As If There Was Any Doubt . . .
- Thread starter Y.A.G Si Ye Nots
- Start date
Only to those who have no understanding of the Bible, of which you have none.
That seems a bit presumptuous on your part. The man is clearly a xenophobe, a trait he's exhibited time and time again. Racist? That's questionable. Either way he's a prejudicial asshole. If we're going to criticize him (which we should), we should at least try and be accurate about it.
I guess my point is, the media and left are sooooo obsessed with playing the race card, it's almost become a case of "the boy who cried wolf." That's why more people aren't outraged by his tweets. A little intellectual honesty, such as calling it what it more likely is, could go a long way towards reestablishing their credibility with the rest of the country.
Where did I even insinuate that? The presence or absence of laws concerning immigration has nothing to do with his exhibiting widespread prejudice towards many immigrant groups.
Being prejudice to persons of some nationalities does not equate to being prejudice to persons of all differing nationalities. That's an absurd distinction to attempt to draw. Maybe that's where racism comes into play in this discussion? Maybe he just doesn't like certain ethnicities? I tend to think he just doesn't like persons because of their political or religious affiliations, as opposed to their race.
He likes Americans that love the country from any race, religion or ethnicity. Now any that are socialist or hate the greatest nation on earth?? Not so much.
^^FIFY^^
Don't be intentionally naïve. The entire premise of Trump's "xenophobia" is based solely on his desire to reform and enforce immigration laws and controlling illegal immigration from other countries.
I'll ask the question again; should countries not have laws limiting/restricting illegal immigration?
Last edited:
Questionable? He had to pay a seven-figure fine/settlement for refusing to rent to blacks. Then, after paying that, he had to pay again after refusing to rent to blacks again. When deposed in the case, cheeto said "You know, you don't want to live with them either."
He took out a full page ad calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in NY after the Central Park Five incident. Then, when DNA evidence exonerated the five, he continued to claim they were guilty.
All blacks being removed from his floor at Trump's Castle in Atlantic City when he would visit.
His comments about Native Americans during the casino hearings.
His claims that "both sides" were responsible in Charlottesville for displaying bigotry and hatred. One side was a group of white supremacists. The other side was a diverse group of all races and ideologies.
Referring to African immigrants as being from "shithole" countries while asking why we can't have more immigrants from Norway.
Commenting that all nations with a black leader are third-world if you look at those countries today.
Using the "N" word according to colleagues close to him.
We could go on-and-on with examples.
But that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about claiming his latest words are xenophobic. They aren't. He doesn't care what country those women are from. He doesn't care if they were all born in America. What he cares about is that they all have dark skin, so he can make any sort of claim and get his fellow deplorables to continue their support of him. His comments aren't based on his true belief that those women are all from other countries - he doesn't give a shit. His comment is based on the color of their skin.
Get your head out of your ass and stop being so fvcking ignorant and naive. There are countless examples of him making comments about other countries that had nothing to do with illegal immigration.
In that case, he wouldn't have had to enact the Muslim ban, now would he? Those people were coming over legally. He wasn't enforcing immigration laws or controlling illegal immigration from those countries.
And his " . . . they aren't sending their best. They are sending rapists, murderers," etc. comment had nothing to do with illegal immigration and everything to do with their race.
The verses are very clear. You don't have to have a spiritual "understanding of the Bible" to be able to interpret very clear, concise directives in it.
Trying to argue that the Bible doesn't make women inferior to men in multiple roles is as stupid as claiming reasonable women wouldn't have a problem with that as long as the men held up their own end of the deal. That argument is akin to those who argued that slaves wouldn't have a problem with their role as long as slaveowners did what they were supposed to do by providing food and a clean straw floor for them to sleep on each night.
Your comment doesn't just tread on sexism. It is a blatant, direct sexist comment that is straight out of Wayne and attempted to be covered under the bigotry found in Christianity.
Trump supporters: "These women are anti-American."
Also Trump supporters: "We totally support this guy who is campaigning on the idea that America isn't great."
Also Trump supporters: "We totally support this guy who is campaigning on the idea that America isn't great."
Really rich, powerful Arab royalty*, some woman I don't know, pandering, and that last brotha is like "shit, you 'bout to shake hands with the Devil".
* I despise MBS, but if he wanted to give me $100m and a couple of bespoke Ferraris I am sure we can set down and have some smiley photographs.
I bet he would rent to powerful, rich blacks. Average blacks? Yeah he already got caught refusing them on the color of their skin.
Yes, this was stated in post #15 in this thread. If you continue to reiterate my comments, you also will be viewed as a genius.
That's not a word, Tier Three.
Maybe you can tell me "wear" to look it up so I can "defense" it.
