• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trumps task force breifings

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Which is why I put the ":p" there, to thus indicate I was pulling your leg.
I figured but I didn't want to assume anything.

I mean - those aged ecumenical anthropologists are a crazy bunch.

You can't lower you guard around them. :D
Sorry, but that simply is clearly a bogus cover-up attempt in all likelihood, because of the word "Derangement". Your wording above sorta tells me that really do know that.
I also do not like the use of the word "Derangement" in that term - but I didn't coin it so I'm at a loss.

Even though I don't know where it started - those who talk about TDS focus on the fact that it is an extreme bias or even hatred.

Sure - that bias or hatred can cause people to do or say dumb things - but the term itself does not claim that the people who suffer from it are themselves dumb.

If - however - you believe that my use of the term breaks the Forum Rules - report me and we will see.

I do not believe that it does - but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
I get this kind of nonsense back all the time with the time with some people here who are not able to counter evidence with facts, thus they blame the "messenger" (Wikipedia). Even if you thought you're correct, there are links that were provided there that you could have checked out, but you clearly didn't do that. Next time, if you can't come back with facts, maybe consider being honest with what you say, and sometimes saying nothing may be the best.
You jumped the gun here and didn't consider what I said in addition to this.

First off - this was my opinion. I was not attempting to "counter" anything - just share my opinion.

Also - I said immediately after sharing my opinion that,

"I would be willing to discuss any of its content as long as they were presented one at a time."

I am willing to talk about anything on this page - including the links - as long as you pick which claim you want to discuss and it is one at a time.

Does that sound like someone who is unwilling to check out the claims and offer counter evidence?

I am willing - I just don't want to make your argument for you or put any more time and effort into it then I deem necessary.

So - if you want to make the claim that the President is racist - give me an example backed with evidence - not a laundry list of claims.

And also don't expect me to do your work for you.
That largely depends largely on who's doing the reporting.
Sure - but when people complained about that one BBC reporter claiming that the President's comment towards those anti-American Congresswomen was racist (even though it wasn't) - didn't the network support the bias of their reporter?
But, again, you're resorting to using what's called "intellectual dishonesty", and I've seen way too much of that here to just let this pass without comment. Use facts, not bias; and if you can't, maybe it's best not to fabricate a response and remain silent. BBC has an excellent worldwide respect as a source of news, but it ain't perfect, that's for sure. Sure the heck knocks Fox "News" out of the water though.
You can't exhibit a bias and claim to be a journalist. That's fact.

Most of the shows on Fox News - like Tucker, Ingraham and Hannity - don't claim to be journalists.

Anyone who watches their shows knows that they are getting the opinion of the host about the facts.

News networks like CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the BBC tell their audience that they are unbiased - but they are anything but.

Basically - the message I would send to all these "journalists" would be the same one that you gave me,

"Use facts, not bias; and if you can't, maybe it's best not to fabricate a response and remain silent."
And, in closing, Trump's racism is often very clear, and if you can't see that-- well, I'll just stop here.
This is an opinion.

Why not chose an example from that Wikipedia page you shared and we can talk about it?
Maybe think about this when you're in or after church tomorrow, btw, as well as dismissing things simply because you don't like the "messenger". IMO, it's a great time for me to meditate on what I've done wrong over the week and what I can do to improve, and I make more than my fair share of mistakes, let me tell ya!
I clearly stated that I was willing to talk about anything and everything on that Wikipedia page - just one at a time.

I don't believe that Wikipedia is "non-partisan"- but I didn't "dismiss" anything.

When it comes to church and meditation - don't go there.

Especially after misrepresenting what I had said.
Take care, and have a Most Blessed Lord's Day.
You too.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
First of all, I'll say in advance that I'm gonna hafta be brief.
I mean - those aged ecumenical anthropologists are a crazy bunch.
Guilty as charged! :(

Even though I don't know where it started - those who talk about TDS focus on the fact that it is an extreme bias or even hatred.
Much like so many here were with Obama? I'm not implying you, btw.

If - however - you believe that my use of the term breaks the Forum Rules - report me and we will see.
Nah.

I am willing to talk about anything on this page - including the links - as long as you pick which claim you want to discuss and it is one at a time.

Does that sound like someone who is unwilling to check out the claims and offer counter evidence?
I don't have the time nor the interest. The Wiki link I provided has what Trump said or did with links to verify the source. If that's not enough, then what's the use for going any further with this.

