An Ohio GOP county chairman has deleted a social media post that appeared to imply that the wildfires ravaging California were "God's punishment" for the "liberal" state. Columbiana County Republican Party Chairman Dave Johnson told Cleveland.com on Monday that he posted the image to his Facebook page after reading an article about the fires. While he said that he believes Democrats have poorly managed California's forests, he added that he did not mean to insult anyone by sharing the image. “Look, that’s a meme," Johnson told the news outlet. "And it’s how I feel about liberals, but did I mean that God is going to punish everyone who lives in California? No. It’s a figure of speech, and I probably shouldn’t have done it. "But I did, and it doesn’t change how I feel about what’s happened in California.” Cleveland.com notes that Johnson is a member of Ohio Republican Party’s central committee and served as a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. His Facebook post, which features a blazing forest fire and the messages "God's Punishment to Liberal California" and "Hell on Earth, brought to you by Liberals in California," led to swift backlash. Wildfires in both northern and southern California have destroyed more than 10,000 homes and have ravaged the regions. At least 79 people had reportedly died as of Monday. Mahoning County Democratic Party Chairman David Betras condemned the post. In a statement on the Mahoning County Democrats' Facebook page, Betras called on Johnson to resign and apologize to those impacted by the fires. “Johnson owes the victims, their families, and the heroes who fought the fire and participated in rescue efforts an apology,” Betras wrote. “In addition, I think his demented comments disqualify him from holding positions of public trust. He should, therefore, immediately resign from all the public positions he holds." In addition to being a county chairman, Johnson serves on the Columbiana County Board of Elections and the board for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, according to Cleveland.com. The Hill has reached out to the Columbiana County Republican Party for further comment. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/417555-gop-county-chairman-deletes-image-calling-wildfires-gods Lol all this backpedaling. What a peice of trash. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| I do not think this represents all gop like this, but I think it is good that he removed his insensative tweet. For disasters religion and politics should be cast aside for the relief efforts for such events. |
 |
| Apology is definitely necessary here. We're in real deep if people become numb to these kind of comments. |
| Sigh as usual the prunes make it there lifes mission to make all of us christians look like assholes. Keep my religion out of your politics Johnson! |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
rohan121 said: I do not think this represents all gop like this, but I think it is good that he removed his insensative tweet. For disasters religion and politics should be cast aside for the relief efforts for such events. He likely removed it to try to cover his ass before media got the evidence when he realized that could happen from reactions he got. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| It isn't God doing this. it is nature. California is guilty of pandering to nature and leaving all those sources of easily combustible fuel just lying around. Jet fuel can't melt concrete and asphalt. Now California will have to import some good Canadian timbre to rebuild their homes destroyed by nature. Hopefully there are enough poor Californians and illegal immigrants to do the construction under the table to evade the punitive Californian taxes. |
 |
| Ohio, isn't that one of the states that always ends up at the bottom of the barrel on "Ranking US states" lists? I don't really think he has any room to talk |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| if the roles were reversed and a liberal was saying that about a natural disaster in a red state like texas? god have mercy on his or her soul |
 |
nicethings said: There was a Texas governmental candidate whose ad literally was saying "let's not turn texas into california" and by god it was fucking dumb. He otherwise blended in so much with the other republicans that I forgot his name tho That's probably a good advertisement if its not about the fires. |
| People are so unoriginal. One high level priest from our church said it was God's punishment on our PM for doing some things church didn't agree with, when we had some forest fires. He never apologized I think, but it's so common to just put the blame on some other being for reasons no one can verify since that being doesn't physically exist :^) |
   |
| God must have realized by now that he fucked up when he gave humans free will. Even an omnipotent entity couldn't have predicted this level of stupidity. |
| Haha nice, serves them right |
| Help stop the spread of Korean propaganda (KPrOP) and sign this petition! http://chng.it/Yw8Vzwk4Tg |
Soverign said: What does this post even mean? lolIt isn't God doing this. it is nature. California is guilty of pandering to nature and leaving all those sources of easily combustible fuel just lying around. I think an increase in dosage is necessary.. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: Soverign said: What does this post even mean? lolIt isn't God doing this. it is nature. California is guilty of pandering to nature and leaving all those sources of easily combustible fuel just lying around. I think an increase in dosage is necessary.. He's was saying they should kill nature before it kills them. Don't take anything he says too seriously. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Shit I'd believe it. Have any of you seen San Francisco lately?? I was just there 2 weeks ago for a reunion, and that place is a shit hole. I wouldn't doubt god wanted to burn California down, because a majority of the populace probably wants to do the same. |
 |
| What's the big deal about this? Does it really matter whether the cause is an unaccountable entity called "god", or an unaccountable entity called "nature"? In the end the only ones for whom this actually makes a difference for are those who actually do believe in god (the christian monotheistic kind specifically), but might or might not disagree about whether, from their point of view, this is something that god would actually do. Unless of course someone views this incident as something caused by an accountable entity instead. In that case, the person who has this view, would consider the shift of responsibility from someone accountable to someone unaccountable as an attempt to protect the guilty party. So since this is supposedly such a big problem I'll ask you two things: 1. Are you actually Christian? (for real, and not just on paper only because you don't want to "disappoint" your parents) 2. Do you actually believe that this GOP county chairman is trying to protect someone by "blaming" god instead? If none of the two points apply to you, then why would you even care? It would at most just be the typical partisian party politics where one side blames the other for no good reason. None of the parties has an exclusive license to say some crazy stuff. If you want an example for the Democrat side, then you have to look no further than pretty much every single word that comes out of Maxine Water's mouth. Yet you don't see anyone making a thread for all the BS she spouts. Because it's just that: BS. |
 |
