Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, you might as well argue with the shelf for all the good it will do you.Have you ever been confrontational with a Walmart sales assistant?
No. Unethical or folly.How about your employee or employer?
Yup.What about on an online forum with someone who disagreed with you?
So what does this have to do with anything?
Context, context, context.Confrontational encounters are common occurrences that do not imply any physical violence. There are physical confrontational interactions, but that is not definitional to the word confrontational.
In contrast the word fight mandates physical violence in its primary literal definition and is only non physical when used in a more symbolic non-literal sense.
She didn't say, merely "confrontational." She said, "more confrontational."
Context, context, context. She said nothing about being peaceful or non-violent.Being more non-violently confrontational is still non-violent.
”We’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business,”
...
In an exclusive interview with theGrio, Waters dismissed suggestions that she was encouraging violence. “I am nonviolent,” she said.
...
Further clarifying her comments on being “confrontational,” the California congresswoman said “I talk about confronting the justice system, confronting the policing that’s going on, I’m talking about speaking up. I’m talking about legislation. I’m talking about elected officials doing what needs to be done to control their budgets and to pass legislation.”
Yep, she's trying to walk back her words by saying things she said nothing about. In this case it can be called damage control, gaslighting, etc. Tucker has her number, but it's already obvious for anyone who cares to see. Waters is all about advancing her agenda via violence, or threat of violence. It is her MO.
Yep, she's trying to walk back her words by saying things she said nothing about. In this case it can be called damage control, gaslighting, etc. Tucker has her number, but it's already obvious for anyone who cares to see. Waters is all about advancing her agenda via violence, or threat of violence. It is her MO.
Confrontational encounters are common occurrences that do not imply any physical violence. There are physical confrontational interactions, but that is not definitional to the word confrontational.
In contrast the word fight mandates physical violence in its primary literal definition and is only non physical when used in a more symbolic non-literal sense.
Maxine Waters' ‘insurrection’ calls provide more proof that race-baiters ripping America apart don't deserve to be taken seriously — RT Op-edIs there a transcript online somewhere of what Maxine Waters said?
Thanks.
This is a clip not a transcript, and only an excerpt, but it contains the questions she was being asked as well as her answers.Is there a transcript online somewhere of what Maxine Waters said?
That's right, but Maxine Waters is no reasonable person, so she did incite violence and is proud of it.No reasonable person would....
It actually depends since its a question as to whether or not a member of Congress can be removed by impeachment. She was alleged of attempting to promote violence and "create a civil war." But, who am I to judge her? I don't know her motives.