So - if you want to make the claim that the President is racist - give me an example backed with evidence - not a laundry list of claims.
How about the "Mexican judge" who was born and raised in Indiana? And there's plenty more where that came from.

BTW, when is putting Hispanic children into cages in order to "send a message", as Trump publicly stated, "Christian"?

Sure - but when people complained about that one BBC reporter claiming that the President's comment towards those anti-American Congresswomen was racist (even though it wasn't) - didn't the network support the bias of their reporter?
Maybe take a look back at this because he said that they should be sent back from where they came from, but three of them were born and raised here in America.

Most of the shows on Fox News - like Tucker, Ingraham and Hannity - don't claim to be journalists.
True with them, but it doesn't stop there. Murdock stated at the outset that he created Fox to reflect a "conservative" orientation, which should tell anyone something about any supposed objectivity.

News networks like CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the BBC tell their audience that they are unbiased - but they are anything but.
Which is why I always get my news from multiple sources-- even Fox.

When it comes to church and meditation - don't go there.
This we should talk about because "prayerful meditation" is one of the oldest forms of Jewish and Christian prayer, used by the prophets and probably Jesus himself.

Especially after misrepresenting what I had said
I don't know where I supposedly did that, but I'll apologize in advance if I did.

Take care, and sorry about being so brief.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Exactly.

So they told you that the President told people to inject bleach - but he never did.

Watch the unedited briefing and/or read the text.
We watched President Trump speak often.
The World watched his televised briefings.
And the World wondered.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
First of all, I'll say in advance that I'm gonna hafta be brief.
You should wait until you have more time to respond.

I'd appreciate it.
Guilty as charged! :(
I like those who are honest about themselves.
Much like so many here were with Obama? I'm not implying you, btw.
Even though I was not a fan of Obama - I would not compare the level of bias or hatred directed at Obama to that directed at Trump.

People could have been just as biased toward Obama - but it is considered "politically correct" to hate Trump today.

When Obama was President no one could criticize him without being labelled a racist. He was defended by everyone - even when he was doing a terrible job IMHO.

Basically - the complicity of the media, Hollywood and the Democrats in this campaign against the President has taken this to all new levels of bias and hatred.
I don't have the time nor the interest. The Wiki link I provided has what Trump said or did with links to verify the source. If that's not enough, then what's the use for going any further with this.
Hmmm...I am very critical of this position.

It's like a Christian referencing some Bible verses to "prove" their point and giving no time or interest into discussing what those verses actually say or looking outside of the Bible at any other sources.

If you don't want to present an argument - in what sense is this a discussion?

It's as you said earlier - "Use facts, not bias; and if you can't, maybe it's best not to fabricate a response and remain silent."

Or rather - if you aren't interested in a topic or have no time to discuss it - don't start a debate about it.
How about the "Mexican judge" who was born and raised in Indiana? And there's plenty more where that came from.
Can you quote what the President said? Offer sources?

Isn't "Mexican" a nationality and not a race?
BTW, when is putting Hispanic children into cages in order to "send a message", as Trump publicly stated, "Christian"?
Again, can you supply a direct quote?

Those detained children were put in those "cages" during the Obama administration.

What does the President's religion have to do with anything?
Maybe take a look back at this because he said that they should be sent back from where they came from, but three of them were born and raised here in America.
I get the feeling that you did not read your own source in regards to this quote.

First off - who the President was referring to was not clear since he used no names.

Second - he never said that anyone should be "sent" anywhere. He was encouraging them to return to their countries of origin - fix them - then return to the U.S. and show us how we should run our country.

He was basically claiming that these "progressive" Congresswomen were ungrateful and that America is #1.

He never said they should be forced out or that they could not come back once they completed their mission.

Even if he did say that - it would not be racist - since their race was not a factor - but their behavior.
True with them, but it doesn't stop there. Murdock stated at the outset that he created Fox to reflect a "conservative" orientation, which should tell anyone something about any supposed objectivity.
If Rupert Murdoch said this then he was claiming that Fox News never intended to be objective.

What's wrong with doing and being exactly what you set out to do and be?

You think it's better for a biased network to lie and claim to be objective when they are not?
Which is why I always get my news from multiple sources-- even Fox.
That's good and smart - but I wish you'd do the same when formulating your arguments - rather than share a single link and claim that you are right.