Grey-Zone said: What's the big deal about this? Does it really matter whether the cause is an unaccountable entity called "god", or an unaccountable entity called "nature"? In the end the only ones for whom this actually makes a difference for are those who actually do believe in god (the christian monotheistic kind specifically), but might or might not disagree about whether, from their point of view, this is something that god would actually do. Unless of course someone views this incident as something caused by an accountable entity instead. In that case, the person who has this view, would consider the shift of responsibility from someone accountable to someone unaccountable as an attempt to protect the guilty party. So since this is supposedly such a big problem I'll ask you two things: 1. Are you actually Christian? (for real, and not just on paper only because you don't want to "disappoint" your parents) 2. Do you actually believe that this GOP county chairman is trying to protect someone by "blaming" god instead? If none of the two points apply to you, then why would you even care? It would at most just be the typical partisian party politics where one side blames the other for no good reason. None of the parties has an exclusive license to say some crazy stuff. If you want an example for the Democrat side, then you have to look no further than pretty much every single word that comes out of Maxine Water's mouth. Yet you don't see anyone making a thread for all the BS she spouts. Because it's just that: BS. Even a Christian who hasn't read the bible can easily see it as a comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. It's like saying all the liberals in Cali deserve to burn because they are "wicked" as the bible would say. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
traed said: Grey-Zone said: What's the big deal about this? Does it really matter whether the cause is an unaccountable entity called "god", or an unaccountable entity called "nature"? In the end the only ones for whom this actually makes a difference for are those who actually do believe in god (the christian monotheistic kind specifically), but might or might not disagree about whether, from their point of view, this is something that god would actually do. Unless of course someone views this incident as something caused by an accountable entity instead. In that case, the person who has this view, would consider the shift of responsibility from someone accountable to someone unaccountable as an attempt to protect the guilty party. So since this is supposedly such a big problem I'll ask you two things: 1. Are you actually Christian? (for real, and not just on paper only because you don't want to "disappoint" your parents) 2. Do you actually believe that this GOP county chairman is trying to protect someone by "blaming" god instead? If none of the two points apply to you, then why would you even care? It would at most just be the typical partisian party politics where one side blames the other for no good reason. None of the parties has an exclusive license to say some crazy stuff. If you want an example for the Democrat side, then you have to look no further than pretty much every single word that comes out of Maxine Water's mouth. Yet you don't see anyone making a thread for all the BS she spouts. Because it's just that: BS. Even a Christian who hasn't read the bible can easily see it as a comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. It's like saying all the liberals in Cali deserve to burn because they are "wicked" as the bible would say. Which is something for Christians to debate among themselves. On the politics front, I don't see how it's "news worthy" compared to any Maxine Waters rant though, which also aren't considered newsworthy. Heck this is even merely a "county chairman" for the GOP. It's not even a current member of congress or any other legislative organ of significance! Inb4 close for violating CE rule 7c. After all it's about someone completely unrelated to the actual incident (CA fire) on the other side of the nation, the topic is inflamatory and definitly not "of significance". |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 2:40 AM
|
He's was saying they should kill nature before it kills them. Don't take anything he says too seriously.[/quote] No. Allow me to explain. It all started hundreds of years ago, if not thousands of years ago. The firestorms are nothing more than an Alien plot to terraform the Earth to be more suitable for themselves. It all started with crop circles and whatnot, but the tepid reaction from world governments emboldened them. That is why, to spite the Aliens California should have logged those trees. As it stands they have lost huge swaths of housing and timbre. It is a complete loss. Thy protected absolutely nothing from the aliens fiery wrath in the end. not their homes and not their precious nature. This is similar to that Christian Missionary story. Did you know there used to be thousands of Sentelinese? Well there was, until the Aliens decided that they had become far too numerous and sent a tsunami created by their advanced alien tech upon them. Now there are a few hundred if that many. Upon seeing this, that brave missionary put his own life in peril to save them from the alien's wrath with the intervention of Christian God, but alas they rejected him, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. |
SoverignNov 26, 2018 4:01 AM
|
Grey-Zone said: What's the big deal about this? Does it really matter whether the cause is an unaccountable entity called "god", or an unaccountable entity called "nature"? In the end the only ones for whom this actually makes a difference for are those who actually do believe in god (the christian monotheistic kind specifically), but might or might not disagree about whether, from their point of view, this is something that god would actually do. Unless of course someone views this incident as something caused by an accountable entity instead. In that case, the person who has this view, would consider the shift of responsibility from someone accountable to someone unaccountable as an attempt to protect the guilty party. So since this is supposedly such a big problem I'll ask you two things: 1. Are you actually Christian? (for real, and not just on paper only because you don't want to "disappoint" your parents) 2. Do you actually believe that this GOP county chairman is trying to protect someone by "blaming" god instead? If none of the two points apply to you, then why would you even care? It would at most just be the typical partisian party politics where one side blames the other for no good reason. None of the parties has an exclusive license to say some crazy stuff. If you want an example for the Democrat side, then you have to look no further than pretty much every single word that comes out of Maxine Water's mouth. Yet you don't see anyone making a thread for all the BS she spouts. Because it's just that: BS. I mean the easy issue to point out is that he's justifying death and destruction of people and property on the other side of the nation under the banner of "God" simply for being liberals. So it's no huge stretch for somebody to then get the idea that "violence against liberals is morally justifiable by God" if they take this former State Representative seriously at all. Since you brought up Maxine Waters you could say it was distasteful for her to advocate harassing cabinet members at restaurants but at least she didn't try to imply the idea that "God says it's okay to burn conservatives." |
