Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Yeah im not expecting them to move on that at this point - just saying i think there is enough to do it.

Oh he totally deserves it. I’m just saying that nothing would come of it given the current Congress’ lack of a spine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

D414ynsW0AETHz8.jpg

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-blasts/sri-lanka-blasts-were-revenge-for-new-zealand-mosque-killings-minister-idUSKCN1RZ06M

ISIS has claimed responsibility for murdering hundreds of Christians.

Obama was afraid to say radical islam and now the 321 dead people with about 500 wounded are just 'Easter worshippers'! Very creepy.

I don't get the problem? What should they be referred to? Isn't it obvious they are christians?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't get the problem? What should they be referred to? Isn't it obvious they are christians?

Christians.

Not Easter worshippers. Nobody worship Easter (unless pagans).

According to Obama some people (islamic terrorists) murdered Easter worshippers (Christians).

The phrasing is intentional.

The attackers were obviously radical muslims, their motives were religious, their targets were christians.

Why avoiding it? 

Compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's reactions to the Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings to the Sri Lanka Christian Church bombings.

That's precisely the democrats agenda. Very disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

Christians.

Not Easter worshippers. Nobody worship Easter (unless pagans).

According to Obama some people (islamic terrorists) murdered Easter worshippers (Christians).

The phrasing is intentional.

The attackers were obviously radical muslims, their motives were religious, their targets were christians.

Why avoiding it? 

Compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's reactions to the Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings to the Sri Lanka Christian Church bombings.

That's precisely the democrats agenda. Very disrespectful.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever written in this thread.  

In what world does taking issue with phrasing and respect paid by Obama make sense light of your staunch support for someone who likely couldn’t even spell (maybe even say) the word phrasing and has shown zero respect for anyone. 

Utter fucking nonsense. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, downzy said:

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever written in this thread.  

Are you sure? His bar is pretty fucking low. :lol: 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

Christians.

Not Easter worshippers. Nobody worship Easter (unless pagans).

According to Obama some people (islamic terrorists) murdered Easter worshippers (Christians).

The phrasing is intentional.

The attackers were obviously radical muslims, their motives were religious, their targets were christians.

Why avoiding it? 

Compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's reactions to the Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings to the Sri Lanka Christian Church bombings.

That's precisely the democrats agenda. Very disrespectful.

So Obama and Clinton has been intentionally refraining from referring to the victims as "Christians" while also refusing to identify the murderers as "Muslims" because...uhm, they are on Team Islam and engaged in jihad against Christianity? Is that it? And yet they did refer to them as Easter worshippers which unambiguously identifies them as Christians? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

He is meant to be coming here.

Damnit! That's going to cost me a fortune no doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Damnit! That's going to cost me a fortune no doubt. 

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

How so?

Because the missus will want to go to London to shout abuse at him. 

Edited by Dazey
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazey said:

Because the missus will want to go to London to shout abuse at him. 

It is a complete waste of time and money. You'll never get close to him, and he'll be closeted in that limo of his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DieselDaisy said:

It is a complete waste of time and money. You'll never get close to him, and he'll be closeted in that limo of his.

You say that as though my wife gives a shit about logic. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

So Obama and Clinton has been intentionally refraining from referring to the victims as "Christians" while also refusing to identify the murderers as "Muslims" because...uhm, they are on Team Islam and engaged in jihad against Christianity? Is that it? And yet they did refer to them as Easter worshippers which unambiguously identifies them as Christians? 

It unambiguously identifies them as pagans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President. The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

It unambiguously identifies them as pagans.

It really doesn’t. They’re referring to people worshipping ON Easter. Not people worshipping Easter itself.

Have you ever thought you might be better served trying to live up to your username more often?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

It unambiguously identifies them as pagans.

Pagans? As in barbarians practising another religion than christianity? You think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pagans because they referred to christians as "Easter worshippers" and not identified the culprits as extremist Islamists? Can you walk me through your reasoning because I still don't get why pagans would have a problem labelling people as christians or muslims.

I think a much more sane explanation is that Obama and Clinton knew people would understand that someone worshipping at Easter is a christian, by default, so it wouldn't be required to spell it out even further. I guess they were wrong! And at the time they tweeted I suppose it wasn't confirmed the murderers were muslims so they thought it best to not jump the gun on that one (although it was very likely given the victims and nature of the attacks) … which is in stark contrast to the sitting president who consistently makes a fool out of himself through his tweets.