In any event, it's fine for informal writing, like, I don't know, maybe a message board.
https://grammarist.com/usage/moreso/
In any event, it's fine for informal writing, like, I don't know, maybe a message board.
https://grammarist.com/usage/moreso/
Last edited:
At no point does your link claim that it is fine for informal writing. In fact, it says it’s simply wrong. It mentions that the use of it gained ground and became more frequent, but that doesn’t make it correct in formal or informal writing.
“More so” is two words. The use of it as one word is a common error but still an error.
Take some of your own advice. The "ban" wasn't even a "ban".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
As I said, you have no understanding of the Bible. But it is amusing to watch you insist on proving me right.
Also as I said earlier, after the fall women were placed under the rule of men as a punishment. But that punishment was released when Christ came. Under the New Testament, when women are told to submit to their husband, they are being told nothing more than anyone else since we ALL are given this commandment....
Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
And then husbands are given this commandment in the same chapter which lets us know we should love our wife and be willing to die for her, and that is the highest form of submitting to another....
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
and still in the same chapter....
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it,
Ok. From my link:
"Though the phrase more so is conventionally spelled as two words, the one-word moreso gained ground in the late 20th century and continues to appear despite the disapproval of usage authorities and of spell check. Among the major dictionaries, only the Oxford English Dictionary lists the one-word form, and even the OED calls it a “chiefly U.S.” variant of the two-word form."
. . .
"If we accept this use of more so—and we have no choice, because it’s common—there’s no reason we shouldn’t accept the compound moreso in its place."
Soooooo, at least one dictionary already accepts it as a word, more are likely to in the future, and it's an acceptable alternative to the phrase "more so" in a context identical to the manner in which I used it. I'm just ahead of my time.
Bans have exceptions, moron. If a person on house arrest is banned from leaving their house other than going directly to/from their place of employment, it is still a ban from leaving their house with an exception.
How desperate must your argument be to try and argue semantics about the clearly established ban?
I have more than a sufficient understanding of the comic book. I went to church school from first grade through seventh grade. Regardless, understanding of the Bible has nothing to do with the ability to comprehend English. Basic comprehension of the English language shows what the comic book's intention is for women and their place relative to men.
That does absolutely nothing to defend your claim. Servant leadership is centered around some of the things you just mentioned. However, does that mean the leader taking part in servant leadership isn't a superior? Of course not. Servant leaders do the same things you just listed, but that doesn't mean they are any less of a superior and the others are any less than inferiors.
Your comic book is clear. Though husbands are supposed to love their wives like their god loves them, women are supposed to be subservient to men, obey them, and have certain roles which place them in inferior positions. Arguing otherwise shows a major failure in basic English comprehension and knowledge of your comic book.
Tell us, E.T. - how many female preachers has your church had in its history?
Other than clearly show that submission is commanded for everyone, rather than just women as you claim.
Comedic watching greed attempt to defend a women's place according to the bible.
If you are from Honduras or Nicaragua and you are seeking asylum then Mexico or nearest country of relief would be your point of asylum. That would be your point of safety and where you would take asylum.
Come here the legal way. Legal. The potus is the chief law enforcement official in the country.
Why is that hard to grasp?
Let's be honest. This is politically motivated and there us a segment like the aoc segment that wants free and open borders and come as you please. They dont believe in the United States of America.
Come here the legal way. Legal. The potus is the chief law enforcement official in the country.
Why is that hard to grasp?
Let's be honest. This is politically motivated and there us a segment like the aoc segment that wants free and open borders and come as you please. They dont believe in the United States of America.
Last edited:
You have a link to any policy proposals that reflect this?
And to be fair, any real libertarian would believe in open borders. The couple of claimed libertarians in Congress are either not actual libertarians or choose to not broadcast certain principles of their beliefs.
We have gone over how this administration has made legal access nearly impossible. Are you too stupid to remember those numerous discussions or too morally bankrupt to care?
That is not a U.S. law or even policy at this point.
How little pride must one have to continuously make illogical and immoral excuses for the abhorrent practices this administration has started, then after two years, suddenly try arguing something else (“nearest country of relief”) as the excuse for their actions?
What is it - were your previous excuses and attempts so ripe with flaws that you then had to change your answer two years into it? How come you never made this argument before, HerMan? Oh, that’s right. You had to wait to hear it from the administration, which was recently rumored to be their upcoming policy, like the good little sheep that you are.
I can’t imagine being so brain-dead that I’d have to argue something for two years, then suddenly, change to a new argument just days after my master told me what to say.
take it easy snowflake. so, the crowd chant bothers you but that nut congresswoman that hates the US you are fine with?
^^^^A day or 2 after a republican stops the passage of the 911 first responders victim fund and uses national debt as excuse (after voting to pass the cheetos tax cut that costs a trillion or more).
Another idiot who has bought in to the trump idiotic rhetoric. I gess all dem libz hates Mericu to.
Similar threads