GamerDLM said: Grey-Zone said: What's the big deal about this? Does it really matter whether the cause is an unaccountable entity called "god", or an unaccountable entity called "nature"? In the end the only ones for whom this actually makes a difference for are those who actually do believe in god (the christian monotheistic kind specifically), but might or might not disagree about whether, from their point of view, this is something that god would actually do. Unless of course someone views this incident as something caused by an accountable entity instead. In that case, the person who has this view, would consider the shift of responsibility from someone accountable to someone unaccountable as an attempt to protect the guilty party. So since this is supposedly such a big problem I'll ask you two things: 1. Are you actually Christian? (for real, and not just on paper only because you don't want to "disappoint" your parents) 2. Do you actually believe that this GOP county chairman is trying to protect someone by "blaming" god instead? If none of the two points apply to you, then why would you even care? It would at most just be the typical partisian party politics where one side blames the other for no good reason. None of the parties has an exclusive license to say some crazy stuff. If you want an example for the Democrat side, then you have to look no further than pretty much every single word that comes out of Maxine Water's mouth. Yet you don't see anyone making a thread for all the BS she spouts. Because it's just that: BS. I mean the easy issue to point out is that he's justifying death and destruction of people and property on the other side of the nation under the banner of "God" simply for being liberals. So it's no huge stretch for somebody to then get the idea that "violence against liberals is morally justifiable by God" if they take this former State Representative seriously at all. Since you brought up Maxine Waters you could say it was distasteful for her to advocate harassing cabinet members at restaurants but at least she didn't try to imply the idea that "God says it's okay to burn conservatives." No, it IS a huge stretch going from "god did it because they deserve it" to "therefore it's fine if I did it as well". Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that is comparable to "if someone kills people in a video game, it's not a huge stretch to say they kill people in real life as well" and then proceed to ban or at least censor video games, something most of us on this forum vehemently hate. There is absolutely no causal relationship between the former and the latter whatsoever. |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 4:49 AM
|
Grey-Zone said: GamerDLM said: I mean the easy issue to point out is that he's justifying death and destruction of people and property on the other side of the nation under the banner of "God" simply for being liberals. So it's no huge stretch for somebody to then get the idea that "violence against liberals is morally justifiable by God" if they take this former State Representative seriously at all. Since you brought up Maxine Waters you could say it was distasteful for her to advocate harassing cabinet members at restaurants but at least she didn't try to imply the idea that "God says it's okay to burn conservatives." No, it IS a huge stretch going from "god did it because they deserve it" to "therefore it's fine if I did it as well". Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that is comparable to "if someone kills people in a video game, it's not a huge stretch to say they kill people in real life as well". There is absolutely no causal relationship between the former and the latter whatsoever. Those two examples aren't really comparable because video games aren't inherently in a position of power, the player is, which is a huge difference in context. It's also why I followed it with the paraphrased statement "if anybody takes this guy seriously". Having a figure in authority say something such as violence is justifiable is always a dangerous sentiment. But it's almost universally worse when they use a shared moral basis such as religion. Neither of these things are even close in comparison to your second example. |
GamerDLM said: Grey-Zone said: No, it IS a huge stretch going from "god did it because they deserve it" to "therefore it's fine if I did it as well". Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that is comparable to "if someone kills people in a video game, it's not a huge stretch to say they kill people in real life as well". There is absolutely no causal relationship between the former and the latter whatsoever. Those two examples aren't really comparable because video games aren't inherently in a position of power, the player is, which is a huge difference in context. It's also why I followed it with the paraphrased statement "if anybody takes this guy seriously". Having a figure in authority say something such as violence is justifiable is always a dangerous sentiment. But it's almost universally worse when they use a shared moral basis such as religion. Neither of these things are even close in comparison to your second example. He isn't in a "position of power". He is a tiny little "county-level party chairman" with no legislative power of significance (I assume it would be mentioned otherwise) whatsover, on the opposite side of the nation of the event in question and is refering to God's actions himself, not actions of humans, and in Christianity God is considered above both humanity and law, similar to a force of nature. And God is also considered the only one who can execute such "above the law" justice. Also from the ten commendments: "you shall not kill". Anyone who follows the absurd slippery slope you presented just now wouldn't be doing it because they are Christians and anyone taking such action just because of such an insignificant person in the first place would have a screw loose in the head to begin with. Also in both cases there is a "seperating factor". In the video game example it's humanity's ability to differentiate between reality and fiction, while in the case of the thread topic it is Christianity's seperation of "rights" between God and humanity, as only God and God alone is considered above the law. And where exactly did he state "you can do it yourself as well! God allows you to!"? You made that part up completely. I mean sure some psychopath might conveniently interpret this stuff as some sort of justification to start mass arsons, but I thought from the very, very few, almost non-existent cases where someone who played video games actually started a school shooting because of video games, we have come to the unspoken agreement that these people have been "nutcases from the very beginning and would have probably done something bad anyway" or that it was just isolated cases that were just overhyped by the media. I for one think that we shouldn't turn psychopaths into our standard for what we should or shouldn't say. In any case, that "shared morality" you refer doesn't include what you claim it does. I mean what part of Christianity makes the logical connection you are claiming here work? Please refer to something concrete and not just "muh religion!". |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 5:17 AM
|
