Should Trump Resign Over "Hellhole" Comment?

[rogue06]

Um, Jim, that's so far off as to be irrational. Early Christians routinely took in abandoned babies (exposure was a thing with a lot of ancient cultures - including the Greeks and Romans).

During the Middle Ages churches started installing what are known as "baby hatches"^[1] specifically to help curtail the practice of abandoning babies in the wilderness or tossing them into a nearby river or lake.







1. becoming increasingly elaborate over the years including "foundling wheels" which work like a modern revolving door so that mothers could put the baby inside the church itself (where they would no longer be exposed to the elements) and pull a bell cord thereby alerting those inside.

[rogue06]

I want to take the time to say kudos for your post here.

Ironically it wouldn't take much to expand that into a great little sermon on living out Christian values in businesses (well for use in churches in my country anyway, the US 'Christians' don't seem to have nearly as much interest as US atheists do when it comes to living out moral values).

Ironic reading about moral values coming from someone who

• goes apoplectic if a whale gets killed but cavalierly endorses the slaughter of human babies one year and under.
• supports giving pedophiles kiddy porn.
• advocates for physical violence against those who don't share your far left political views.
• promotes co-ed nudity in elementary schools.

[rogue06]

You're thinking Robin Hood, not Jesus. Jesus teaches us to give to the poor - to help those in need. Robin Hood came up with the 'rob the rich, give to the poor' thing.

government does such a poor job of getting people on their feet and such a great job of letting some slip through the cracks that using it as a charitable tool is highly questionable.

Didja ever notice that it was mostly from the government that Robin Hood took money from? Giving back the oppressive taxes they took from the public.

[Starlight]

Ironic reading about moral values coming from someone who...

[Various totally false statements and gross misrepresentations deleted]

Please don't lie about my viewpoints you dishonest weasel. Since you appear to have copy and pasted this list from Adrift's previous usage of it that I took him to task for, you must have posted it with full knowledge both of my complaints as to how false it was and my explicit point-by-point rebuttal of it.

Quite aside from being grossly dishonest and deceptive misrepresentations on your part, none of those topics are relevant to the topic at hand.

It's also a bit rich for someone like you to be trying to lecture me on morality. Apart from the various horrific positions common to many of the right-wing conservatives here, I find you personally particularly odious for:

- Your constant support for mass ownership of firearms and the amount of apologetics you are willing to do to defend that in the face of the mass slaughter that such weapons continually cause in your country and as a result I absolutely consider you personally morally liable for your part in willfully and knowingly and repeatedly promoting the causes of those deaths. You are not just a run of the mill "hey, yeah I like guns" or "the 2nd amendment is cool" guy, you are an active apologist for the mass use of guns and against their regulation.

- Your regular and repeated attempts to smear gay people in the present day en masse as some kind of pedophile-supporters, by trying to draw historical connections between particular historical groups of gay people and supporters of NAMBLA. You have a convoluted theory that you regularly like to trot out to slander gay people with. And when called out on your massive slanders you like to pretend you're just stating 'facts'.

- You seem to have significantly less interest in making truthful statements than the average poster here has. You don't seem to mind going in for the big whopper, pants on fire, statements with seemingly no shame. Plenty of posters get stuff wrong here regularly, but you seem one of the most enthusiastic at making apparently willfully false statements. For a recent example, see the post this is a response to. Over the years I've come to consider you the single biggest deliberate liar on TWeb. You're smarter than the average poster here, and don't tend to mis-cite your sources (like, cough, Adrift), but you seem to have a consistent problem with actual truthfulness.

[rogue06]

Man up and put your big boy pants on. These are positions you have espoused in the past. If you want to now renounce them that is a commendable improvement but to pretend that you have not held them is a total falsehood on your part. And trying to deflect from that fact by concocting some bizarre distortion of my position is a contemptible ploy on your part. But then from you that is par for the course isn't it?

[Starlight]

Man up and put your big boy pants on.

These are positions you have espoused in the past.

They are not. Of the four you listed:
- 2 are out-rightly false and you just utterly have the wrong end of the stick and I don't espouse or endorse any positions even remotely resembling what you wrote in any sense.
- 1 is mostly false, in the sense that I have some nuanced views on the subject and I would say "it's complicated", but your statements you made about my views about it are far more false than true.
- and one is a gross misrepresentation in the kind of way I'm used to seeing anti-abortionist spouting nonsense in the form of "if you want abortion to be legal you must LoVe tO SlaUghTeR BaBiESss!!". Saying "Mass slaughter of babies, yay!!! I love it!!!" versus "I think there should be a legal mechanism for parents and doctors to agree to terminate the life of a fetus or an infant" aren't even close to the same thing. I might be willing to grant you an exemption for that one as "standard delusional pro-life nonsense", but you being so wrong about the other 3 is hard to overlook.

