OH - Haitian migrants eating cats?

[acptulsa]

Are you getting all your politics from cartoons now?

[Swordsmyth]

Are you getting all your politics from cartoons now?

It would be an improvement over where you get yours if he was.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Invaders have no rights here.

That is a pretty bold statement.

If an "invader" has no rights, why are asylum laws on the books?

[acptulsa]

It would be an improvement over where you get yours if he was.

Why don't you just tell the world where I do get my politics? That way I can look it up and post all the differences between that and where I stand, exposing your delusional condition for all to see.

That is a pretty bold statement.

If an "invader" has no rights, why are asylum laws on the books?

A real American also considers it heresy against God.

Like Coolidge said, if all men are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, that's final.

[Swordsmyth]

That is a pretty bold statement.

If an "invader" has no rights, why are asylum laws on the books?

Because we can choose to grant them privileges.
Just as we can choose to show mercy and deport them instead of shooting them.

[acptulsa]

Because we can choose to grant them privileges.
Just as we can choose to show mercy and deport them instead of shooting them.

Let's try this again, alleged Christian.

Which part of "all" and "unalienable" mean the opposite of what everyone thinks they mean?

You figure shooting them is just as justified as deporting them, do you? "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply if someone steps over an imaginary line in the sand? How do you square that with, "Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar, and give unto God what is of God"? Because that imaginary line is of Caesar, not God. You can see that, right?

[Swordsmyth]

Let's try this again, alleged Christian.

Which part of "all" and "unalienable" mean the opposite of what everyone thinks they mean?

You figure shooting them is just as justified as deporting them, do you? "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply if someone steps over an imaginary line in the sand? How do you square that with, "Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar, and give unto God what is of God"? Because that imaginary line is of Caesar, not God. You can see that, right?

You need to read the Bible, it's full of GOD aiding people to kill invaders to drive them from their lands.

It also says this:
John 10:1

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”

[TheCount]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

Maybe you should read the things that you quote.

Dessalines had specifically stated that France is "the real enemy of the new nation." This allowed certain categories of whites to be excluded from massacre who had to pledge their rejection to France: the Polish soldiers who deserted from the French army; the group of German colonists of Nord-Ouest who were inhabitants before the revolution; French widows who were allowed to keep their property;[134] select male Frenchmen;[138] and a group of medical doctors and professionals.

First they just killed every white they could, including anti-slavery allies, then when the extermination was all but complete some of the survivors were spared on a subjective basis

National and political loyalties being a subjective basis according to what you said in this post.

You realize that this is exactly my point, right? That whatever you think of the Haitian's actions, yours are the no different.

If Haitians are stupid and evil, then you are stupid and evil.


Well, at least you and I agree on something.

[acptulsa]

You need to read the Bible...

You keep making ASSumptions thinking you're making an ass out of me with them. But you only make an aSS out of yourself -- over and over.

...it's full of GOD aiding people to kill invaders to drive them from their lands.

God is the Potter. He has that right.

You don't.

Read your own Bible. Start with the first three Commandments. Show me where God issued you written orders to kill people.

It also says this:
John 10:1

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”

Yet you figure you can get to heaven by ignoring Jesus (except to occasionally twist His words to suit your purpose) and listening to zerohedge instead.

All right. Let's ignore the plain fact that He was making an analogy and take it at face value. Where does Jesus say it's hunky dory to be the one to escalate thievery to killing? Are you claiming Jesus not only didn't say turn the other cheek, but upped the bet on Hammurabi and said, a life for a tooth and a life for an eye?

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe you should read the things that you quote.

Maybe you should try not deceptively editing quotes.

It said this:

The 1804 massacre was carried out against the remaining white population of French colonists^[130] and loyalists,^[131] both enemies and traitors of the revolution,

All French were slaughtered no matter what side they took or if they didn't take a side.
And other whites got killed at the same time.

By the end of April 1804, some 3,000 to 5,000 people had been killed^[137] practically eradicating the country's white population.

National and political loyalties being a subjective basis according to what you said in this post.

You realize that this is exactly my point, right? That whatever you think of the Haitian's actions, yours are the no different.

If Haitians are stupid and evil, then you are stupid and evil.


Well, at least you and I agree on something.

