Featured Baptist pastor says the victims deserved what they got!

And yet one more pegs Zaac's arguments as nonchristian, racist political propaganda.

 

NOPE.

 

Yet one more promoting their own nonChristian, racist and racially prejudiced propaganda. But rest assured. I realized that on day one on this board. Y'all run in packs.

 

....and wearisome.

 

It seems to me that you fit the definition of a forum troll.

 

What's absolutely absurd is the degree to which you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh please show me an example of racism from Blacks against Whites so that I can address it. This board, like the GOP, just happens to be full of Fox News parrots who don't even realize it and don't realize the nastiness of what they repeat.

Nope. I've told yall to stop letting your politics supersede God. GOP politics before God will never triumph.

If you say so. Frankly you're just attempting to assuage the wickedness of the racist and racially prejudiced on this board and who surround ya. You fit right in with A2 and the band of locals.

 

Anyone on this board who opposes the wickedness flowing from the many concerted fingertips playing their GOP melody is deemed a troll.

I prefer the name underneath my avatar.

 

Did I say that? lol

The truth is, he is gathering into his garner liberals of all races and gender, and a few who aren't really sure what their race and gender are...to boot.

Obama is a Muslim Sympathizer and if you aren't aware of that by now...my sympathy.

Well I wouldn't call going into those countries and throwing down a regime poking, I'd call it a whupping.



But you apparently miss the point. And a little advice, my friend, those home growns are going to be white, red, black, and yellow, and they aren't going to care about the color of the skin of the people they kill.

Of course, you 'll probably be safe.

Well, lol and ROFL! don't cover the amusement such a statement brings out.

Yep, lying to people for personal gain, power, and notoriety is really treating folks with dignity and respect.

They are. Voting in people that are allowing Islam to grow. Islam kills homosexuals. Liberalism kills children.

Only a moron would think that telling people, "Yeah, sure, you have the right to kill your children" is being treated with dignity and respect.

So cast your vote, Zaac. Going to be a lot of fornication going on which will require the need to murder babies.

What's the Muslim opinion on abortion and fornication, by the way?

What ineffable twaddle.

Name one law that gives a white person an advantage. Then name one that gives a black person an advantage.


Continued...

 

Well, let's look back to April of 2015:


Obama's Unforgivable Betrayal

Never! Never would Iran be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That was the pledge of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Not only that. “Never” was the purpose of 191 nations in agreeing to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It came into force in 1970 to save the planet from destroying itself and all human life. Hence the near universal agreement, a unique adherence for an arms control measure.

But the story since then is maddening and ominous. One of the parties to the treaty was Iran, and Iran has been in almost continuous noncompliance with the treaty it agreed to.

Flash forward to the Obama administration. Now the president is no longer trying to stop Iran from going nuclear. “Never” has been slimmed down to 13 years – at best! The Iranians have secured enough nuclear fuel to make the first generation bomb small enough to be dropped from a transport plane. The former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector, Olli Heinonen, reckons the proposed agreement from the Lausanne talks leaves Iran “a threshold breakout nuclear state for the next 10 years.” But we may have only the mirage of an agreement since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his associates are producing tons of ambiguity about what was agreed – and on our side, where unity is essential in dealing with a very slippy adversary, there are troubling discrepancies between the French and U.S. understandings.

Just look at the wriggles and evasions since Lausanne. President Barack Obama said the sanctions would be lifted only after Iran has delivered on its commitments. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani draw new red lines. They insist on the immediate removal of sanctions on agreement; they reject monitoring of Iran’s military sites and have the nerve to say its subversion – assistance to “resistance” groups – will continue.

Yet the sanctions that took years to put in place are being removed almost immediately, unlinked to a change in Iran’s behavior. The symmetry is grim: The Iranians walk away from long-standing commitments and the Americans compromise on long-standing demands.

Obama had previously stated that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. Yet more enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges per decade and all restraints will end in 15 years.

That is the key. By making a breakout time the central measure by which to judge the effectiveness, the administration has made verification the most important part of the agreement. We must be in a position to show that we can detect what the Iranians are doing and when they are doing it. The IAEA inspectors must have access to declared and undeclared sites. The artificial deadline the administration imposed has had the perverse effect of pressuring Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, and not the Iranian government, to make concessions. On almost every key issue, the Iranians won the day as the Obama administration folded. The entire infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear weapons program remains intact.


