Kirk Cameron defends Todd Akin

[A'isha]

Yes, I get it, you're just going to keep calling me a hypocrite until something sticks. Easier than having anything valid or substantive to say at least.

I had plenty of substantive things to say (especially regarding the actual content of Obama's speech).

You simply refused to address them at all, instead snipping them out of your replies and complaining about people unfairly attacking you just because you claim to be Christian.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Translation: "I don't have to actually think about the issues, there's a Christian here I can attack! Yay!"

His next post will either be a further accusation that I'm not really a Christian, or a further discussion as to how my behavior isn't Christ-like. And he can continue this all day without having to fire a single brain cell! Easy!

 

[DavidJames]

Considering I'm not even a Republican, this statement is pretty much nonsense.

I'll invoke the walks like talks like looks like a duck axiom here. If you disagree, I suggest you go back and read what you post.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'll invoke the walks like talks like looks like a duck axiom here.

Hey everybody! DavidJames has an application for the MDC! Despite not knowing anything meaningful about anything, he nonetheless has the ability to judge other posters' political affiliation and their relative levels of politics and religiosity!

He MUST be psychic!

 

[A'isha]

Translation: "I don't have to actually think about the issues, there's a Christian here I can attack! Yay!"

His next post will either be a further accusation that I'm not really a Christian, or a further discussion as to how my behavior isn't Christ-like. And he can continue this all day without having to fire a single brain cell! Easy!

And again, you decide to snip out the actual substance of my post, so you can complain some more.

So...here, shorn of any references to your (or anyone else's) religion, is what I had to say about your falsehoods regarding Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

It's been in Obama's rhetoric for a year, re-emphasized when he "reminded" people that it's not even their own doing if they have a successful business in this country.

Why are you repeating falsehoods about Obama's speech? You know, the speech where he said "when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"?

That's not the only area where the Democrats hate American success. They hate it in war, in international politics, and essentially in any other American arena.

Osama bin Laden disagrees with you. So does Anwar al-Awlaki.

Well, they would disagree with you, had they not been killed under the orders of the current Democratic president.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Two good points.

If you could have made them without the nastiness, we wouldn't have had anything to fight about in the first place.

But, of course, you couldn't pass up the opportunity to target someone whose religion you disagree with.

 

[Croydon Bob]

If you could have made them without the nastiness, we wouldn't have had anything to fight about in the first place.

But, of course, you couldn't pass up the opportunity to target someone whose religion you disagree with.

Obvious hypocricy is obvious.

 

[A'isha]

Two good points.

If you could have made them without the nastiness, we wouldn't have had anything to fight about in the first place.

But, of course, you couldn't pass up the opportunity to target someone whose religion you disagree with.

And, yet again, you completely snip out the substance of my post and refuse to address it and instead whine about being attacked because of your religion.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Obvious hypocricy is obvious.

Yay, more meaningless attacks from people with no opinions of their own.

Tell me, please, I'm dying to know, what do you think my religion says that I don't follow?

 

[AvalonXQ]

And, yet again, you completely snip out the substance of my post and refuse to address it and instead whine about being attacked because of your religion.

What exactly was I supposed to address? You made two good points. Obama gave some minor, passing, clearly-this-is-just-a-disclaimer comment to soften his rhetorical attacks against the successful as part of his cry to rally the middle class. And he was the President when both of those men were successfully killed. So, like I said -- good points. Nothing to address.

And if you hadn't felt the need to attack me as a Christian, I wouldn't have needed to respond to them at all.

 

[A'isha]

What exactly was I supposed to address?

The facts that show how false and hollow your blanket assertions are.

You made two good points. Obama gave some minor, passing, clearly-this-is-just-a-disclaimer comment to soften his rhetorical attacks against the successful as part of his cry to rally the middle class.

No, that was the core of his argument - that success in business comes from individual initiative on top of government-funded infrastructure like roads, bridges, and the Internet, infrastructure that these businesses could not succeed without but that no one businessperson could have built had they attempted to do so by themselves. That whole section of his speech hammers on that point repeatedly.

And he was the President when both of those men were successfully killed. So, like I said -- good points. Nothing to address.

No, he wasn't just "the President when both of those men were successfully killed". They were killed because of Obama's deliberate decisions to have killed as terrorist threats against the United States, to make America safer and to help it succeed in the international war against terror.

You know, something that he, as a Democrat, is supposed to hate (according to you).

And if you hadn't felt the need to attack me as a Christian, I wouldn't have needed to respond to them at all.

I'll just let Matthew Henry answer this for me.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Exodus 20:16

The ninth commandment concerns our own and our neighbour’s good name: Thou shalt not bear false witness, v. 16. This forbids,

1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbour.

2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbour, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both),

3. Bearing false witness against him, laying to his charge things that he knows not, either judicially, upon oath (by which the third commandment, and the sixth of eighth, as well as this, are broken), or extrajudicially, in common converse, slandering, backbiting, tale-bearing, aggravating what is done amiss and making it worse than it is, and any way endeavouring to raise our own reputation upon the ruin of our neighbour’s.

http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/mh-commentary9.html

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, ANTPogo managed to go almost two whole posts without attacking me based on my religion but he didn't quite make it! I guess we can still give him a few points for trying.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Deleted


[Sorry, guys, I almost forgot my rabid anti-liberal rhetoric for a second there; it's not as much fun if you keep jumping in and out of it]

 

[A'isha]

Well, ANTPogo managed to go almost two whole posts without attacking me based on my religion but he didn't quite make it! I guess we can still give him a few points for trying.

Well, I tried a reply to your falsehoods that didn't mention your religion at all, but you just wouldn't stop bringing it up anyway, so I figured it was okay to keep talking about.

 

[DavidJames]

Well put ANTPogo except for the Exodus part. His sig includes this

Christians are not bound to follow the laws of the Old Testament

Kinda like the Republican Platform, they get to pick choose what bits they want to follow, depending on the how the wind blows (or if they get into rhetorical traps)

 

[Robrob]

Well, ANTPogo managed to go almost two whole posts without attacking me based on my religion but he didn't quite make it! I guess we can still give him a few points for trying.

Feel free to explain how her post was in any way "attacking you based on your religion?"

 

[AvalonXQ]

Well, I tried a reply to your falsehoods that didn't mention your religion at all, but you just wouldn't stop bringing it up anyway, so I figured it was okay to keep talking about.

Ah, yes, saying that I wish you had kept my religion out of it in the first place is exactly an invitation to keep attacking my religion.

Do all atheists have this poor reading comprehension or is it just you?

 

[R.A.F.]

Tell me, please, I'm dying to know, what do you think my religion says that I don't follow?

Oh, that's easy....

Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Kinda like the Republican Platform, they get to pick choose what bits they want to follow, depending on the how the wind blows (or if they get into rhetorical traps)

And yet again DavidJames shows he has zero idea what he's talking about.

Since actually reading or understanding the link in my signature would have brought his knowledge level slightly above zero, he was forbidden from doing so to avoid spoiling his perfect record.

 

[Robrob]

Still can't see how admonishing you not to bear false witness is "attacking you based on your religion." It seems someone has a thin skin (as well as a double standard).