Those spared were not spared because of national or political loyalties, which are not subjective, people were killed regardless of them until it was decided to subjectively spare some and pretend it had to do with that.

What I am proposing is not the wholesale slaughter of the invaders or the domestic traitors, I am proposing they be evicted alive.
The Haitians wantonly murdered and enslaved the whites.
There was a reason many were reluctant to participate and the fanatics had to force them to.

You can try to twist things all you want, but everyone can see it's a lie.

[acptulsa]

Because we can choose to grant them privileges.
Just as we can choose to show mercy and deport them instead of shooting them.

What I am proposing is not the wholesale slaughter of the invaders or the domestic traitors, I am proposing they be evicted alive.

Maybe you should read the things that you quote.

Maybe he should read the things he writes. He isn't proposing such and such. He's just reserving the right to do such and such.

The Bible says we should have faith in God, not men, but he says we should trust him. So how is he not claiming to be God?

[Intrepid]

"They are not after you, they are after your dogs and cats. And I am standing in their way."

[Swordsmyth]

God is the Potter. He has that right.

You don't.

Read your own Bible. Start with the first three Commandments. Show me where God issued you written orders to kill people.

GOD repeatedly told men to do it and gave help to those engaged in killing invaders whom he did not specifically command.

"Thou shalt not kill" is properly translated "Thou shalt not murder" (unjustified killing).
The Bible justifies and even commands killing in many circumstances.
Killing invaders in defense of your nation is not murder any more than killing in the defense of your own life or the lives of others is, in fact it falls into the latter category.

Yet you figure you can get to heaven by ignoring Jesus (except to occasionally twist His words to suit your purpose) and listening to zerohedge instead.

All right. Let's ignore the plain fact that He was making an analogy and take it at face value. Where does Jesus say it's hunky dory to be the one to escalate thievery to killing? Are you claiming Jesus not only didn't say turn the other cheek, but upped the bet on Hammurabi and said, a life for a tooth and a life for an eye?

The burden is on you to show that Christ changed the rules about killing invaders and robbers, he told his followers to sell their garments to buy swords, and it was not just to look cool walking around with them.
There are times and places to turn the other cheek, and times and places to bear the sword not in vain.

[Swordsmyth]

Ecclesiasticus 34:22

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.”

King James Version (KJV)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...asticus-34-22/

[acptulsa]

GOD repeatedly told men to do it...

What part of He is the Potter and you're not, He has the sure knowledge and the right, and you do not, are you hoping people will ignore?

[Swordsmyth]

John 10:10

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

King James Version (KJV)

[Swordsmyth]

What part of He is the Potter and you're not, He has the sure knowledge and the right, and you do not, are you hoping people will ignore?

What part of standing instructions do you not understand.

And it's clear why you deceptively edited my post, you don't want to deal with this:

and gave help to those engaged in killing invaders whom he did not specifically command.

[acptulsa]

John 10:10

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

King James Version (KJV)

Which thief? Let's just explore how much of a collectivist you really are. Which thief came to kill?

And it's clear why you deceptively edited my post, you don't want to deal with this:

I don't want to deal with it because asking you to be specific and properly cite your "facts" is even less productive than asking Kamala Harris to do the same.

[Swordsmyth]

Which thief? Let's just explore how much of a collectivist you really are. Which thief came to kill?

The archetypal thief.

Ecclesiasticus 34:22

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.”

King James Version (KJV)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...asticus-34-22/

[acptulsa]

The archetypal thief.

Ecclesiasticus 34:22

“He that taketh away his neighbour's living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a bloodshedder.”

King James Version (KJV)

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...asticus-34-22/

So what did your fundie preacher teach you about why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? Just a typo?

You want permission to kill people. So name the one who is taking away your living, who is taking food out of your mouth.

You don't think God prefers we allow people who wrong us a chance to repent? So why did He say vengeance is His, not ours?

[Swordsmyth]

So what did your fundie preacher teach you about why Jesus told us to turn the other cheek? Just a typo?

You want permission to kill people. So name the one who is taking away your living, who is taking food out of your mouth.

You don't think God prefers we allow people who wrong us a chance to repent? So why did He say vengeance is His, not ours?

I already answered that, to everything there is a time and a season.
Christ said both that those who are not with him are against him and that those who are not against him are with him, a flat contradiction to the simple minded, but an intelligent person understands both are true in different circumstances and that circumstances dictate which one applies.