I dunno, maybe US NEWS isn't liberal enough for you, so, let's take a look at a New Times piece from 2013:


Iran Nuclear Weapon to Take Year or More, Obama Says


WASHINGTON — President Obama told an Israeli television station on Thursday that his administration believed it would take Iran “over a year or so” to develop a nuclear weapon, and he vowed that the United States would do whatever was necessary to prevent that from happening.

Sounds good, right? Unless you compare it to former administrations' stance that they are never to have that capability.

Let's read on:


Less than a week before his first visit as president to Israel, Mr. Obama pledged to continue diplomatic efforts, but he promised that the United States would keep all options on the table to ensure that Iran did not become a nuclear threat to its neighbors.

“Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” Mr. Obama told the Israeli station, Channel 2 TV. He said his message to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, “will be the same as before: ‘If we can resolve it diplomatically that is a more lasting solution.”

How does someone that lives next think about Obama's assurance?


The Israeli position has long been that Iran must be denied the capability to piece a weapon together. Mr. Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Ehud Barak, argue that if Iran is just a few screwdriver turns away from being able to construct a weapon, it will have the same power in the region as if it actually had one.

When Mr. Netanyahu held up a picture of a cartoonlike bomb at the United Nations last year, with a red line drawn near the top, he was creating his boundary: Iran could not possess enough nuclear fuel to produce a single weapon. Israeli officials say that, in real numbers, that means it cannot be allowed to hold 240 kilograms or so of uranium enriched to a medium level of purity. From there, they have argued, it would take Iran only a few months to build a bomb.

Mr. Obama, in the interview, offered a different estimate: How long it would take Iran to build a full weapon. That would mean enriching enough uranium; fashioning it into a weapon, surrounded by detonators; and being able to be delivered by airplane, cargo ship or missile.


Now read this, a portion from the Huffington Post, October of 2015 (and you can read the beginning of the article if you like, but this is what I want you to consider):


Iran Nuclear Deal Takes Effect

One U.S. official noted that the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran already has met its obligation to provide answers and access to the agency. The official suggested the quality of answers Iran might have provided to the IAEA was not relevant when it came to deciding whether to press forward with sanctions relief.


Tehran denies allegations from Western powers and their allies that its nuclear program was aimed at developing the capability to produce atomic weapons.


Unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran not tied to its atomic program, such as those related to human rights, will remain even after the nuclear deal is implemented.


Sounds good, right? Of course Tehran has no goal of developing atomic weapons. How absurd, right?

We can trust them, right?

Read on...


The U.S. officials were asked about Iran’s decision to test a ballistic missile a week ago in violation of a U.N. ban that will remain in effect for almost a decade. The United States has said the missile was capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.


The officials reiterated the launch was not a violation of the nuclear deal.


“This is not, unfortunately, something new,” a U.S. official said, adding that the missile test should not be seen as an indicator of Iran’s willingness to comply with the nuclear deal.


“There is a long pattern of Iran ignoring U.N. Security Council resolutions on ballistic missiles,” the official said.


Washington has said it would seek Security Council action against Iran over the missile test.


Once the deal is implemented, Iran will still be “called upon” to refrain from undertaking any work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for a period of up to eight years, according to a Security Council resolution adopted in July.


Fool me once, shame on me...

You are out of your mind if you think Iran has any plan to polay by the rules. They already show they are not going to abide by a UN ban, why would you think they are going to abide by this imbecilic "plan for lasting peace?"

They are testing ballistic missiles for what reason, Zaac? Maybe it's a gift for the US on the fourth, "Uh, yeah, Mr. President, don't worry, its fireworks to help you celebrate, yeah..."

You don't see a problem with a policy of "They cannot have nuclear capability with "Oh, my best guess is it would take them a year to actually produce a nuclear bomb, so no worries, everything's cool..."

...?


Continued...

 

But let's look at something a little more recent:


Iran tests missile capable of reaching Israel

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran test-fired another ballistic missile, the latest in a spate of tests following the implementation of the nuclear deal with world powers earlier this year, according to a report Monday by the country's semi-official Tasnim news agency.

The test-firing of the missile was carried out two weeks ago, the agency quoted Gen. Ali Abdollahi, deputy chief of the armed forces' headquarters, as saying. Tasnim is close to the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard, which is in charge of Iranian ballistic missiles program.


