JonnyF

Was that the same period he was working as a truck driver? Or the period that his son died in Iraq? Or when he brought down the national debt by 1.7 trillion? Or when he was frequently arrested as a fierce civil rights activist? Or when he visited his mum in 2015, depsite her dieing in 2010? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/10/us/politics/biden-exaggeration-falsehood.html

Yeah there has never been any violence from left wingers, the lgbt community, socialists, ANTIFA, communists or marxists. It's all peace and love from them. It's just college students shouting. Fantastic point.

And proving me absolutely correct.

So you're OK with religious bigotry, referring to evangelical Christians as Jesus Freaks? OK, good to know who I am dealing with when the mask slips.

Nice try. Calling someone a Freak and calling someone a Jesus Freak are 2 completely different things. But you already knew that. Maybe just apologize for your mistake and we can all move on.

Yes. Yes I do.

If a Muslim commits a crime does that entitle us to use derogatory language towards Muslims? Jesus Freak is a derogatory term for evangelical Christians. It is hate speech. No different to calling a Jew a Yid. Disgraceful.

If you think I'm dumb enough to take that stink bait you've underestimated me. PS I believe it's against forum rules to have multiple accounts.

That's not victim blaming. It's stating my belief that escalating the confrontation was unwise. The perp was to blame for the killing.

It is against forum rules to comment on moderation.

The whole debacle. Get back to me when he's sleeping on the floor in ankle chains ????.

Absolutely. Disgraceful insult to evangelical Christians. No different to antisemitic rhetoric at all. That's the problem with the left. Insult them and it's hate speech. But they insult others and it's all good.

Disappointed in you Brian. Using hate speech as a generalization to insult an entire branch of Christianity due to the unhinged actions of one man. Not good. Moving over on the dark side. Given your ummm, "position", I doubt that very much. ????

8 years? No doubt reduced to a 200 Baht fine for pleading guilty (and agreeing not to annoy the Junta). What a clown show.

I have never blamed the victim. That's why your argument is a strawman.

That's not the defintion of a Jesus Freak and you know it full well. Using derogatory language towards a religion and those who follow it is hate speech. You just did it.

You put words into the mouths of others and then argue against the position you took on their behalf. It's called a strawman. You just did it by implying I am blaming the victim. ????

Jesus Freak? That's a pretty hateful way to describe someone who has strong Christian beliefs. I wonder if an equally insulting label for a member of the LGBTQ community or the Muslim community would be allowed on here? Ignoring your hate speech for a moment, it does however backup my theory that the offender was likely a follower of a religion that was not especially compatible with LGBTQ++ ideology. Of course, such a notion was dispelled by the usual suspects. They must get tired of being wrong at such an alarming rate. I certainly don't get tired of being correct so often ????

A little hypocritical don't you think? It's your modus operandi.

Simplistic. We've moved a bit beyond that now.

I never said it was a rational expectation she might be injured. You made that up (again). I said it was an un-necessary risk.

I think the same rule applies. The guy tore down her Pride flag, she confronted him (despite not knowing anything about him). He shot her. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

Where did I say it was a rational expectation? Oh that's right, I didn't. You made it up (again). I said it was an unnecessary risk. She could have offended someone and angered them without even knowing. Could have been a verbal altercation. Could have ripped it down (they did several times apparently and she put up bigger ones). Could have been a brick through the window. Could have been a punch in the face. That's the point. It's an un-necessary risk, you never know what some loon is capable of.

Putting up flags that you know offend people, then putting up even bigger flags that offend people when someone removes it, then confronting the person who objects to it is antagonistic behaviour. Did she deserve to be shot? Of course not, that's ridiculous to assume I think that. Could she have de-escalated it and stopped antagonizing people with opposing beliefs to her own? Absolutely. Do you think it's fine if someone hung Nazi flags outside their shop in a Jewish area? Every time someone pulled it down they hung a larger Nazi flag? Again, it's antagonistic and unnecessary. My point? Maybe people can start being a bit more considerate of others with different views to themselves. I know it's not a trait of the left but maybe they could at least consider others for once.

Like I said yesterday, if you attend an Antifa rally dressed as Captain America, with a Trump mask on and a MAGA hat then yes, you might get assaulted. I'm not saying you should get assaulted. I am not saying it is right. I am saying people who engage in these types of behaviours are taking an unnecessary risk. It had already been torn down several times and she put up bigger ones. It is ill advised to get into these types of "tit for tat" disputes and it happens on both sides. She knew it offended people. She knew it had been ripped down. She put up a bigger one in it's place then confronted the person who objected to it. What happened is not right. But I think de-escalation rather than antagonism in such situations is sometimes the best course of action. Given what has happened, it's tough to disagree with that.