Grey-Zone said: GamerDLM said: Those two examples aren't really comparable because video games aren't inherently in a position of power, the player is, which is a huge difference in context. It's also why I followed it with the paraphrased statement "if anybody takes this guy seriously". Having a figure in authority say something such as violence is justifiable is always a dangerous sentiment. But it's almost universally worse when they use a shared moral basis such as religion. Neither of these things are even close in comparison to your second example. He isn't in a "position of power". He is a tiny little "county-level party chairman" with no legislative power of significance (I assume it would be mentioned otherwise) whatsover, on the opposite side of the nation of the event in question and is refering to God's actions himself, not actions of humans, and in Christianity God is considered above both humanity and law, similar to a force of nature. And God is also considered the only one who can execute such "above the law" justice. Also from the ten commendments: "you shall not kill". Anyone who follows the absurd slippery slope you presented just now wouldn't be doing it because they are Christians and anyone taking such action just because of such an insignificant person in the first place would have a screw loose in the head to begin with. Also in both cases there is a "seperating factor". In the video game example it's humanity's ability to differentiate between reality and fiction, while in the case of the thread topic it is Christianity's seperation of "rights" between God and humanity, as only God and God alone is considered above the law. And where exactly did he state "you can do it yourself as well! God allows you to!"? You made that part up completely. I mean sure some psychopath might conveniently interpret this stuff as some sort of justification to start mass arsons, but I thought from the very, very few, almost non-existent cases where someone who played video games actually started a school shooting because of video games, we have come to the unspoken agreement that these people have been "nutcases from the very beginning and would have probably done something bad anyway" or that it was just isolated cases that were just overhyped by the media. I for one think that we shouldn't turn psychopaths into our standard for what we should or shouldn't say. In any case, that "shared morality" you refer doesn't include what you claim it does. I mean what part of Christianity makes the logical connection you are claiming here work? Please refer to something concrete and not just "muh religion!". Close enough I guess. Frequently, due to sin, rebellion, and the other factors, God simply withdraws His protective hand and allows sin, Satan, and chaos to have their way. Everything we have seen in the Chaos Theory leads up to this final point. God has incarnated Himself into the world in such a way that He gives away aspects of true freedom and power to His creatures to do with it what they will. But when we misuse this freedom and power, God does not (indeed cannot) simply stop the ways we abuse our freedom and power, for then it would no longer be genuine freedom or power. As a result of our rebellious decisions and misuse of power, nature flies out of control and creates chaos all around us. Satan, who is at war with God and His creation, seeks to destroy anything that comes from God or aligns itself with God. And wherever sin is found, it eats away at everything it touches. Through His incarnation and by His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, God slows the death and decay down, and rescues those who are perishing in sin and destruction, but frequently, due to the nature of sin, the consequences of abused freedom, and the misuse of power, God cannot stop the natural results of rebellion. When this happens, nature falls into chaos, the destroyer destroys, and sin brings death. https://redeeminggod.com/god-sometimes-withdraws-protection/ |
|
| this has a lot to do with why I don't wan't anyone religious representing me not gonna lie. |
 |
Grey-Zone said: He was a former state representative which is what eventually led to him being the party chairmen. He isn't in a "position of power". He is a tiny little "county-level party chairman" with no legislative power of significance (I assume it would be mentioned otherwise) whatsover, on the opposite side of the nation of the event in question and is refering to God's actions himself, not actions of humans, and in Christianity God is considered above both humanity and law, similar to a force of nature. And God is also considered the only one who can execute such "above the law" justice. Also from the ten commendments: "you shall not kill". Anyone who follows the absurd slippery slope you presented just now wouldn't be doing it because they are Christians and anyone taking such action just because of such an insignificant person in the first place would have a screw loose in the head to begin with. The issue isn't level headed people and never was, if you give one crazy person a motive then there's a risk that they will act on it. Also in both cases there is a "seperating factor". In the video game example it's humanity's ability to differentiate between reality and fiction, while in the case of the thread topic it is Christianity's seperation of "rights" between God and humanity, as only God and God alone is considered above the law. And where exactly did he state "you can do it yourself as well! God allows you to!"? You made that part up completely. If he directly stated that it would be an entirely different issue that wouldn't be up for debate. Your first paragraph also literally makes no sense in this context, if God is the authority and above the law and he destroyed the homes and lives of people simply for being in a liberal state as this person implied that why wouldn't some crazy person use that same logic? Or at the very least it would imply that liberals are a direct evil in opposition to God. I mean sure some psychopath might conveniently interpret this stuff as some sort of justification to start mass arsons, but I thought from the very, very few, almost non-existent cases where someone who played video games actually started a school shooting because of video games, we have come to the unspoken agreement that these people have been "nutcases from the very beginning and would have probably done something bad anyway" or that it was just isolated cases that were just overhyped by the media. The issue here is I could easily argue that video games are an outlet for such desires. Whereas in this case there is no outlet, it's presenting liberals as evil in the eyes of God. A person who has the capacity to commit these acts is obviously insane but at least with video games they have an outlet for unhealthy desires. The issue would then come about due to either a real world trigger (ie. bullying) or in the worst case the outlet no longer serving its function. But you couldn't really blame video games for the later and the only real way to pin the blame on video games in most cases would be if that was the only exposure that person ever had to violence. I would also challenge you and say it's much easier to find crimes motivated by misguided religious or political intentions than it is to find someone who explicitly stated video games were their primary motive. In any case, that "shared morality" you refer doesn't include what you claim it does. I mean what part of Christianity makes the logical connection you are claiming here work? Please refer to something concrete and not just "muh religion!". I mean I could just use the examples of cult mentality. If an authoritative figure uses God as a justification for heinous acts often it will go against the very teachings presented. This is also more likely to effect people who generally aren't of sound mind or body, or people in dire circumstances who use religion as a base and apply to people who trust said figure. You could argue that him being a former state representative or county party chairmen aren't as high risk for that but do you also think that he should be allowed to hold his current position or should he be held accountable at all? |