That link from Wikipedia you shared with me got me thinking. I typed in, "Racial views of" in Wikipedia and got only two individuals - one for Winston Churchill and the one for Trump.

Even though Trump has been a real estate mogul for decades - and has been accused of racist practices since the 70s - the page you shared was created in June 2016 - just a few weeks after he became the Republican nominee.

There are also no other "Racial views of" pages for any other American - even publicly avowed racists like David Duke.

No "Racial views of" any other Presidents - even Woodrow Wilson - the "Birth of a Nation" guy.

Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton have also been criticized as racists - no page for either of them.

I find that interesting and proof of Wikipedia's political bias.
This we should talk about because "prayerful meditation" is one of the oldest forms of Jewish and Christian prayer, used by the prophets and probably Jesus himself.
No - you misunderstand.

I am a very religious person and I reflect and repent of my sins on an almost daily basis.

You claiming that I am wrong is fine - but insisting that I should go to my God about it is deeply offensive to me.

I will decide when to reflect and what I need to repent of.

And it also has nothing to do with the OP or the discussion.

We just shouldn't go there.
I don't know where I supposedly did that, but I'll apologize in advance if I did.
You claimed that my opinion that Wikipedia is not a "non-partisan source" was me being "dishonest" and an attempt to "dismiss" the evidence.

I clearly stated that I was willing to discuss anything and everything on that page.

You claiming that I was trying to "dismiss" the source was a misrepresentation of what I had said.

Just because a source is not objective does not mean it is not a good source - you just have to take it with a grain of salt.

Don't take anything at face value.

Compare it to other sources.

Basically - do what you claim that you do - get your news from multiple sources.
Take care, and sorry about being so brief.
You too and I hope you can find the time.

If you can't - then cut me loose.
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
We watched President Trump speak often.
The World watched his televised briefings.
And the World wondered.
If "The World" wondered that then "The World" is an idiot.

He didn't say it and he told a reporter who asked moments later that that was not what he meant.

Case closed.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Matthew: {5:21} .............................whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Wow. This was really bad.

First off - why is everyone taking this discussion down religious avenues?

I understand that this is a religious forum - but we were talking about President Trump - were we not?

Is it a common practice that when you cannot defend your arguments against Trump that you start to babble religion?

Trying to distract everyone away from the fiasco that is your argument?

Second - you just quoted Matthew 5:22 - not verse 21.

Let's quote verse 22 in it's entirety,

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Yet - as we see later in the Book of Matthew - the Lord Himself refers to the scribes and Pharisees as "fools" - not once - but twice,

"Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?" (Matthew 23:17-19) (Bold and italics added)

Uh oh. Does this mean that the Lord Jesus Christ - the Son of God - is "in danger of hell fire"?

No. No He is not - because His teaching was not as simple and juvenile as you have tried to make it appear.

The Lord's use of the phrase "Thou fool" most likely implied "godlessness" - like how it was used in Psalms 14:1 and denoted a fixed hatred - rather than contempt.

Basically - it is being possessed by this hatred - which causes someone to say "Thou fool" - that can cause someone to be in danger of hell fire.

The Lord called the scribes and Pharisees "fools" - He did so to point out their hypocrisies - but He did not hate them.

I don't hate the idiots who believe that the President recommended that people inject bleach into themselves - but I do feel contempt and maybe even anger towards them - and as Matthew 5:22 explained - it is reasonable to be angry with others if there is cause.

I feel contempt and anger towards anyone who perpetuates lies to manipulate the uninformed.

You should really not try to get into a scriptural debate with me.

You will lose.
For any reasonable person.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Wow. This was really bad.

First off - why is everyone taking this discussion down religious avenues?

I understand that this is a religious forum - but we were talking about President Trump - were we not?

Is it a common practice that when you cannot defend your arguments against Trump that you start to babble religion?

Trying to distract everyone away from the fiasco that is your argument?

Second - you just quoted Matthew 5:22 - not verse 21.

Let's quote verse 22 in it's entirety,

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Yet - as we see later in the Book of Matthew - the Lord Himself refers to the scribes and Pharisees as "fools" - not once - but twice,

"Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?" (Matthew 23:17-19) (Bold and italics added)

Uh oh. Does this mean that the Lord Jesus Christ - the Son of God - is "in danger of hell fire"?

No. No He is not - because His teaching was not as simple and juvenile as you have tried to make it appear.

The Lord's use of the phrase "Thou fool" most likely implied "godlessness" - like how it was used in Psalms 14:1 and denoted a fixed hatred - rather than contempt.

