Search results

While true, and although I'm loathe to defend a horrible leader like Trump, he fought the Democrats and most of the Republicans in an effort to de-escalate in the middle east. It's not because he had any principles against war and killing, but a number of other reasons. The point being, don't...

You think it's not the same? Are you saying you know for sure this was or wasn't a surprise? Do you know for sure if Hamas is cutting off baby's heads or not? Are you sure you know if, on net, Israel oppressing the Palestinians or working with them to relieve their poverty? There are a great...

Thanks! That's a nice list someone made there, and now I'm curious to see the comments. Does anyone answer this "context"?

Ack. It wants me to create an account. I thought I used to be able to see posts on twitter without an account. Did they change their policy?

As usual, there are a great deal of lies mixed in with the truths. And are we escalating or de-escalating? hmmmmmm. What is going on remains to be seen. Is the USS Ford carrier group going to be set up as our Pearl Harbor if we don't commit enough? This is similar to Ukraine situation where I...

You're on X?

Although, if distance doesn't affect entangled particles, is there a scenario where information could travel backward in time? On the surface the answer would be "no", but there are people who are smarter than me that might be able to come up with something.

And this fits somewhat closer to the idea that one can, in effect, travel forward in time relative between certain frames, but never backward in time between those same frames. And just that understanding seems to solve a lot of problems. And this also means there are never relative frames than...

Just to let you know, I did see this some decade or decades ago. It's not new.

Of course. So now that you know laws carry the threat of violence... it's nice to see you are being consistent within this post. The problem is you've said in previous posts: "Violence should not be the first answer to any question." So is the the second answer to any question? And: "Lawfully...

You say you don't promote violence, but you are implying here that you promote violence as the second answer to any question. Could you clarify? "Lawfully"? You mean like make it a law? If so, then "lawfully" and "not with violence" contradict each other. But in God's opinion on Ez 18:1-3...

Oh. So you don't support the state forcing people to pay reparations? You said in response to the state forcing people to pay to former slave owners: "The slaves should have been paid the reparation money, NOT the slave owners." ...and later you said: "I would have been far happier had my tax...

Of course not. Children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers. As God says Ez 18:1-3: 1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s...

I was not hoping for you to have peace until you deal with your wrongful hatred. Your unjustified hatred leads to unjustified violence. I don't like violence. But unlike you, I don't support the violent taking of people's possessions unjustly by the government. If I did, I'd be hateful and wrong...

These slaves are alive today?

My statement "Yes, I can see you are hateful while you don't realize you are hateful. Therefore, I am demonstrating I know more about hate than you, however while I know more about hate you are more hateful than I am." is understood to mean I have looked into the mirror and I understand myself...

Only because you imply being hateful toward others. Accusing and punishing people of wrongs they did not commit is hateful. Yes, I can see you are hateful while you don't realize you are hateful. Therefore, I am demonstrating I know more about hate they you, however while I know more about hate...

No. You've been paying off a loan your ancestors took out in your name. They paid the former slave owners up-front compensation and there was no paying them after they died - those former slave owners already spent that money! You cannot retroactively either stop that loan from being taken out...

Then you are unreasonable. First, there is nothing you can do about the past except to learn from it. The only lesson you can learn from it is to hate chattel slavery and don't support it, which is what we do. Secondly, payments are better than violence. Christ paid for our sins instead of...

The dead people who you want to compensate are dead. You can't do it. It's physically impossible. Yes, it's very sad. But just because we can't compensate the victims doesn't mean we wanted them to be victims. You are implying that we are for chattel slavery. Are you saying people that have a...