Van Terror In Toronto...

[rogue06]

So.

Are vans banned yet?

00000000000000ars7e.jpg

[Sparko]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27569[/ATTACH]

What about Ryder and other companies that actually RENT out assault vehicles? You can just walk in off the street and rent a killing machine for a few dollars! That is insane! What's next? An App where you can just call for an assault vehicle to come pick you up?

[Starlight]

Please substantiate this incredibly goofy false accusation that I have declared "you're lying". Actual quote, please.

Here's three examples:

your outrageous "shoot 'em first, ask questions later" lie.

your outrageous "shoot 'em first, ask questions later" lie?

(different post, same accusation of lying)

your "shoot 'em first, ask questions later" nonsense is still a lie. You just don't have the personal integrity to admit you overshot the runway.

(The level of projection involved in accusation of lack of personal integrity is truly incredible given your own sad refusal to even admit to calling Tassman's words a lie)

You've accused Tassman of lying at least three times in this thread. Then you've pathetically pretended you didn't do exactly that, and don't even have the personal integrity to stand by your words or take responsibility for them. And then, as if that stunning lack of moral fibre on your part wasn't enough, you pretend it's me and not you who can't understand the difference between the word "lie" which you used repeatedly and the notion that someone is "wrong" which was not the word you used:

It appears he is incapable of understanding the difference between "you're wrong" and "you're a liar".

It's really sad to see your conversation with others be so dishonest and disingenuous and you be so utterly unable to stand by your own words. Christianity is supposed to be about truth, so I'd really expect better.

[Cow Poke]

Here's three examples:


(different post, same accusation of lying)

(The level of projection involved in accusation of lack of personal integrity is truly incredible given your own sad refusal to even admit to calling Tassman's words a lie)

You've accused Tassman of lying at least three times in this thread. Then you've pathetically pretended you didn't do exactly that, and don't even have the personal integrity to stand by your words or take responsibility for them. And then, as if that stunning lack of moral fibre on your part wasn't enough, you pretend it's me and not you who can't understand the difference between the word "lie" which you used repeatedly and the notion that someone is "wrong" which was not the word you used:



It's really sad to see your conversation with others be so dishonest and disingenuous and you be so utterly unable to stand by your own words. Christianity is supposed to be about truth, so I'd really expect better.

Wow --- the "shoot 'em first - ask questions later" is downright idiotic. That you BELIEVE that crap is amazing.

[Cow Poke]

(The level of projection involved in accusation of lack of personal integrity is truly incredible given your own sad refusal to even admit to calling Tassman's words a lie)

I went back through the thread and read the whole exchange. Tassman makes a number of claims which are outright lies. When I asked him to back them up, he danced all around them, but was unable to support his untruths. Like the goofy "countless examples", and the moronic "...in the USA police tend to shoot the crap out of people as their initial response". That's a lie. In the link he provided, the police FIRST ordered the man to "show me your hands, show me your hands"... THAT was the initial response. I don't even pretend to defend what happened next - but Tassman goes WAY overboard on his demonization of police.



If you actually watch the video, the officer yells multiple times, "show me your hands"...

That example is horrendous enough without Tassman having to lie about what happened.

Then his "countless examples" turns into 14, most of which don't prove what he was claiming.

So, yes, I DID call Tassman's words a lie - I did not call him a liar. It's entirely possible that, in his incredibly anti-cop bias, he actually BELIEVES this crap. That makes him wrong. Not necessarily a liar.

[Starlight]

Wow --- the "shoot 'em first - ask questions later" is downright idiotic.

I agree on two counts:
1. There is clearly no intention on the part of police to "ask questions later" if cops shoot a suspect 40 times or so. Especially if evidence is then planted on the scene by cops. However, the "ask questions later" part is probably meant somewhat in jest on Tassman's part, and his implication is that actually they weren't interested in asking questions at all.
2. Yes, it is a downright idiotic and immoral practice on the part of the US police. There should be an independent federal agency established to automatically review such police actions like there is here.

Oh, was that not the reasons you thought it was idiotic? Given the numerous unwarranted police shootings that have been released to the public on video, it is clear there is too much of a "shoot first, shoot second, shoot third" attitude among US frontline police in many districts, and both standardized national training as well as an independent review agency is necessary.

Tassman goes WAY overboard on his demonization of police.

I disagree, I think you go WAY overboard in your overzealous bias to stand up for police no matter what. Just because the police in your area are good (and it appears they are one of the best areas in the country from what I've seen of the data) doesn't mean that there aren't serious problems in other areas of the country. Taking the standards that are used by police in your area or other areas where police are acting particularly well and professionally, and standardizing them nationally and backing them up with an independent police review agency seems urgent due to the numerous on-camera bad-actions by police, as well as the massive loss of public faith in the police, as well as because it's worked incredibly well in other countries (including here and the UK).

[Cow Poke]

I agree...

Good.

[Cow Poke]

I disagree, I think you go WAY overboard in your overzealous bias to stand up for police no matter what.

Yet, I had JUST SAID....