Basically - it is being possessed by this hatred - which causes someone to say "Thou fool" - that can cause someone to be in danger of hell fire.

The Lord called the scribes and Pharisees "fools" - He did so to point out their hypocrisies - but He did not hate them.

I don't hate the idiots who believe that the President recommended that people inject bleach into themselves - but I do feel contempt and maybe even anger towards them - and as Matthew 5:22 explained - it is reasonable to be angry with others if there is cause.

I feel contempt and anger towards anyone who perpetuates lies to manipulate the uninformed.

You should really not try to get into a scriptural debate with me.

You will lose.

For any reasonable person.
Oh... I thought your religion was every breath, not stop and start.

Ok, so you are stop start with your faith. Whatever.

Don't miss Jesus's point about calling others fools and idiots etc.

Despite your boasting I doubt you could tell much about the life, times and mission of Jesus but if you ever do I shall be very pleased. I trawl for new info about Jesus. Can't wait.

President Obama has just told the World that President Trump's handling of the pandemic was totally chaotic, and I would bet that most in the world would believe him about that.

But Tribal Trumpophiles will never see it.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Oh... I thought your religion was every breath, not stop and start.

Ok, so you are stop start with your faith. Whatever.
This is quite asinine.

You are claiming that I am unable to argue or process information on a secular level - then you attempt to judge me negatively based on your own faulty reasoning?

I can't even begin to explain how pathetic and illogical what you just said was.
Don't miss Jesus's point about calling others fools and idiots etc.
I didn't - you did.

You falsely claimed that I was in danger of hell fire for claiming that your limited representation of "The World" would be an idiot for wondering if the President recommended that people should inject bleach into their bodies.

You came to this false conclusion by first erroneously equating the word "idiot" with "fool" and then failing to understand the cultural significance of the Lord's use of the word.

Yet - you are unable to explain how the Lord Jesus Christ was able to refer to the scribes and Pharisees as "fools" and even "hypocrites" without Himself being in danger of hell fire.

Basically - you made claims about "The World" and the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ that you were unable to back up with any supporting evidence.

It's okay to have an opinion - you just have to share it as such. Stop making declarative statements based on nothing but your own bias.
Despite your boasting I doubt you could tell much about the life, times and mission of Jesus but if you ever do I shall be very pleased. I trawl for new info about Jesus. Can't wait.
I claimed that you would lose in a "scriptural debate".

I never claimed that I would be able to reveal additional information about the life, times and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You misrepresented what I had said.

I also do not believe you when you claim that you have a desire to find new information about the Lord Jesus Christ.

I mean - you cannot even accurately reference the little information that we do have and you couldn't even give it the slightest modicum of consideration.

You took what you read at face value - applied the most basic and juvenile interpretation - and you didn't even know what verse you were quoting.

And now after being told that what you referenced may have more cultural significance than you realize - and another scriptural reference was provided that contradicts your false interpretation - you doubled-down on what you said without considering this "new info".

No - I do not believe that you are sincere.
President Obama has just told the World that President Trump's handling of the pandemic was totally chaotic, and I would bet that most in the world would believe him about that.
You understand that this claim could still support my claim that "The World" is an idiot - don't know?

I don't give much weight to what President Obama has to say on this subject.

The World can believe it if it wants to - but that would be accepting an opinion without supporting evidence.

The World should look into the matter itself before coming to any conclusion.
But Tribal Trumpophiles will never see it.
I hope that everyone would look into this themselves and not simply accept the biased opinion of someone who hates Trump.

Why are you trying to put a sexual spin on those who support the President?

You really don't have much to offer to this discussion.

I suggest you bow out.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
This is quite asinine.

You are claiming that I am unable to argue or process information on a secular level - then you attempt to judge me negatively based on your own faulty reasoning?

I can't even begin to explain how pathetic and illogical what you just said was.
Stop-start religion can look very much like a kind of schizophrenia to me.

You falsely claimed that I was in danger of hell fire
Those were the words of Jesus..... not mine.

Yet - you are unable to explain how the Lord Jesus Christ was able to refer to the scribes and Pharisees as "fools" and even "hypocrites".......

Hypocrisy and Low IQ are quite separate to each other.
Jesus had no time for folks with two faces, or two sides.

Stop making declarative statements based on nothing but your own bias.
That's you..... imo.

