Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Dec 18, 2020.
Breitbart quit being "Breitbart" when Andrew died.
This was just another stupid article
We sure as hell don't need so called conservative web sites going along with the faux liberal outrage.
Any organization that isn't explicitly on the Right will become one of the Left. It is common to see conservative groups punch harder to the Right than to the Left. It is an age old tradition since at least Buckley.
It became far more "Trumpy" and populist after Andrew, not before.
Like he didn't know who David Duke was?
This is what makes me more hostile to Trumpism than anything else - the idea that I'm expected to like or tolerate something just because the left doesn't like it.
Fuentes is garbage. He has said very antisemitic things, and even if he didn't, he's an annoying tool. We shouldn't associate with him. Though I like some of what Kanye West has said, he said a lot of really crappy things and seems to buy into the Black Hebrew Israelite goofiness. The conservative right shouldn't associate with them just because the left doesn't like them.
The whole idea going after others because they're talking to the wrong people is stupid. Yeah, Fuentes is scum. Holocaust denial is dumb. However, I'd sit down with him or Farrakhan and be perfectly comfortable with it. I wouldn't be best buds with either though.
The whole idea of ostracizing others because of wrongthink is a stupid liberal idea. If you want to embrace goofy liberalism be my guest.
On top of this we don't even know if Trump knew him. It's not like he's a household name. I've heard of him but I don't even know what he looks like.
But he did expand the family’s business interest outside of the historical avenues.
And every time he tried to get our, they pulled him back in.
He sometimes demonstrated good character. He did feel bad, after all, for whacking Fredo.
Fredo did try to have him killed because he didnt understand he could not ever be in charge.
I will say, Sonny was definitely the Prodigal Son out of the three boys.
Hmm. I remember being critical of Obama for cozying up to Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers. I stand by those criticisms. I don't know if they were best buds or not, but he was on favorable personal terms with very bad people. He shouldn't have been, and Trump shouldn't be either.
Personally, I care about it - not because liberals do, but because I do on my own. Even though I don't believe in the theology underlying the Right's pro-Israel position, I detest true antisemitism. Even if you don't care about it, the perception is terrible, and the poor judgment that went into this decision should concern you. I know you guys don't care about perceptions, but giving the MSM ammunition to spin their narratives makes them look more believable. It's a stupid, unforced error, and in elections decided by a point or two (as many, many are), this kind of thing hurts.
Do you know for absolute fact that he knows Fuentes?
The one thing that hurts our elections as well is the embrace of liberal thought from those on our side. Romney found that out because people stayed home.
Well, he does now. Did he know him before the dinner? I don't know. His staff should have. He definitely does know the Black Hebrew Israelite.
Not associating with bad people isn't "liberal thought." It's important that we not adopt the reverse of the Fox News Fallacy.
It really is though. We have more important things to worry about then about being politically correct. Going along with libs and their emotional hang-ups isn't helpful. Agreeing with them that Trump needed to be impeached or that we needed Trump to be investigated for sucking Putin's balls is just God awful. I really wish you'd quit going down these rabbit holes.
I think this is correct. One observation though is that Obama wasn't criticized for those relationships even though they were very bad people. I know Fox News and some conservatives pointed it out but my perception is that by and large the criticisms weren't taken seriously by the vast majority of people. In fact those who brought the criticisms were then framed as mean, hateful people.
Curious to know what you are referring to here and where your theology fits. My speculation is that you are talking about dispensational pre-tribulation rapture pre-millennial eschatology. If so, I have heard several recent critiques. If not, then I am even more interested to know what you are talking about.
I think generally the historical pre-millennial view is the most accurate, but I know there is wide disagreement on the topic.
I came across this. This is our ******* republican party.
I have been saying this for years. The same RINOs always going on Fox talking about what ought to be done, who should be investigated blah blah blah. They can make it happen, but they won't.
Do you really think I'm just being politically correct rather than having a genuine issue with what he did? I've been around here long enough that you should know I'm far from politically correct. Furthermore, I've defended actions by Trump and concurred with him enough that I'm not just bullying him. It's not an emotional hang-up by me, and you shouldn't call it that.
I'm not trying to slap back at you for this. However, you did something that I notice a lot of Trump supporters doing over the years. When I have a criticism of something Trump has said or done, the response from many is to ignore the concern and point out some double standard by the media or by Democrats as if that's some kind of take-down. (To be clear, you agreed with me in principle, so you didn't exactly go this route, but many have.) If I was Dan Rather or Jim Acosta, it would be, but I'm not. I'm a guy on the internet giving his opinion on politics and issues (with a few raunchy comments and jokes mixed in).
For example, you mention that the media dismissed the criticisms of Obama's associates. You are correct. They did dismiss them, and they have no credibility on the matter. However, I didn't dismiss them, so how is the media's double standard relevant to me? I'm applying the same standard to Trump that I applied to Obama. I'm being totally fair to both of them.