The agency said the missile has a range of 1,250 miles - enough to reach much of the Middle East. Iranian military commanders have described them as a strategic asset and a strong deterrent, capable of hitting U.S. bases or Israel in the event of a strike on Iran.

Iran insists the ballistic tests do not violate the nuclear deal and is likely seeking to demonstrate it is making progress with its ballistic program, despite scaling back on the nuclear program following the deal that led to the lifting of international sanction on Tehran.


There's a sucker born every minute.

What was that Washington said?

Washington has said it would seek Security Council action against Iran over the missile test.

Let's not forget...

The officials reiterated the launch was not a violation of the nuclear deal.


One question, please?

Why Not?

Here's a nice little story for our peace-loving population...


Iran threatens to block U.S. access to vital waterway

TEHRAN, Iran -- The deputy commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard said Iranian forces will close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to the United States and its allies if they "threaten" the Islamic Republic, Iranian state media reported on Wednesday.

Let's see what else these allies of Obama have to say (same article):


In his remarks, Salami said that "Americans should learn from recent historical truths," likely referring to the January capture of 10 U.S. sailors who entered Iranian waters. The sailors were released less than a day later, though state TV aired footage of the sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads.

"If the Americans and their regional allies want to pass through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten us, we will not allow any entry," Salami said, without elaborating on what he and other leaders would consider a threat.

He added: "Americans cannot make safe any part of the world."


Let me ask you something, Zaac, seeing you are against those in this country that try to make it a safer place...do you agree with the Iranians? Is big bad America trying to throw her weight around, and these poor little guys are heroes for standing up to their oppressors?

Do you really think there is any chance whatsoever that Iran is being honest in their negotioations?

And do you really think Obama has done anything that will hinder Iran from being capable of producing nuclear weapons?

Obama is a Muslim Sympathizer and has done more good for Islam, and more evil for America...than bin Laden ever thought to accomplish.


Continued...

 

Please show how.

In case you forgot the context, we are talking about you trying to make Trump as much of a traitor as Obama.

Do tell.

Please show how.

Oh, I got it...he have them jobs. Captialist swine.

He could do that Zaac.

Bush did.

You think these guys really want the full attention of an American President that actually cares what goes on in other countries?

You seriously don't think the takeover in Iraq is a problem?

Okay, tell me how Trump is bringing about Muslim mobilization. I'm listening.

Do tell. Not that it would surprise me, but, running as a Republican, which has historically been in opposition to abortion, he isn't going to be able to gain the conservative vote by being pro-choice.

Although the country has sunken to a teenage level in their reasoning capabilities. Maybe he does have enough airhead reality show enthusiasts who will vote for him, and he won't need to be worried about what conservatives think.

But go ahead, tell me how Trump has endorsed murder. Does it rank up there with Obama, who publicly statted he is okay with killing his own grandchildren?

Isn't that Black Oppression, Zaac? Or just just Black Suppression?

Continued...

 

No, Zaac, it isn't irony, because you simply make an assertion.

You said...

Donald Trump has done and is doing by far way more.

Maybe it would be ironic if it were true, but even then...why would we be surprised?

So no, I get the last lol.

Touche...

Oh, so you can't make a definitive statement based on what has been publicized?

Chickens coming home to roost, wasn't it?

Here's an oldie and a goodie...

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God **** America."

ABC news liberal enough for you, Zaac?

So is that sufficient for tracking him down? If I was a Black Christian this man would be a shame to my people, not some hero.

No wonder Obama is the traitor he is, to Christianity, and to America. That the kind of spiritual leader you want to be? Was Medgar, Malcolm, and King teaching this garbage?


Continued...

 

Here is your statement:

You lump all northerners together. Everyone knows only 3/4 of northerners are like that (the other 1/4 didn't have cable (oppression maybe?)).

On the contrary, what part of...

Your reply? Won't happen. I agree in part, because there is always bias between people that work together. But that doesn't mean there are never officials who are prosecuted.

Here is what you said:

And when you make a statement akin to the one the pastor made, that whine about people identifying it as such.


What statement is that?

Quote me.

Okay, I'll be nice and pretend that actually makes any sense, and isn't a dodge.

There's an opening right now. Go out, get an officer's attention, then disregard what he tells you to do.