All this being said. I wouldn't be surprised it Obama and Clinton consciously wanted to avoid using religious labels to avoid "taking sides". Politicians are often weak like that. Especially when it comes to religion and especially if you want to be a statesman who unites the population. Again in stark contrast to the sitting president who have no problems again and again ostracizing large parts of his voter base (latinos, democrats, afroamericans, homosexuals, etc... funnily enough, the one groups he does seem to have a huge problem criticising are right-wing extremists, who, according to him have some "good people") and based his election very much on creating division.

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

All this being said. I wouldn't be surprised it Obama and Clinton consciously wanted to avoid using religious labels to avoid "taking sides". Politicians are often weak like that. Especially when it comes to religion and especially if you want to be a statesman who unites the population. Again in stark contrast to the sitting president who have no problems again and again ostracizing large parts of his voter base (latinos, democrats, afroamericans, homosexuals, etc... funnily enough, the one groups he does seem to have a huge problem criticising are right-wing extremists, who, according to him have some "good people") and based his election very much on creating division.

I do think it's silly not to just call them christians. It's what they are and they were specifically targeted for that. The terrorists attacked churches. It's hardly taking sides just stating who the victims were.

After it's known who the terrorists were, you can call them radical muslims or whatever.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

In Silent Jay's defence he isn't the only person to have picked up that point,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/calling-sri-lanka-bombing-victims-easter-worshippers-shows-just/

But his point isn't that "we are afraid to admit that Christians are under attack" but that Clinton and Obama are pagans :lol:. In fact, it was @Lio and I who pointed out that it is weak of politicians to tip-toe around religious terms out of fear of insulting anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Isn't this just twitter word economy that is also cognizant of the fact that many non-christian family members and 'seekers' join us at Christmas and Easter services?

Twitter speak "Easter worshippers" = peacefully assembled at place of worship for popular, traditional, annual Christian event.

Politician speak "Easter worshipers" = using the 'seeker safe' language of US progressive churches, a branch of the church that is closely associated with democratic circles. Anyone can and does attend Easter and Christmas and no distinction is drawn between Christians, seekers, friends, family, travellers, students, etc. This language was utilized in a sleazy politician way to be sure.

 

Edited by soon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

But his point isn't that "we are afraid to admit that Christians are under attack" but that Clinton and Obama are pagans :lol:. In fact, it was @Lio and I who pointed out that it is weak of politicians to tip-toe around religious terms out of fear of insulting anyone.

I couldn't give a monkeys really. Just pointing out that somebody else raised the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only people who take with the use of "easter worshippers" are trolls and people who literally have nothing better to complain about.  

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/04/easter-worshippers-obama-hillary-conservative-backlash.html

Before Sunday, to be clear, the term Easter worshipper was considered straightforward enough that the AP used it in a headline about another recent church-based international tragedy: “Tourists, Easter Worshippers Lament Closure of Notre Dame.” Nevertheless, let me try to help: “Easter worshippers” describes Christians in church on Easter Sunday. The term is more descriptive than “Christians,” because it conveys the additional fact that the victims were actively celebrating Easter when they were killed. They are worshippers, and it is Easter. If it helps, try putting the emphasis on worshippers in the phrase: It’s Easter worshippers, not Easter-worshippers.

Here is how the construction works in similar contexts:

• BBC: “Finsbury Park Attack: Roses for Ramadan Worshipers”

• The Guardian: “Afghanistan Suicide Bomber Kills Eid Worshippers at Mosque, Police Say”

• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “Homeless Couple Attacks Synagogue Worshippers in Buenos Aires”

I would argue that it takes a true savant of exquisitely attuned grievance collection to read an individual reference to “Easter worshippers” as an attempt to avoid acknowledging Christianity. Easter is the most important holiday in the Christian calendar. “Easter” has no other meaning. As a celebration, it is far less secularly degraded than Christmas. Bunnies aside, it is basically inaccessible as a holiday to anyone uncomfortable with acknowledging the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If anything, “Easter worshippers” puts extra emphasis on the religious nature of the attack by pointing out that it happened on a day of special spiritual meaning to victims. It implies: Not only did you attack Christians, you did it today of all days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a complete waste of time and money. You'll never get close to him, and he'll be closeted in that limo of his.

meet-the-scottish-man-who-rubbed-a-big-b

Someone up here got close enough (before he was POTUS, mind).

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×