I'm not especially well-versed in the verbiage, and this could massively derail the topic, but I'm talking about Christians who think God has a special interest in the Jewish state as we know it today and that Jesus can't return unless we do something in Israel. I'm also referring to Christians who believe that people who are ethnically Jewish don't need Christ to be saved. I reject all of that. I think Jesus can come back whenever the Father directs it. ISIS could be in charge in Jerusalem. Jesus would simply destroy them. I also think Jesus is the Messiah for all - Jew and Gentile. In fact, he was the savior of the Jews first.
Having said all that, I'm solidly pro-Israel. I detest antisemitism, and I personally like Jews. However, it's not for religious reasons. It's because of shared values and trust. Furthermore, my personal experience with Jews is a little like my experience with Mormons. I've never met one who wasn't honest, decent, kind, and basically a good person (at least by man's standard). I'm sure others have had different experiences, but I've pretty much always liked Jews.
Okay, fair enough. I still disagree with you on this though.
Point taken. I wasn't criticizing your statement. Responding indirectly on concepts like you did.
Yeah. That is dispensational eschatology. There are different flavors of it. The flavor you seem to be referencing is an ideology popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 20th Century. It overly emphasized Israel, and is the basis of the Left Behind fiction series.
I follow a more historically theological flavor. I do think God has work to do and with the nation of Israel as described by various passages in the OT and NT. But I don't think the US has or should have anything to do with it. God obviously never mentions the US. It is something He will do directly with them.
Yeah. That is part of the hyper Scofield dispensationalism. It is heresy.
He obviously can. No dispute. There is no set timetable, but there are signposts that are given in several places in the Bible though to signal to believers while it is happening. Jesus is the Messiah for all. But bear in mind that Messiah first of all is an anointed king of the Jews. Think King David. To get a framework for what you are saying in that last sentence, you could read through Romans 11. It broadly speaks of the relationship of the salvation of Jew and Gentile through time.
I am for the existence of Israel even if I criticize some of things they do. I do believe that God promised them that land. But that doesn't give them carte-blanche to do whatever they want to the other people living there. They have legitimate security concerns. But in many cases are more the aggressor than the defender.
It is good to judge people as individuals. Anti-semitism is a form of collectivism and racism just like any other kind. It should be rejected.
I get that, and your post may not have been the best one to use to raise my point. I did it because it's what prompted me to think of it.
Agree that he has more to do with Israel, but I don't think the US should try to base its foreign policy on that, because we can't possibly know what God's intentions are in day-to-day situations. We're also not needed. As you said, God can do the work on his own through whatever mechanisms he chooses. I also don't think it should be treated as a forgone conclusion that the current regime is necessarily the one God intends as his permanent government for Israel.
Absolutely. I do view Jews as God's chosen people, and I do think Jesus is intended to be their king (and ultimately everybody's king) as well as the Messiah. My issue is that I don't think this undoes the damage caused by sin and therefore the need for all people to accept him. Like you said, it's heresy.
It is sorta depends on the specifics. There are times when they've been in the wrong. However, the bottom line is that the Islamic world largely doesn't want them there. Some of that is antisemitism, but I think it's mostly just a desire to have the land for themselves, which makes sense, because Islam has mostly spread by conquest. So long as Jews have significant power in the region, they're going to dislike it, and there will be conflict.
That's ok. You and Trump have similar tastes in chicks. I get why you'd be partial to him.
I'm mostly partial to him because he's the first republican in a long time that stood up to the left and that is willing to fix America's problems. His character flaws aren't important enough to overshadow the work he's doing.
And unless you are having to be around Trump, or anyone else in charge, on a daily basis, and actually can be manipulated by the media to believe how someone is, what difference does their character make?
Seriously, how many presidents have been of sound character in the last 20 years or so? They all have issues. Who cares? The policies are what matter.
And don't try to say it matters on a global perception basis. Who cares? Most other countries will hate a US Republican POTUS no matter what.
I wouldn't mind hanging around Trump though. I'd probably get some chicks.
Well, and of course, he was loved and admired by Hollywood and the media until he put the (R) behind his name. Then, he became intolerable.
I believe the character attacks coming from the Left is just their MO. They attacked George Bush (the 2nd) rabidly. It was vicious. And he's not like Trump at all. Just a mature frat guy. He probably likes to have a good time but he wasn't offensive in the least.
They went after Bork. Kavanaugh. Thomas. And now Trump. They hated Reagan. They hate John Wayne.
Trump did himself no favors. He's a NY real estate developer. If you think about the business climate up there, then yeah, you're going to get a very hardnosed outspoken badass a-hole. Unfortunately, many many people liked Obama's style. And regardless of what you think about Obama, as far as I can tell, he came across as a family man.
If your bar stories are true, he should be hanging around you to get chicks.
Yeah, but owning the bar is what got me some action. I'm not exactly a ladies' man.