I also said that we should just expel the vast majority of them, mercy is not something they have a right to, but it is good for us to indulge in.
You are not always required to to do the best thing, but it is the best thing to do.

[acptulsa]

Christ said both that those who are not with him are against him and that those who are not against him are with him, a flat contradiction to the simple minded...

I'm simple minded enough to want my questions answered directly (so I don't know why I ever attempt to converse with you) but that doesn't look anything like a contradiction to me.

You're still reserving rights unto yourself that neither you nor any other mortal can lay claim to.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm simple minded enough to want my questions answered directly (so I don't know why I ever attempt to converse with you) but that doesn't look anything like a contradiction to me.

You're still reserving rights unto yourself that neither you nor any other mortal can lay claim to.

I have to agree with your own mental assessment.
What you are missing is that those who are not explicitly for or against him are placed in either the for or against him camp in different situations.

And I reserve nothing that is not given by GOD in the Bible.
You trying to ignore everything that contradicts your advocacy for invaders and traitors and pretending that there are not circumstantial rules (like killing in self defense or the defense of others) creates an impossible and self contradictory doctrine, but you don't care because you only care about quoting scripture to your profit.

I render unto GOD that which is GOD's, and unto my nation that which is my nations.
They do not contradict eachother.

[Invisible Man]

Whoever told her that is a liar.
Invaders do not have any rights, let alone a 2A right to be armed.

Are we talking about a person who has been found guilty by way of due process of whatever crime you are referring to when you call them an invader?

Or are you thinking that we should all be assumed guilty of this crime and prohibited from buying guns unless we first prove our innocence by providing paperwork?

[acptulsa]

Are we talking about a person who has been found guilty by way of due process of whatever crime you are referring to when you call them an invader?

Or are you thinking that we should all be assumed guilty of this crime and prohibited from buying guns unless we first prove our innocence by providing paperwork?

You forgot the third possibility: Like any prog, he just wants to be put in charge so he can kick out anyone he doesn't like.

[jmdrake]

LOL
I've said Vance may have made a mistake by citing a particular case, you won't admit all the other cases that are real and you cling to the official denials by the liars who are importing the pet stealers and eaters.

FFS dude! Admit what? That accusations are sold proof of anything? How many accusations are there about Trump and Trump supporters? Some turned out to be true and some turned out to be false. You are a freaking cultist. There could actually be a fruitful discussion about what people agree on, like the fact that there is a gravy train of government spending that should be dealt with, and instead you want to double and tipple down on stupid. Trump shouldn't have said "Their eating the cats" without having anything but accusations that "they're eating the cats." He could have said "The federal government is subsidizing migrants to work for less than Americans, black white or other, are willing to work for in Springfield Ohio. And these migrants are getting cars and driving them without drivers licenses and its dangerous." Nobody would have had any come back to that. It would have gotten the same amount of positive coverage and no negative coverage. If Trump loses it will be because of stupid stunts like this where he takes a winning issue and makes it a losing one.

[Invisible Man]

Honest question:

With this story, or whatever it is or isn't, now having the attention it has, are there any serious investigative journalists going to Springfield and making an effort to get to the bottom of it, and publish a serious story that lays out exactly what the facts actually are, who was an eyewitness of what, what evidence either supports them or weighs against them, and separating the misinformation from the things that have any measure of likelihood?

If not, why not?

[PAF]

Honest question:

With this story, or whatever it is or isn't, now having the attention it has, are there any serious investigative journalists going to Springfield and making an effort to get to the bottom of it, and publish a serious story that lays out exactly what the facts actually are, who was an eyewitness of what, what evidence either supports them or weighs against them, and separating the misinformation from the things that have any measure of likelihood?

If not, why not?

The lady in that video already let the cat out of the bag.

She stated that cats were a problem a couple/few years ago and TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] dealt with it, which is why cats aren't seen hanging around as much. TNR is everywhere, including in my locale, and I can vouch for that.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Because we can choose to grant them privileges.
Just as we can choose to show mercy and deport them instead of shooting them.

Are rights, rights, or are they just privileges?

[PAF]

Are rights, rights, or are they just privileges?

He already said that rights are privileges which are/should be granted by politicians/government.