Soverign said: Close enough I guess. Frequently, due to sin, rebellion, and the other factors, God simply withdraws His protective hand and allows sin, Satan, and chaos to have their way. Everything we have seen in the Chaos Theory leads up to this final point. God has incarnated Himself into the world in such a way that He gives away aspects of true freedom and power to His creatures to do with it what they will. But when we misuse this freedom and power, God does not (indeed cannot) simply stop the ways we abuse our freedom and power, for then it would no longer be genuine freedom or power. As a result of our rebellious decisions and misuse of power, nature flies out of control and creates chaos all around us. Satan, who is at war with God and His creation, seeks to destroy anything that comes from God or aligns itself with God. And wherever sin is found, it eats away at everything it touches. Through His incarnation and by His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, God slows the death and decay down, and rescues those who are perishing in sin and destruction, but frequently, due to the nature of sin, the consequences of abused freedom, and the misuse of power, God cannot stop the natural results of rebellion. When this happens, nature falls into chaos, the destroyer destroys, and sin brings death. https://redeeminggod.com/god-sometimes-withdraws-protection/ With "shared morality", I was not simply refering to what the county party chief was basing his statement on, but was rather asking @GamerDLM what exactly his basis is, for a Christian to supposedly come to the conclusion, that "therefore I am completely justified to commit arson or murder liberals now". Where exactly does "Christianity" as a belief justify that? @GamerDLM again, you are mispresenting Christianity. Your argument is 100% about "might be..." or "could happen...", it isn't based on anything concrete based on the Christian belief itself, nor did the chairman himself suggest anything about people taking matters "in their own hands". Literally anyone who claims otherwise makes it up. |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 5:46 AM
|
Grey-Zone said: With "shared morality", I was not simply refering to what the county party chief was basing his statement on, but was rather asking @GamerDLM what exactly his basis is, for a Christian to supposedly come to the conclusion, that "therefore I am completely justified to commit arson or murder liberals now". Where exactly does "Christianity" as a belief justify that? You misunderstand. The chairman said the fires are God's punishment, when that is incorrect. The fires are Satan's punishment, or nature. God merely refrained from intervening due to the nature of free will. God is above pettiness of wishing people ill intent. |
SoverignNov 26, 2018 5:50 AM
|
| @Grey-Zone That's the issue here, I don't have to argue whether the idealistic vision of Christianity allows its followers to act on this. I don't even have to argue that he himself directed people to take actions against liberals. That's just you moving goal posts to unrealistic standards. The point comes down to can you definitely say nothing in what he did implies that liberals deserved what happened to them in this natural disaster in the eyes of God according to the story presented. Or that no one could ever use the idea presented as motivation. If you can't argue against either of those points then you should agree that what he did was wrong and he should be held accountable. |
GamerDLM said: @Grey-Zone That's the issue here, I don't have to argue whether the idealistic vision of Christianity allows its followers to act on this. I don't even have to argue that he himself directed people to take actions against liberals. That's just you moving goal posts to unrealistic standards. The point comes down to can you definitely say nothing in what he did implies that liberals deserved what happened to them in this natural disaster in the eyes of God according to the story presented. Or that no one could ever use the idea presented as motivation. If you can't argue against either of those points then you should agree that what he did was wrong and he should be held accountable. How about the simple fact that the entire hypothetical scenario is based on your imagination. You are blaming the chairman for something that LITERALLY didn't happen at this point of time and there is no concrete proof for anything like that to happen either. Your entire reasoning is based on fiction you yourself created. Just because it sounds consistent doesn't make it true. If we follow your logic, then everytime a "far-left" Democrat in a position of authority or with a high media following, claims that the US is a "fascist nation", might incite people to immidietly start a civil war to overthrow the current government, because taking down a fascist regime would be justified according to many people's world views. But we don't say that. Why? Because it's complete fiction. Period. It was my mistake that I even played along with you up until this point about a completely hypthetical "what if scenario". I maintain my position that this thread is non-sense, violates CE Rule 7c and should therefore be closed. |
|
Grey-Zone said: GamerDLM said: @Grey-Zone That's the issue here, I don't have to argue whether the idealistic vision of Christianity allows its followers to act on this. I don't even have to argue that he himself directed people to take actions against liberals. That's just you moving goal posts to unrealistic standards. The point comes down to can you definitely say nothing in what he did implies that liberals deserved what happened to them in this natural disaster in the eyes of God according to the story presented. Or that no one could ever use the idea presented as motivation. If you can't argue against either of those points then you should agree that what he did was wrong and he should be held accountable. How about the simple fact that the entire hypothetical scenario is based on your imagination. You are blaming the chairman for something that LITERALLY didn't happen at this point of time and there is no concrete proof for anything like that to happen either. Your entire reasoning is based on fiction you yourself created. Just because it sounds consistent doesn't make it true. If we follow your logic, then everytime a "far-left" Democrat in a position of authority or with a high media following, claims that the US is a "fascist nation", might incite people to immidietly start a civil war to overthrow the current government, because taking down a fascist regime would be justified according to many people's world views. But we don't say that. Why? Because it's complete fiction. Period. Or how a sitting President called people enemies of the state and they weirdly received bomb threats. It's almost like people in positions of power should be held accountable for their actions. I'm still waiting for the part where you definitively argue against either of the two points I laid out or justify why this individual shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. I mean even in the counterexample what if as a result of a far left person stating that another far left person with a similar following challenged them for their irresponsible actions and the first person was forced to issue an apology and a declaration of why they were wrong. Thus avoiding a hypothetical civil war. Basically holding people accountable can prevent massive damage using your own example. |