That example is horrendous enough without Tassman having to lie about what happened.

and,,,

I don't even pretend to defend what happened next

[Tassman]

Here's three examples:


(different post, same accusation of lying)

(The level of projection involved in accusation of lack of personal integrity is truly incredible given your own sad refusal to even admit to calling Tassman's words a lie)

You've accused Tassman of lying at least three times in this thread. Then you've pathetically pretended you didn't do exactly that, and don't even have the personal integrity to stand by your words or take responsibility for them. And then, as if that stunning lack of moral fibre on your part wasn't enough, you pretend it's me and not you who can't understand the difference between the word "lie" which you used repeatedly and the notion that someone is "wrong" which was not the word you used:



It's really sad to see your conversation with others be so dishonest and disingenuous and you be so utterly unable to stand by your own words. Christianity is supposed to be about truth, so I'd really expect better.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/...-all-time-high

[Cow Poke]

Of course it is. This is why they support a compulsive liar like Trump.

It's often said that you become like the person you hate. You're making great progress.

[Starlight]

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/...-all-time-high

There was an interesting study I saw a while back that dug into the Christian support for Trump and sub-divided their analysis by theology and did some interviews. What they found was that it was the group which I think they labelled "Christian dominionists" who were the main supporters of Trump. i.e. People who answered 'strongly agree' to questions along the lines of whether America should formally be a "Christian nation" and the ten commandments should be outside courthouses etc (Christian sharia law to the max, and First Amendment separation of church and state be discarded). Since Trump doesn't give two figs about Christian theology, Trump has been totally happy to appoint the most extreme lets-make-the-government-Christian fundies to positions of power, and make ridiculously extreme promises to them about implementing their agendas (of course you and I know Trump doesn't give two figs and can't be trusted to do anything at all and would betray them if the wind changed), and as a result these prominent Christian dominionist fundies went and told their gullible flocks that Trump is God's tool to transform the country and that God works through flawed tools so Trump's person character failings are irrelevant because the US will become the True Christian nation. So Trump can continue to be his awful self so long as he continues to promise the moon to these gullible Christians who are desperate to slap the title of Christian Nation on the US.

[Cow Poke]

There was an interesting study I saw a while back that dug into the Christian support for Trump and sub-divided their analysis by theology and did some interviews. What they found was that it was the group which I think they labelled "Christian dominionists" who were the main supporters of Trump. i.e. People who answered 'strongly agree' to questions along the lines of whether America should formally be a "Christian nation" and the ten commandments should be outside courthouses etc (Christian sharia law to the max, and First Amendment separation of church and state be discarded). Since Trump doesn't give two figs about Christian theology, Trump has been totally happy to appoint the most extreme lets-make-the-government-Christian fundies to positions of power, and make ridiculously extreme promises to them about implementing their agendas (of course you and I know Trump doesn't give two figs and can't be trusted to do anything at all and would betray them if the wind changed), and as a result these prominent Christian dominionist fundies went and told their gullible flocks that Trump is God's tool to transform the country and that God works through flawed tools so Trump's person character failings are irrelevant because the US will become the True Christian nation. So Trump can continue to be his awful self so long as he continues to promise the moon to these gullible Christians who are desperate to slap the title of Christian Nation on the US.

On the other hand, some Christians like me see Trump as, more or less, the fireman who comes to my house to put out a fire, and though I know his morals stink out loud, I'm not going to stand in the way as my house burns.

[One Bad Pig]

There was an interesting study I saw a while back that dug into the Christian support for Trump and sub-divided their analysis by theology and did some interviews. What they found was that it was the group which I think they labelled "Christian dominionists" who were the main supporters of Trump. i.e. People who answered 'strongly agree' to questions along the lines of whether America should formally be a "Christian nation" and the ten commandments should be outside courthouses etc (Christian sharia law to the max, and First Amendment separation of church and state be discarded). Since Trump doesn't give two figs about Christian theology, Trump has been totally happy to appoint the most extreme lets-make-the-government-Christian fundies to positions of power, and make ridiculously extreme promises to them about implementing their agendas (of course you and I know Trump doesn't give two figs and can't be trusted to do anything at all and would betray them if the wind changed), and as a result these prominent Christian dominionist fundies went and told their gullible flocks that Trump is God's tool to transform the country and that God works through flawed tools so Trump's person character failings are irrelevant because the US will become the True Christian nation. So Trump can continue to be his awful self so long as he continues to promise the moon to these gullible Christians who are desperate to slap the title of Christian Nation on the US.

Christian dominionists are pretty fringe; fundamentalists aren't a huge group either. As to Trump appointing "the most extreme... fundies"? You're frothing.

[JimL]

CP's under the Blood of Jesus.

So you imagine!

[Tassman]

There was an interesting study I saw a while back that dug into the Christian support for Trump and sub-divided their analysis by theology and did some interviews. What they found was that it was the group which I think they labelled "Christian dominionists" who were the main supporters of Trump. i.e. People who answered 'strongly agree' to questions along the lines of whether America should formally be a "Christian nation" and the ten commandments should be outside courthouses etc (Christian sharia law to the max, and First Amendment separation of church and state be discarded). Since Trump doesn't give two figs about Christian theology, Trump has been totally happy to appoint the most extreme lets-make-the-government-Christian fundies to positions of power, and make ridiculously extreme promises to them about implementing their agendas (of course you and I know Trump doesn't give two figs and can't be trusted to do anything at all and would betray them if the wind changed), and as a result these prominent Christian dominionist fundies went and told their gullible flocks that Trump is God's tool to transform the country and that God works through flawed tools so Trump's person character failings are irrelevant because the US will become the True Christian nation. So Trump can continue to be his awful self so long as he continues to promise the moon to these gullible Christians who are desperate to slap the title of Christian Nation on the US.