I'll say it again:

There is a difference between a time when blacks were denied human and civil rights and this day and age when they have every right any other citizen has, and perhaps then some.


So you really think blacks are not better off today, interesting.

Now I get it, you're really a Yorkshire Terrier using your master's computer while he's at work, aren't you.

Oh sorry, you said yup, not yip.



I'll be honest with you Zaac, I think you are seriously suffering from delusions of grandeur and have lost touch with reality. How many of those you know, preach to, counsel...compare you with Medgar, Malcom, and King? How many of them would agree with you that blacks are no better off than they were fifty years ago.

Your either out of touch with reality or it doesn't bother you to make light of the plight balck people have faced over the course of the last few centuries.

Oh, okay, thanks for setting the record straight.

So it wasn't all that bad for black folk being slaves.

Honestly, some peoples' kids.


God bless.

 

I know what I am talking about, lol, which is evident in the posts previous. And I wish I could say I don't know what you are talking about, but sadly...I do.

Here you go, Zaac...


Black city councilman breaks the silence on black on white crime
By Colin Flaherty

Black on white violence in Cleveland is no secret. But everyone pretends it is.

Until now.

Black city councilman Zack Reed has broken the silence:

"[Public Square] is ground zero on St. Patrick's Day for blacks to go beat up whites," Reed said to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I believe this is a hate crime because it is black folks purposefully going downtown to beat up white folks.”

Reed is talking about a recent episode of black mob violence on white people at a bus stop on St. Patrick’s Day in the part of downtown known as Public Square. A local television station broke the story of the violence, and broadcast the video.



On it, large groups of black people are seen attacking white people at a bus stop. When the police arrived, the predators scattered. When police left, predators returned within 90 seconds to resume their assault on the downtown tourists, students and office workers.

At least six people were attacked for what the local reporter said happened for “no apparent reason.”

But three weeks after the black on white beatings, the Plain-Dealer revealed -- acknowledged is probably a better word -- that “years of unchecked beatings on and around Public Square following the city's St. Patrick's Day parades” is a regular event.

And the black on white part? The part where going downtown to beat up white people is a sport event for some black people in Cleveland?

That was buried in the final four paragraphs of the story.

Now city officials are promising next St. Patrick’s Day will be different. Downtown will be safe from roving bands of black people looking for soft, white and Asian targets.

But some locals are wondering what the city is going to do about the other 364 days in the year, when black mob violence and black on white crime is just as frequent.

A few days after St. Patrick’s Day in the Cleveland suburb of Garfield Heights, The Plain Dealer reported a “man was walking down the street when the group of teenagers approached him from behind. Two of the teenagers pushed him to the ground, causing him to hit his face on the pavement, according to a police report. The entire group then began punching and kicking him. “

The “teenagers” were black. The victim, white. But several readers in the comments section of the news story rushed to assure the locals that race had nothing to do with that attack. Or many others just like it.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ce_on_black_on_white_crime.html#ixzz4BsjCo9DY
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



This is a black man that has integrity. Take some notes from this guy.

And address it.

Let me know if you would like some more examples. And if you don't mind, let me know if you think God sanctioned the acts the article reports, and if you, Zaac, feel like they deserved it.


Continued...

 

I don't actually watch TV. We haven't really even had local channels since analog went away and was replaced with digital.

I can't speak of the other members on this board, but I will agree, there are definitely some Political Revisionists here, and you, my friend, are the worst of the lot. Your racism is the reason. Your gospel is the reason. I have many times invited you to join in on Theological debates, but you never have. You're still reiterating the same tired arguments, on the same tired subjects, and still stirring up division because of your religion.

This is laughable. You bring God into your gospel when it is convenient.

There is nothing Christian about the racial division you incite.

You might take a look at my interaction here. Most who are familiar with me know I ask no quarter and give none, lol.

That's the point of being here, Zaac, it gives us a chance to have our brothers and sisters call us on issues they believe we are wrong about. Many disagree with my views, if not most, lol, and I usually only get involved when I see error.

So its not like I'm here making a lot of friends I want to defend.

Well, I do like their song "Still haven't found what I'm looking for."

Oh, A2...no idea who that is.


God bless.

 

Zaac, meet Darrell. Heretofore your detractors have focused on the primary fallacies and outright lies in posts. But now every word undergoes scientific vivisection of . . . each . . . little . . . nerve . . . till it is raw.