I claimed that you would lose in a "scriptural debate".

I never claimed that I would be able to reveal additional information about the life, times and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm not interested in your knowledge of scripture, and I certainly don't think that your knowledge of Jesus would be of great assistance to me.

I also do not believe you when you claim that you have a desire to find new information about the Lord Jesus Christ.
I said 'Jesus' as in Yeshua BarYosef. Never mentioned any Lords or Christ. Jesus never knew that word 'Christ' for sure.
I might tell you what language he most probably spoke some time. :)

No - I do not believe that you are sincere.
That's OK.

I don't give much weight to what President Obama has to say on this subject.
Tribal Trumpophiles don't..... :)

Why are you trying to put a sexual spin on those who support the President?
Ha ha! You don't know what '----philia' means..... :p

I suggest you bow out.
You don't get to say who posts here.
Trump's task force briefings have absolutely amazed the majority of the World. Each one used as an opportunity to big himself up with his terms such as tremendous, great, fantastic, incredible, brilliant etc while showing a careless level of resolve towards beating this pandemic. In the beginning he was even talking it down as of little consequence.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You still have yet to explain to me what you meant when you said this.
Please take the trouble to listen to your own media reports..... not just Fox News. OK?
President Trump claims that almost all of the media is 'fake news' and this just might give you the tiniest signal about what the majority of the media believes about him, because any criticism of him is called (by him) 'Fake News'!
:p
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Please take the trouble to listen to your own media reports..... not just Fox News. OK?
President Trump claims that almost all of the media is 'fake news' and this just might give you the tiniest signal about what the majority of the media believes about him, because any criticism of him is called (by him) 'Fake News'!
:p

If it is news that does not one hundred percent agree with everything he does to the point of blindness, it is fake news!
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
If it is news that does not one hundred percent agree with everything he does to the point of blindness, it is fake news!

Hello..... it was great to hear your recent news. Congrats. :)
Yes..... in the UK the people here (mostly) have a very low opinion of him.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Even though I was not a fan of Obama - I would not compare the level of bias or hatred directed at Obama to that directed at Trump.
You don't know that for sure, nor do I. Who's keeping score?

When Obama was President no one could criticize him without being labelled a racist.
I sometimes criticized some of Obama's actions, such as his heavy use of drone attacks, but I'm not a racist.

Basically - the complicity of the media, Hollywood and the Democrats in this campaign against the President has taken this to all new levels of bias and hatred.
Your use of stereotypes is quite "telling".

Or rather - if you aren't interested in a topic or have no time to discuss it - don't start a debate about it.
I'll decide on what I post, not you.

Can you quote what the President said? Offer sources?

Isn't "Mexican" a nationality and not a race?

Again, can you supply a direct quote?
Both of the above were found on the Wiki link I provided you that you obviously must have not have read.

Those detained children were put in those "cages" during the Obama administration.
For a different reason, since federal law prohibits children being incarcerated with parents. Even in criminal cases, judges look at "what's the motivation".

What does the President's religion have to do with anything?
Because basic Christian morals also involves what we and he do. Christianity must be a lifestyle based on Jesus' teachings, not just which building one may walk into on Sunday.

First off - who the President was referring to was not clear since he used no names.

Second - he never said that anyone should be "sent" anywhere. He was encouraging them to return to their countries of origin - fix them - then return to the U.S. and show us how we should run our country.
That is being entirely fast & loose with what he clearly said, and it's a shame you have to stoop to such a low. Again, that was also found on the link I provided you.

If Rupert Murdoch said this then he was claiming that Fox News never intended to be objective.
He used the word "conservative" as well, plus this is what he had done with his other international networks. Again, you are misrepresenting the facts.

Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton have also been criticized as racists - no page for either of them.
I don't know by whom-- maybe you?

In my conclusion on this "discussion", since you don't seem to care much for what the facts may be, thus I have to conclude that it is no wonder that you are all so willing to virtually ignore or make disingenuous excuses for so many of Trump's words and actions. Your choice, of course, but it certainly defies even the most basic Judeo-Chjristian teachings.

To put it bluntly, you can believe in Jesus or in Trump, but you simply cannot believe in both. Jesus was not materialistic, hedonistic, dishonest, racist, etc. Neither did he brag about being able to "grope... and forceably kiss women", brag about his penis size, or how he "moved on to f***" a married woman. But the man you support did, plus a lot more.

I'm done with this.
 
Top