believe, this is not an us-against-them battle.

[Philip]

Horator: I would rather not see you on the side of some Luciferian chronic liar who has plagued a Christian website for years as multiple persons and has only gotten worse in his time spent tormenting it.

Who the heck does the underlined refer to?

[edwardmurphy]

Horator: I would rather not see you on the side of some Luciferian chronic liar who has plagued a Christian website for years as multiple persons and has only gotten worse in his time spent tormenting it.

Who the heck does the underlined refer to?

He's talking about me. I initially posted as Skeptical Skeeter, then returned as Ed after B.W. banned me. So yeah, it's documented that in the summer of 2015 I joined this board under false pretenses.

How being caught in a deception once, back in 2015, makes me a chronic liar is beyond me. I do my best to engage honestly and I tend to cite my sources. Anyway, Hortense, if I'm a chronic liar you should have no trouble posting a bunch of examples of my deceit. Whatcha got?

Regarding the claim that I'm plaguing this site, I find that to be a bit of a stretch. The board has 23 subforums, and I only post in one of them. More to the point, I only post about American politics. If the topic skews away from politics and into religion I bow out. Christians can discuss Christianity to their hearts' content, completely confident that I'm never going to bother them.

Hortense, let's be honest here - you're mad at me because you're a snowflake and I'm in your safe space challenging your assumptions. You don't care if the things that Stu posts (or that B.W. used to post) are factual. They're true because they came from your tribe, and in the Age of Trump loyalty has supplanted critical thinking. You attack me and defend them because they're in your tribe and I'm not. You're mad at Rick because he agrees with me when he thinks that I'm right, rather than reflexively rejecting everything I say because I'm an evil, progressive atheist. Heck, he might not even hate me! How offensive is that?

It's sad, Hortense. You used to be a better thinker than this.

[Philip]

Enough stirring up trouble, Hortense. Ed knows he made a mistake in coming back under another name. And he's admitted it. Also, let's not be so thin-skinned that we can't tolerate views that oppose our own. While Ed can be a bit edgy and cranky with certain people, at times - he's usually pretty cordial unless people directly attack him.

I so wish people around here would learn the difference between challenging a person's ideas and in feeling the need for personal attack. And seems the latter always raises it's head whenever someone attacks a person's beliefs and positions on whatever topic. It's unnecessary. But being very direct in attacking someones' ideas or positions should be no problem, yet without feeling the need to make it blatantly personal.

[edwardmurphy]

Yes, it IS black and white when dealing with atheists, now choose.

I'm curious about this comment.

You seem to be giving Rick an ultimatum - he's either with you or against you. Your ultimatum seems to be in regards to his willingness to engage with an atheist without reflexively disagreeing. Rick and I disagree on a great many topics, but we don't disagree automatically. If I say the sky is blue Rick doesn't reflexively insist that it's orange, just to avoid agreeing with an atheist. You seem to think that he should. I don't get that.

I'd understand if we were talking about religion and Rick was starting to acknowledge that maybe atheists have a point. But we don't discuss religion (unless it directly relates to a specific political issue) and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything related to religion or atheism. My position on the matter is that it's not really my concern.

So is your position that I'm dangerous and malevolent, that I should be treated as an enemy, and that any who don't see it that way are suspect?

Seriously, Hortense, I'm curious. We've never agreed on much, but there was a time when you weren't openly hostile to me. What gives?

[Stu]

Enough stirring up trouble, Hortense. Ed knows he made a mistake in coming back under another name. And he's admitted it. Also, let's not be so thin-skinned that we can't tolerate views that oppose our own. While Ed can be a bit edgy and cranky with certain people, at times - he's usually pretty cordial unless people directly attack him.

I so wish people around here would learn the difference between challenging a person's ideas and in feeling the need for personal attack. And seems the latter always raises it's head whenever someone attacks a person's beliefs and positions on whatever topic. It's unnecessary. But being very direct in attacking someones' ideas or positions should be no problem, yet without feeling the need to make it blatantly personal.

LOL No offence but that is rubbish. If Ed finds his views challenged he almost always makes it personal. Take Abe for instance, Abe never responds in kind to Ed's personal remarks, and always plays the ball, while Ed just keeps on calling him an idiot or the equivalent thereof.

[RickD]

Enough stirring up trouble, Hortense. Ed knows he made a mistake in coming back under another name. And he's admitted it. Also, let's not be so thin-skinned that we can't tolerate views that oppose our own. While Ed can be a bit edgy and cranky with certain people, at times - he's usually pretty cordial unless people directly attack him.

