Laura Ingraham Targets Even Legal Immigrants In Off-The-Rails Rant

[KenH]

Can you?

It’s been a while but I think it was Post #89.

 

[TCassidy]

It’s been a while but I think it was Post #89.

In Post #89 Revmitchell asked a question,

So what if slavery was legal?

In response to your statement that

And slavery was legal. So what’s your point?

But the question before you is

Unless, of course, you can show us a post in this thread advocating the use of the Bible to justify a Christian treating a person as a second-class citizen based on skin color.

In his question he did not mention the bible, or a Christian, or second class citizens, or skin color.

So, the question remains, can you support your assertion that someone in this thread has advocated using the bible to treat a person as a second-class citizen based on skin color?

Please. No more deflection. If you cannot just admit you cannot and get on with it.

 

[KenH]

I don’t know why you are running interference for Mitchell. Let him defend his post himself...except we both know he can’t. Thus, your interference and tag teaming attempt.

 

[just-want-peace]

Is post 163 supposed to be an answer to post 162?????
If so, you have just created a "rabbit hole/trail" far bigger than any I have seen on this board in the many years I've been on it!

TCassidy says: "In his question he did not mention the bible, or a Christian, or second class citizens, or skin color.

So, the question remains, can you support your assertion that someone in this thread has advocated using the bible to treat a person as a second-class citizen based on skin color?

Please. No more deflection. If you cannot just admit you cannot and get on with it."

Seems simple enough if, IF, you can verify; if not, why not quit digging and 'fess up?!

 

[church mouse guy]

Based on that, I figure you oppose the recent allowing of Melania Trump’s parents into the country based on her relationship with them.

It's not nice to attack the President's family.

 

[TCassidy]

I don’t know why you are running interference for Mitchell.

I'm not. I'm trying to get you to stop deflecting and answer the question I have asked of you several times.

Let him defend his post himself...except we both know he can’t.

There is nothing to defend. You deflected by saying that slavery was legal in the early days of our republic. He asked the semantic equivalent of "what has that to do with the discussion?" He asked you a question. A question you have never answered, among several others.

Thus, your interference and tag teaming attempt.

Thus your continued deflection and obfuscation.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 AM Pacific.

 

[Matt Black]

Uh, I look around. I live here, remember? I see African American owned businesses every day. In fact I patronize them every day.

I'm sure you do but the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data'. Statistics/figures please

The government had nothing to do with the cultural evolution of the US. It was the people.[/quote ] So there wasn't a Civil Rights Act?

How many African Americans do you know who died trying to buy or sell their goods or services?

Are you suggesting no African American died prior to the Civil Rights Act?

 

[Matt Black]

Colonial government was English. Colonial culture was English.

Right, so here was a group of immigrants who refused to assimilate to the host culture

 

[Matt Black]

I have to admit I am troubled by your (Matt's - Ken posted between Matt's post and my reply) insistence that African Americans lacked the ability and will to achieve great progress on their own but insist that they had to sit in the lap of the government (made up of old white men, remember) in order to achieve anything.

Why is it that liberals always want to take credit for the efforts and sacrifices of others?

It was the government who had put up the discriminatory barriers in the first place and - and this is not to diminish the role of the Civil Rights Movement - the government therefore had a role to play in removing those

 

[Matt Black]

Like how Matt asserted we should deport the Amish. And when he said we should be happy with stores refusing service to remarried divorcees. And when he wondered what the Apostle James would have made of such shenanigans by the rich and powerful.

That kind of deflection?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

That's not deflection, it's the legitimate answering of assertions made eg: the complaint that Muslims don't assimilate (well, neither do the Amish); the call for Christian stores not to serve 'married' gays because they contravene God's law.of marriage (well, so do remarried divorcees), and the claim that being rich means you're a 'better class of immigrant' (see Apostle James).

All perfectly legit responses highlighting the inconsistency in the original assertions

 

[church mouse guy]

The Amish have assilimated. They just have chosen to live in the 19th century. They are excellent carpenters and dozens of them worked for Ken Ham on the construction of the full-size Noah's Ark in Williamstown, Kentucky, just south of Cincinnati, Ohio. I saw many of them visiting the Ark the day that I was there. Here in Indiana, they have a tourist enterprise at Nappanee up north near the border with Michigan. They have farms in Indiana and sell baked goods and crafts throughout Indiana at fairs and community events such as central Indiana's Covered Bridge Festival near Turkey Run State Park. They are quite friendly. Many of them pass through Indianapolis daily on Greyhound Buses and Trailways Bus Line. They are Christian people. They are quiet people and very polite.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That's not deflection, it's the legitimate answering of assertions made eg: the complaint that Muslims don't assimilate (well, neither do the Amish); the call for Christian stores not to serve 'married' gays because they contravene God's law.of marriage (well, so do remarried divorcees), and the claim that being rich means you're a 'better class of immigrant' (see Apostle James).

All perfectly legit responses highlighting the inconsistency in the original assertions

The issue is not about serving particular people, but about catering to certain practices. Whether the person is homosexual, divorced, atheist, Muslim, etc, does not factor in. But producing something that advocates for sexual perversion, another religion, objectionable politics, etc, does fall into the category of freedom of religion and speech.

Decorate your own cake, make your own posters, print your own magazines. And don’t be surprised when righteous people campaign against your vile messages. God knows more than enough entities already actively and openly engage in maligning God’s Word and God’s people, and become violent when they cannot win with words.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 AM Pacific.