GamerDLM said: Grey-Zone said: How about the simple fact that the entire hypothetical scenario is based on your imagination. You are blaming the chairman for something that LITERALLY didn't happen at this point of time and there is no concrete proof for anything like that to happen either. Your entire reasoning is based on fiction you yourself created. Just because it sounds consistent doesn't make it true. If we follow your logic, then everytime a "far-left" Democrat in a position of authority or with a high media following, claims that the US is a "fascist nation", might incite people to immidietly start a civil war to overthrow the current government, because taking down a fascist regime would be justified according to many people's world views. But we don't say that. Why? Because it's complete fiction. Period. Or how a sitting President called people enemies of the state and they weirdly received bomb threats. It's almost like people in positions of power should be held accountable for their actions. I'm still waiting for the part where you definitively argue against either of the two points I laid out or justify why this individual shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. I mean even in the counterexample what if as a result of a far left person stating that another far left person with a similar following challenged them for their irresponsible actions and the first person was forced to issue an apology and a declaration of why they were wrong. Thus avoiding a hypothetical civil war. Basically holding people accountable can prevent massive damage using you own example. Considering how the GOP is constantly accused of "inciting violence", according to the media, but the Democrats are not, then all the violence should have been directed against the GOP, right? So let's see: recent violence against Democrats: - "MAGA bomber" (all bombs turned out to be either duds or fakes without exception) recent violence against Republicans: - "white powder letters" sent to Trump's family - Rand Paul's neigbour incident - House Member Scalise actually getting critically wounded by a crazy "Berniebro", who intended to cause even more harm to GOP congressmembers - GOP train incident Conclusion? "Inciting violence" is meaningless drivel. It's a disgusting form of "hope" where people hope that some crazy person from the other side can hurt someone on one's own side or just people in general so that the finger can be pointed at the other side and say "see! you are evil!" It's an absolutely disgusing practise where you hope for bad things to happen just to score a few political points. So it's better to just drop these mental acrobatics and the ridiculous finger pointing. I won't acknowledge anything other than the straightforward words like "go out and kill or harm people" as being an actual "inciting violence" case that can be taken seriously, as other than "go out and kill or harm people", all the other stuff is based on some kind of "interpretation" or "overthinking" at which point the media that report an incident has more power and responsibility over the message than the person who initially made that statement. After all, if we only go by "implied request for violence" suppsedly making people actually go on a rampage or killing spree, then Trump would already be dead thousand times over, secret service or not, considering what various people of very high authority, reach and influence have been saying about him. Yet he is still well and alive. |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 6:30 AM
|
| @Grey-Zone Haven't you also literally had some of those examples debunked to you in other threads like the case with Rand Paul which was over a lawn dispute, or the fact that there was nothing to imply the train incident was a motivated attack (unless I'm looking at the totally wrong train incident)? Even the case with the Berniebro you know one of the very first things that happened was Bernie Sanders publicly announced that was a despicable act and he even addressed himself that the individual volunteered on his campaign while condemning violence in favor of nonviolent protest. But I also doubt you could find a case of Sanders himself implying anything in regards to the idea that people should commit violent acts against Republicans or that anything terrible happening to Republicans is justified. From the rest of your post I guess your conclusion is let toxicity reign accountability be damned. |
GamerDLM said: @Grey-Zone Haven't you also literally had some of those examples debunked to you in other threads like the case with Rand Paul which was over a lawn dispute, or the fact that there was nothing to imply the train incident was a motivated attack (unless I'm looking at the totally wrong train incident)? Even the case with the Berniebro you know one of the very first things that happened was Bernie Sanders publicly announced that was a despicable act and he even addressed himself that the individual volunteered on his campaign while condemning violence in favor of nonviolent protest. But I also doubt you could find a case of Sanders himself implying anything in regards to the idea that people should commit violent acts against Republicans or that anything terrible happening to Republicans is justified. From the rest of your post I guess your conclusion is let toxicity reign accountability be damned. I was saying how the whole idea of someone supposedly "inciting violence" (based on some sort of re-interpretation) supposedly leading to actual violence is complete non-sense because that just doesn't happen or at least happens less than the violence happening "by itself" without any re-interpretation of words of an influential politician. Let me spell it out for you: IT IS FICTION. Going by past events all the political violence incidents are usually based on motivations people already had from the beginning, who just happen to have overlaps with certain politicians. The same reason why most people, correctly, find it idiotic to hold Bernie Sanders responsible for that attack on the congressmembers. Because his actual influence, intented or not, on the actions of that crazy person is either non-existent or at most on a completely negliable level, as Bernie Sanders is not responsible for peoples' violence. And where do I let "toxicity reign"? Again, that "toxicity" is entirely fiction. Your fears aren't supported by reality. And even in the extremely narrow field where people might be influenced by such words to take violent criminal action, it's actually more likely that a journalist's "interpreation" of a politician's words has more influence on the audience than the actual words being spoken. If the media actually believed in your logic and also aren't willing accomplices to that supposed "toxicity", then it wouldn't have been reported in a nation-wide article, and instead fuzzed out in some local newspaper that's limited to the county that one guy is from. For all intents of purposes you are arguing about a "fictional problem". How about applying the concept of self-responsiblity? Do you need to interpret all masses as some kind of computer program that always has to be attached to a polticial individual or political party? How about judging people based on... you know, on their own actions and views? |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 7:28 AM
|
| Yeah, religious people can be pretty psychopathic. These people shouldn't be anywhere near power, but they are. |
 I can see you |
| @Grey-Zone But then you ignore cases like the MAGA Bomber who was an avid Trump supporter and sent the packages to anyone who Trump had spoken out against which wasn't just limited to politicians. Sure he was a deranged individual who will likely spend many years in prison but a significant part of his motivation was clearly and openly tied to an individual figure. If the distinction is much more arbitrary along political lines to a point where no one can rightly be attributed as a motivator (such is the case with Bernie) then they don't have anything to be held accountable for but they do have a responsibility to speak out against the issue of violence which they tend to do. The first case brings me back to my point though, using a natural disaster and claims of gods will to attack political opponents is wrong and that person should be held accountable. You've literally presented nothing to the contrary and pretty much given the clearly toxic message a free pass for basically no reason. Even the case you presented where the journal calling out the individual doesn't make sense because it would mean that a person is reading negative feedback about a politician and then choosing to follow the politician based on the journal's interpretation which makes no sense. It would still come back to a person saw the politicians actions, used it as a motivator, and then acted upon it, blaming the journalist who reported on the issue makes zero sense. Based on your own stance on this particular figures power though just having it maintain a local level is likely more harmful. Again he was elected as a state representative for his county in the past and has maintained a position with the current dominant political party in the country. The local level is the extent of his influence. All calling it out on a larger scale does is hold people at least partially accountable which is one of the main functions of journalism. |