I so wish people around here would learn the difference between challenging a person's ideas and in feeling the need for personal attack. And seems the latter always raises it's head whenever someone attacks a person's beliefs and positions on whatever topic. It's unnecessary. But being very direct in attacking someones' ideas or positions should be no problem, yet without feeling the need to make it blatantly personal.

LOL No offence but that is rubbish. If Ed finds his views challenged he almost always makes it personal. Take Abe for instance, Abe never responds in kind to Ed's personal remarks, and always plays the ball, while Ed just keeps on calling him an idiot or the equivalent thereof.

I would ask you for examples of ed calling ACB an idiot, or the equivalent, but I have a feeling that you may not be able to produce actual quotes.

[Stu]

Enough stirring up trouble, Hortense. Ed knows he made a mistake in coming back under another name. And he's admitted it. Also, let's not be so thin-skinned that we can't tolerate views that oppose our own. While Ed can be a bit edgy and cranky with certain people, at times - he's usually pretty cordial unless people directly attack him.

I so wish people around here would learn the difference between challenging a person's ideas and in feeling the need for personal attack. And seems the latter always raises it's head whenever someone attacks a person's beliefs and positions on whatever topic. It's unnecessary. But being very direct in attacking someones' ideas or positions should be no problem, yet without feeling the need to make it blatantly personal.

LOL No offence but that is rubbish. If Ed finds his views challenged he almost always makes it personal. Take Abe for instance, Abe never responds in kind to Ed's personal remarks, and always plays the ball, while Ed just keeps on calling him an idiot or the equivalent thereof.

I would ask you for examples of ed calling ACB an idiot, or the equivalent, but I have a feeling that you may not be able to produce actual quotes.

Yeah I'm not going to waste my time going through old posts just to prove what most people already know.
Take any debate between Abe and Ed and you will find his belittling insults.

[Philip]

Simmer down, Stu! You've been just as guilty, at times. So, let's just go from here - EVERYONE just needs to watch the personal stuff - Ed, you, me - everyone here does! And no matter who cranks up such attacks, it puts us mods in a bad position, particularly ones like this dumb dust-up - as there is a history of this kind of stuff all around!

And let's start with Horator's cranking up trouble:

Horator: Rick, I am getting really tired of this schtick.

The whole “Both sides are wrong” argument is silly and you are silly too, Rick, for using it.

No, Rick is trying hard to be balanced, as in such arguments, there are rarely clean hands on either side - although one or the other may have started it.

Horator: However. Pick a side. Yes, it IS black and white when dealing with atheists, now choose.

What a loaded statement. So if a person is an atheist we should have different standards of conduct or how we treat them???!!! And like even Ed noted, if it's a matter of standing up for God / Christ / Scripture - yep, we mods DO have a side he realizes we'll not back down from. But as for how we treat people individually - nope, God calls us to be fair to people - ALL people. We're not to be like the lawyer questioning Jesus with His slick question, "And Who is my neighbor?" But it's not always an easy thing moderating between people who are emotionally driven and angry.

Horator: I would rather not see you on the side of some Luciferian chronic liar who has plagued a Christian website for years as multiple persons and has only gotten worse in his time spent tormenting it.

Another loaded statement. Ed made a mistake - a big one. He's publicly admitted it. OK, let's move on - he's not been here arguing against Christ or Scripture - only at times questioning things. But Horator, you are apparently making the same mistake we've seen here, time to time. And that is, equating non-believers with being an unforgivable enemy of Christians. That is exactly the opposite of the thrust of the entire New Testament. Good thing God didn't have that attitude toward the former Saul / Apostle Paul, right? NO one is going to change or influence people towards Christ with that kind of attitude!

So, what did the Apostle Paul say - as he included himself, while using the pronoun "we?"

"For if WHILE WE were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life."

The above means that EVERY Christian, BEFORE they were Christians, were essentially an "enemy of God" - and yet enemies of a God Who wants ALL people to come to salvation and faith in Christ (although all will NOT receive Him). A God who loved us ALL so much that He came here Himself in the form of a man and endured all manner of hideous torture and brutality, to bring us His offer of Salvation. What world did Jesus come to? An UNSAVED world? Did He come here to condemn unbelievers He hated?

READ it! https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Sorry for the rant, but this attitude that unbelievers should be considered the enemy of Christians - that's simply an unScriptural attitude!