If you want to now renounce them that is a commendable improvement but to pretend that you have not held them is a total falsehood on your part.

I am open to receiving an apology from you for misrepresenting my views so severely, and for you to promise to stick to quoting my posts in future rather than so bizarrely summarizing my alleged viewpoints, and for you to ask me on various topics how you could fairly summarize my view on that topic in one sentence. You could man up, put your big boy pants on, admit you were wrong, and give that apology.

And trying to deflect from that fact by concocting some bizarre distortion of my position is a contemptible ploy on your part.

Unlike your absurd brief lies about my view, I actually took some effort to explain clearly your views and how I found them contemptible. I didn't make up things like "Rogue enjoys murdering people and also endorses the mass killing of fluffy kittens" the way you did with me. Anyone who has been on this forum for any reasonable length of time is well aware of how much apologetics you do for gun proliferation any time a thread on mass killings comes up. It was actually your disgusting level of gun-apologetics that was what finally pushed me into quitting TWeb for a period last year. I felt the way you personally were defending guns and massacres was so disgusting and intolerable that I couldn't take it anymore. (That's not to say there aren't plenty of other people posting here who regularly annoy me with immoral positions and views, but it was you and your gun-apologetics beyond any other posters that was the final straw)

[Tassman]

Didja ever notice that it was mostly from the government that Robin Hood took money from? Giving back the oppressive taxes they took from the public.

That's NOT what Robin Hood did. He stole from the rich (not the government) and gave to the poor. The rich today being the wealthy oligarchs, who manipulate markets and financial systems to enrich themselves further at the expense of the poor.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, I would say that while the bible is a bit contradictory on some things (e.g. warfare, divorce), there are some things that are pretty consistent that have obvious potential for political application:

1. Commands to welcome refugees and foreigners.
2. Commands to help the poor, needy, hungry, and sick.
3. Critiques of excessive wealth and money and greed.
4. Commands to have slaves and treat them well.
5. Commands not to intermarry with worshipers of other gods.

Obviously 1-3 are pretty consistent with modern left-wing politics, 4 is unacceptable in modern society, and 5 could have potential use in mitigating 1 slightly in terms of which countries refugees were being accepted from (e.g. for the US it could be consistent with banning Muslims and welcoming Dreamers and Mexicans and South Americans who are largely all Christian).

As we've explained before, those were exhortations for the individual. Jesus wasn't establishing government policy. Jesus said to pay your taxes, but he never once said to forcefully take the money from one social group and give it to another.

[seer]

That's NOT what Robin Hood did. He stole from the rich (not the government) and gave to the poor. The rich today being the wealthy oligarchs, who manipulate markets and financial systems to enrich themselves further at the expense of the poor.

How is letting people keep more of their own money stealing from anyone?

[carpedm9587]

How is letting people keep more of their own money stealing from anyone?

As my post tried to say - it depends on how they got "their own money" to begin with.

[rogue06]

Didja ever notice that it was mostly from the government that Robin Hood took money from? Giving back the oppressive taxes they took from the public.

That's NOT what Robin Hood did. He stole from the rich (not the government) and gave to the poor.

Read the stories. The ones he generally went after were tax collectors and other government officials. Then he returned the money back to those they took it from.

[Cerebrum123]

Read the stories. The ones he generally went after were tax collectors and other government officials. Then he returned the money back to those they took it from.

What he doesn't seem to realize that it was the rich individuals who ran the government. The "other government officials" generally speaking would be people like the nobles, or the infamous Prince John.

[lilpixieofterror]

There's nothing "poignant" about promoting bigotry, division, class envy, and denying people the respect they are due for their accomplishments when you can whittle away at their supposed "privilege" and reduce them to nothing. It's a very ugly lesson to teach.

"Take two steps forward if you're white. Take ten steps forward if you're black and will benefit from affirmative action because liberals don't think you're able to make it on your own without their help."

[lilpixieofterror]

Read the stories. The ones he generally went after were tax collectors and other government officials. Then he returned the money back to those they took it from.

Sounds like Tassman needs to watch about every Robin movie and play ever made since the two major villains (the sherif of Nottingham and King John, at least in most versions) are government officials.

[NorrinRadd]

Sounds like Tassman needs to watch about every Robin movie and play ever made since the two major villains (the sherif of Nottingham and King John, at least in most versions) are government officials.

I think he's confusing him with Dennis Moore.

I hope he's properly generous with his lupins.