GamerDLM said: @Grey-Zone But then you ignore cases like the MAGA Bomber who was an avid Trump supporter and sent the packages to anyone who Trump had spoken out against which wasn't just limited to politicians. Sure he was a deranged individual who will likely spend many years in prison but a significant part of his motivation was clearly and openly tied to an individual figure. If the distinction is much more arbitrary along political lines to a point where no one can rightly be attributed as a motivator (such is the case with Bernie) then they don't have anything to be held accountable for but they do have a responsibility to speak out against the issue of violence which they tend to do. The first case brings me back to my point though, using a natural disaster and claims of gods will to attack political opponents is wrong and that person should be held accountable. You've literally presented nothing to the contrary and pretty much given the clearly toxic message a free pass for basically no reason. Even the case you presented where the journal calling out the individual doesn't make sense because it would mean that a person is reading negative feedback about a politician and then choosing to follow the politician based on the journal's interpretation which makes no sense. It would still come back to a person saw the politicians actions, used it as a motivator, and then acted upon it, blaming the journalist who reported on the issue makes zero sense. Based on your own stance on this particular figures power though just having it maintain a local level is likely more harmful. Again he was elected as a state representative for his county in the past and has maintained a position with the current dominant political party in the country. The local level is the extent of his influence. All calling it out on a larger scale does is hold people at least partially accountable which is one of the main functions of journalism. Again, he is litereally on the other side of the country, thousands of kilometers away, from the event he is refering to. He isn't responsible for the hypothetical future actions of people who MISINTERPRETED what he actually said, be it because they themselves made that error, or because some journalists don't like the GOP and attributed meanings to his words that don't actually exist. That's what matters. Period. Anything else that goes into territories like "there is, in theory, the possibility that someone misinterprets him and ALSO takes action based on that because that person is not only a retard, but also a retarded psychopath", cannot be attributed to him any longer, because it relies on a subjective interpretation of his words and possibly hallucinatory "hidden meanings" or "dog whistles" whose existences are pure speculation by themselves. It would be different if he actually said "go out, burn, and kill all those liberals in california" or something like that, but he didn't. That's all. Anything beyond that is mental gymnastics no matter how hard you might try to pretend that it isn't. With that said, he is not protected from the fact that people will have different views about him compared to before due to the things he said. He will now have "has said 'serves them right' about California wildfire victims" as a stigma on himself forever. It's a seperate issue from whether or not he is responsible for hypothetically being responsible for future arsonsists who hallucinated him saying words that he never did. As for the law? There's not much to say about that. If he actually broke a law with his actions, then he will be held responsible, otherwise he won't. If some crazy stuff happens, like the party deciding to protect him from being prosecuted despite him being without any doubt guilty according to the law, then I'd actually most certainly join your "side" in wanting him to be prosecuted, even, for this issue at least. |
Grey-ZoneNov 26, 2018 8:25 AM
|
| Well, maybe if California rakes the forests and eradicates all liberals wildfires in California wouldn't happen. |
  𝔗𝔥𝔢𝔐𝔞𝔯𝔦𝔮𝔲𝔞 𝔪𝔞𝔡𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔰𝔢𝔱, 𝔦 𝔞𝔪 𝔠𝔬𝔫𝔱𝔯𝔞𝔠𝔱𝔲𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔶 𝔬𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔤𝔞𝔱𝔢𝔡 𝔱𝔬 𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔱𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 |
| some of these people are so absurdly active in making themselves unlikable you have to wonder if it's some kind of fucking psy-op. i know the modern GOP is a cesspool, but i still can't help to feel disappointed in faggots doing things like this. |
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
Grey-Zone said: poor rand. literally no one gave a shit.GamerDLM said: Or how a sitting President called people enemies of the state and they weirdly received bomb threats. It's almost like people in positions of power should be held accountable for their actions. I'm still waiting for the part where you definitively argue against either of the two points I laid out or justify why this individual shouldn't be held accountable for his actions. I mean even in the counterexample what if as a result of a far left person stating that another far left person with a similar following challenged them for their irresponsible actions and the first person was forced to issue an apology and a declaration of why they were wrong. Thus avoiding a hypothetical civil war. Basically holding people accountable can prevent massive damage using you own example. Considering how the GOP is constantly accused of "inciting violence", according to the media, but the Democrats are not, then all the violence should have been directed against the GOP, right? So let's see: recent violence against Democrats: - "MAGA bomber" (all bombs turned out to be either duds or fakes without exception) recent violence against Republicans: - "white powder letters" sent to Trump's family - Rand Paul's neigbour incident - House Member Scalise actually getting critically wounded by a crazy "Berniebro", who intended to cause even more harm to GOP congressmembers - GOP train incident Conclusion? "Inciting violence" is meaningless drivel. It's a disgusting form of "hope" where people hope that some crazy person from the other side can hurt someone on one's own side or just people in general so that the finger can be pointed at the other side and say "see! you are evil!" It's an absolutely disgusing practise where you hope for bad things to happen just to score a few political points. So it's better to just drop these mental acrobatics and the ridiculous finger pointing. I won't acknowledge anything other than the straightforward words like "go out and kill or harm people" as being an actual "inciting violence" case that can be taken seriously, as other than "go out and kill or harm people", all the other stuff is based on some kind of "interpretation" or "overthinking" at which point the media that report an incident has more power and responsibility over the message than the person who initially made that statement. After all, if we only go by "implied request for violence" suppsedly making people actually go on a rampage or killing spree, then Trump would already be dead thousand times over, secret service or not, considering what various people of very high authority, reach and influence have been saying about him. Yet he is still well and alive. |
Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
| @Grey-Zone I literally never said anything about prosecution or law. In this case literally a satisfactory result would be the guy issues an open apology, goes into more in depth explanation of what he meant, if he has genuine concern with policies he should then use that time to voice them. Basically what you're saying is if someone creates an atmosphere of toxicity, someone acts in response to that toxicity, if the first person didn't directly issue a command to incite violence (which would be already illegal) then the first person is in no way accountable. Which seems like it would be a case of blatantly ignoring a potential motivator. In fact by your logic if a person says something along the lines of "man it would be great if my wife died" then if that guy's wife turns up dead by somebody who interpreted that as an order the husband shouldn't be responsible. The person who killed her just took what he said too literally. How is him calling the people targeted "Enemies of the People" or joking about the fact that he wouldn't be upset if journalists covering him were killed not his responsibility if an avid supporter takes those phrases literally? But when it was revealed in that case that the bomber was in fact an avid supporter instead of taking the let's say "Bernie Approach" he not only tried to downplay how much of a supporter the guy was but then proceeded to continue to attack the media and revert right back to his midterms rhetoric. I would almost argue in that case he should have had to issue a statement condemning any supporters from performing similar acts and promise to tone down his rhetoric. The easiest punishment being threaten to take his Twitter away temporarily or like cancel a rally, things that would effect him personally but have no effect on his function as President. |
GamerDLMNov 26, 2018 10:04 AM
Grey-Zone said: Which is something for Christians to debate among themselves. On the politics front, I don't see how it's "news worthy" compared to any Maxine Waters rant though, which also aren't considered newsworthy. Heck this is even merely a "county chairman" for the GOP. It's not even a current member of congress or any other legislative organ of significance! You sure love bringing up completely unrelated events to distract away from any GOP member under criticism. It's significant for those who work with him and are under him. Also in case you forgot because Trump being the exception every person starts out in more local governments before moving up and to ignore such things occurrences allows that possability. Grey-Zone said: No, it IS a huge stretch going from "god did it because they deserve it" to "therefore it's fine if I did it as well". Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that is comparable to "if someone kills people in a video game, it's not a huge stretch to say they kill people in real life as well" and then proceed to ban or at least censor video games, something most of us on this forum vehemently hate. There is absolutely no causal relationship between the former and the latter whatsoever. Except it's not a slippery slope because it has been proven true in history that a sense of superiority and divine right can lead to a lack of empathy or even a disgust with others and this allows all sorts of abuses. Videogames are meant as an entertainment not a world view. Grey-Zone said: He isn't in a "position of power". He is a tiny little "county-level party chairman" with no legislative power of significance (I assume it would be mentioned otherwise) whatsover, on the opposite side of the nation of the event in question and is refering to God's actions himself, not actions of humans, and in Christianity God is considered above both humanity and law, similar to a force of nature. And God is also considered the only one who can execute such "above the law" justice. Also from the ten commendments: "you shall not kill". Anyone who follows the absurd slippery slope you presented just now wouldn't be doing it because they are Christians and anyone taking such action just because of such an insignificant person in the first place would have a screw loose in the head to begin with. Also in both cases there is a "seperating factor". In the video game example it's humanity's ability to differentiate between reality and fiction, while in the case of the thread topic it is Christianity's seperation of "rights" between God and humanity, as only God and God alone is considered above the law. And where exactly did he state "you can do it yourself as well! God allows you to!"? You made that part up completely. I mean sure some psychopath might conveniently interpret this stuff as some sort of justification to start mass arsons, but I thought from the very, very few, almost non-existent cases where someone who played video games actually started a school shooting because of video games, we have come to the unspoken agreement that these people have been "nutcases from the very beginning and would have probably done something bad anyway" or that it was just isolated cases that were just overhyped by the media. I for one think that we shouldn't turn psychopaths into our standard for what we should or shouldn't say. In any case, that "shared morality" you refer doesn't include what you claim it does. I mean what part of Christianity makes the logical connection you are claiming here work? Please refer to something concrete and not just "muh religion!". That doesn't make him not in a position of power just because it's not a higher level of power. The chair is a party representative which in itself holds a symbolic power and they also are in charge of county media which further has influential power and in charge of elections in the county. Different sects believe different things. The bible is inconsistent. There also are parts it instructs people to kill. You don't even have to actively kill someone to kill someone. There is such a thing as passive killing. For example due to a lack of empathy they could cut off all funds and support that are there help put out the fires and help people effected by it. You aren't thinking of the bigger picture. It won't be because of one guy alone but numbers of various people saying similar or the same thing. Afterall he did say it was a meme. He didn't make the image himself but helped the idea spread. Grey-Zone said: It was my mistake that I even played along with you up until this point about a completely hypthetical "what if scenario". I maintain my position that this thread is non-sense, violates CE Rule 7c and should therefore be closed. You wouldn't say that if roles were reversed and it was a liberal saying something about conservatives. Of course you're trying to explodit an authoritarian rule in your favour. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Religious Zealots are fucking idiots. Next! |
| Jesus fucking christ-do certain morons in the public think they that they can utter any idiocy and not have to pay any consequences? |
| Life Is Short But Intense. |
Yomiyuki said: poor rand. literally no one gave a shit. Ignore him. Rand got tackled because his neighbor got bent out of shape over him leaving yard debrit on his lawn. Lol the two know eachother. That wasn't the only thing he misrepresented. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| it's funny because most of the people who died were probably republicans paradise, california is certainly right leaning i guess the opoid, meth crisis in ohio is god's punishment for voting for trump kappa |
zzzeallyNov 30, 2018 6:33 PM
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |