ADVERTISEMENT

In case you need ONE more reason to not watch the NFL this year

Yehoshua took his disciples to Mt Hermon and stood before the grotto of Pan. They knew exactly where they were. The grotto of Pan was also known as the "Gates of Hell" Mt Hermon was according to the apochryphal Book of Enoch the place the fallen angels took the oath to take wives of human females. Mt Hermon is home to the temple of the false god Baal. Arabs call the place the Mountain of oath.

Oath as in the curse type is Allah in Hebrew. Pan was the ultimate god of paganism. He was also tied to Satan in the M.E.

So Yehoshua stood before the Gates of Hell ( according to tradition) and the mountain of false gods and asked Peter who am I? Peter proclaimed before the fallen angelic realm that Jesus was Messiah the Son of God.

Yehoshua acknowledged the fact and said basically today on this mountain/rock (not Peter I feel this is a double entendre with his name and he was to be in charge but not the start of a "papacy") I start my church and this place shall not prevail against me.

Then he ascended to the top of the mountain where the temple of the false god Baal stood and was Transfigured before the fallen and reclaimed the mountain for Himself and His Father Yahweh.

A jew knows this history a Hellenized Christian does not.

Baruch Haba B'Shem Adonai

@kjfreeze hope you saw this. It answered your question of where I was going with things.
 
Last edited:
Deflections?
And as far as the bible, why do you need it? You've got the Church for salvation. Listen, for you and any Catholic here, I do not and will not bicker about religious affiliation as long as the central theme is salvation through Christ alone.
What makes you think the Church’s teachings aren’t based on Scripture.? That’s just ignorant and you should know better. The difference is that the Church has been given sole authority to interpret scripture, thus avoiding less qualified people fro distorting the message from people such as Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, James Baker, Martin Luther and the the guy who said he needed two airplanes in order to be closer to God. There are literally thousands of different interpretations of Scripture, including those who used the Bible to justify slavery and repression of women.

You appear to be arguing for what is known as sola scriptura. Here is the Church’s response.


1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
2. The “Word of God” Refers to Oral Teaching Also
“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
“For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

Etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ukalum1988
Of course not. But thats why we listen, because they are famous. Just like people listened to Trump before he became president. Did you say “shut up and build condos?” No, you are only complaining because you don’t like the message.
I never listened to DJT or watched his show. Ever. And I automatically ignore celebs who try to tell me what they think or what I need to think.
 
Deflections?
And as far as the bible, why do you need it? You've got the Church for salvation. Listen, for you and any Catholic here, I do not and will not bicker about religious affiliation as long as the central theme is salvation through Christ alone.
Btw, I generally agree with your last statement, although I believe the Jews and others who follow God’s commandments can achieve salvation as well. Controversially, the Church is trending in the same direction.
 
What makes you think the Church’s teachings aren’t based on Scripture.? That’s just ignorant and you should know better. The difference is that the Church has been given sole authority to interpret scripture, thus avoiding less qualified people fro distorting the message from people such as Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, James Baker, Martin Luther and the the guy who said he needed two airplanes in order to be closer to God.

You appear to be arguing for what is known as sola scriptura. Here is the Church’s response.


1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
2. The “Word of God” Refers to Oral Teaching Also
“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
“For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
“Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

Etc.
Look very close at #2, at the end NIV. I have no Idea as to why I respond to you. Do you see your ignorance compared as to what you were preaching before?
 
Look very close at #2, at the end NIV. I have no Idea as to why I respond to you. Do you see your ignorance compared as to what you were preaching before?
Nothing there contradicts what I have said.
 
So Catholic doctorine supports NIV?
No idea. I’m not familiar with it. I’m fine with the same bible that has been used for 2000 years.

Heres what I found.

 
Look very close at #2, at the end NIV. I have no Idea as to why I respond to you. Do you see your ignorance compared as to what you were preaching before?
You seem to be following the exact path I used to follow. I was right there throwing proof of Catholicism, defending my faith. You asked @martycat1 to look at #2, that being tradition. In response to that let me use this saying I boasted many times: "What is Truth, the Truth isn't a something, it's a somebody and His name is Jesus Christ. What upholds truth in all its fullness? Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching magisterium of the Church, the three-legged tripod that upholds truth in all its fullness. All three are needed. If one is missing, the whole of truth cannot be upheld in all its fullness." But all that got me was into arguments. You see, I had a hard time wondering what the heck were Sacred Traditions. I never got a definitive answer either. If you seek it out you'll get an overwhelming amount of information that is actually representative of most any Christian.
The written word speaks to us. It doesn’t include a road map of Church-driven obligations. This do-this-don't-do-that way of worship side-tracked me to "perform for Christ."
I now have a simple faith. One that allows me to look to Calvary and see the Cross that Jesus bore for me. It's that simple. The burdens of obligation were lifted. I have been truly set free. Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burdens light.
As a Catholic I found myself constantly defending the Church as opposed to defending Jesus alone. But now I have one focus, Jesus Christ. These concepts of sola scriptura or sola fida are irrelevant in light of the fact that the Bible is God's word. He is King in my life and my home. I can rest on that and I can pray and I can stake my claim with my identity being in Christ alone and not in a religion, a career, how many push-ups I could do or being a fan of the Oklahoma Sooners. My Identity is in Jesus Christ and I wish to continue to do as Matt. 6:33 says, "Seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness and everything else will be added."
 
Last edited:
Here’s the rest.

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extra Biblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text”
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.”

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
 
Oh, I’m liberal about many things. Pro Business, pro Religion liberal. The Antifa clowns aren’t liberal.

They are socialists and straight up communists. The VAST majority of them that vote will absolutely vote for the same candidate that you are voting for.

Your party, and indeed liberals in general, are blurring the lines between liberalism and socialism.
 
They are socialists and straight up communists. The VAST majority of them that vote will absolutely vote for the same candidate that you are voting for.

Your party, and indeed liberals in general, are blurring the lines between liberalism and socialism.
They are. No argument here, and it’s a shame.

Does voting for the same person as the White Supremicists, Preppers, xenpohobes, and other nut jobs make you one of them?
 
They are. No argument here, and it’s a shame.

Does voting for the same person as the White Supremicists, Preppers, xenpohobes, and other nut jobs make you one of them?
LOL another false premise/narrative of the left. The dem party, leaders and platform are of varying degrees of socialist and socialism.

The republicans and their platform are not white supremacists, xenophobes or nut jobs.

I dont even know why you would say preppers. You got a problem with the scout motto of Be Prepared? You must lump everyone into some wild eye conspiracy types.

If I am a prepper its because of the covid madness and the run on shelves that occurred. I laughed at the nonsense but when I came close to running out of supplies it was not funny anymore! I began to makes sure I stocked up more than usual on a few items. I buy in bulk anyway.

The guy who had a years worth of TP in his closet long before covid sure looked smart when covid hit and morons went in and cleared the shelves.

My supply lasts about 3 mo at a time and I almost ran out. I buy in bulk from Sams to save money. 45 rolls POM pack of TP. I was down to 3 rolls before it was back on the shelf. I still only buy one box at a time.

I have 10 gallons of flour and 5 gallons of rice in food grade buckets. I do it to save money but it came in handy when there was no rice on the shelves here for weeks. I got down to about 2lbs before Sams got the 25 lb bags back in stock. I am good for 6 mo to a year with a 25 lb bag. It less than $10. Go and nickel and dime it at a pound at a time. I have not bought more than usual.

I bought 10 lbs of bacon when it was on sale at Kroger and put it in the deep freeze. Same with tenderloin steak I had 10 lbs of that in the deep freeze. I get ground beef, pork etc when its on sale. I have ribeyes and t-bones in there too. Jumbo shrimp, whole crabs, roasts ribs

My pantry is different. I have stuff in duplicate and triplicate that I used to only keep one on hand before covid.

Some would look at my stash and call me a prepper. We have so much stuff from our garden and store bought meat in the deep freeze that we have to take inventory. We did it earlier this week and plan our meals accordingly. I just try to save money AND eat WELL.
 
LOL another false premise/narrative of the left. The dem party, leaders and platform are of varying degrees of socialist and socialism.

The republicans and their platform are not white supremacists, xenophobes or nut jobs.

I dont even know why you would say preppers. You got a problem with the scout motto of Be Prepared? You must lump everyone into some wild eye conspiracy types.

If I am a prepper its because of the covid madness and the run on shelves that occurred. I laughed at the nonsense but when I came close to running out of supplies it was not funny anymore! I began to makes sure I stocked up more than usual on a few items. I buy in bulk anyway.

The guy who had a years worth of TP in his closet long before covid sure looked smart when covid hit and morons went in and cleared the shelves.

My supply lasts about 3 mo at a time and I almost ran out. I buy in bulk from Sams to save money. 45 rolls POM pack of TP. I was down to 3 rolls before it was back on the shelf. I still only buy one box at a time.

I have 10 gallons of flour and 5 gallons of rice in food grade buckets. I do it to save money but it came in handy when there was no rice on the shelves here for weeks. I got down to about 2lbs before Sams got the 25 lb bags back in stock. I am good for 6 mo to a year with a 25 lb bag. It less than $10. Go and nickel and dime it at a pound at a time. I have not bought more than usual.

I bought 10 lbs of bacon when it was on sale at Kroger and put it in the deep freeze. Same with tenderloin steak I had 10 lbs of that in the deep freeze. I get ground beef, pork etc when its on sale. I have ribeyes and t-bones in there too. Jumbo shrimp, whole crabs, roasts ribs

My pantry is different. I have stuff in duplicate and triplicate that I used to only keep one on hand before covid.

Some would look at my stash and call me a prepper. We have so much stuff from our garden and store bought meat in the deep freeze that we have to take inventory. We did it earlier this week and plan our meals accordingly. I just try to save money AND eat WELL.
Come look at my stash. The Lord blessed me with a beautiful garden this year also.
 
LOL another false premise/narrative of the left. The dem party, leaders and platform are of varying degrees of socialist and socialism.

The republicans and their platform are not white supremacists, xenophobes or nut jobs.

I dont even know why you would say preppers. You got a problem with the scout motto of Be Prepared? You must lump everyone into some wild eye conspiracy types.

If I am a prepper its because of the covid madness and the run on shelves that occurred. I laughed at the nonsense but when I came close to running out of supplies it was not funny anymore! I began to makes sure I stocked up more than usual on a few items. I buy in bulk anyway.

The guy who had a years worth of TP in his closet long before covid sure looked smart when covid hit and morons went in and cleared the shelves.

My supply lasts about 3 mo at a time and I almost ran out. I buy in bulk from Sams to save money. 45 rolls POM pack of TP. I was down to 3 rolls before it was back on the shelf. I still only buy one box at a time.

I have 10 gallons of flour and 5 gallons of rice in food grade buckets. I do it to save money but it came in handy when there was no rice on the shelves here for weeks. I got down to about 2lbs before Sams got the 25 lb bags back in stock. I am good for 6 mo to a year with a 25 lb bag. It less than $10. Go and nickel and dime it at a pound at a time. I have not bought more than usual.

I bought 10 lbs of bacon when it was on sale at Kroger and put it in the deep freeze. Same with tenderloin steak I had 10 lbs of that in the deep freeze. I get ground beef, pork etc when its on sale. I have ribeyes and t-bones in there too. Jumbo shrimp, whole crabs, roasts ribs

My pantry is different. I have stuff in duplicate and triplicate that I used to only keep one on hand before covid.

Some would look at my stash and call me a prepper. We have so much stuff from our garden and store bought meat in the deep freeze that we have to take inventory. We did it earlier this week and plan our meals accordingly. I just try to save money AND eat WELL.
Good for you. Just own the tag.
 
They are. No argument here, and it’s a shame.

Does voting for the same person as the White Supremicists, Preppers, xenpohobes, and other nut jobs make you one of them?

It does not. However, in the past, youve been quick to point out that white supremacists support Trump and that Trump was slow or hesitant to call them out. The same can be said about Biden (and the entire left) re: antifa and the leaders of BLM.

My point was less about calling you a pinko-communist and more about calling you out on your hypocrisy.

Ftr, I have no issue with preppers. Sure, they're a bit odd imho but they aren't hurting anyone and now more than ever, with these freaking loons burning down cities, it seems like maybe they're onto something.
 
It does not. However, in the past, youve been quick to point out that white supremacists support Trump and that Trump was slow or hesitant to call them out. The same can be said about Biden (and the entire left) re: antifa and the leaders of BLM.

My point was less about calling you a pinko-communist and more about calling you out on your hypocrisy.

Ftr, I have no issue with preppers. Sure, they're a bit odd imho but they aren't hurting anyone and now more than ever, with these freaking loons burning down cities, it seems like maybe they're onto something.
Biden has condemned the rioting for the beginning. You just haven’t paid attention.

What about the Sovereign Citizen nut jobs?
 
Biden has condemned the rioting for the beginning. You just haven’t paid attention.

What about the Sovereign Citizen nut jobs?

Sorry, I'm calling BS. If he said anything at all he most certainly qualified it saying "peaceful protests" are good....meanwhile his media arm, the MSM, referred to burning and looting as peaceful from the beginning of this crap.

You are being intellectually dishonest by pretending Biden condemned the riots from the beginning. That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say...even for you. The left calculated that it would help Biden. They were wrong and NOW he's condemning it. LMAO that you're even trying to say this crap.

Now you will scramble to find some out of context comment from Biden's basement where he said something about violent protests months ago and you'll post it here....and I will laugh again. We both know that you're FOS here.

Sovereign Citizens are out of their heads in my experience. Most get their law degrees from youtube and end up in jail, when they likely wouldn't have otherwise, as a result. I rarely had real issues with them as a Deputy Sheriff because Sheriff's are elected officials but some of the dumber than average tried.
 
We can't pay attention to stuff that doesn't happen. And Biden can't condemn them, they are his supporters.

He's already back to blaming Trump.

Correct....Biden condemned riots by blaming Trump for the riots instead of the people in the streets that were lighting fires, stealing crap, assaulting people and occasionally killing them.

His tuned changed after the RNC because the left is finally realizing their miscalculation.
 
Biden has condemned the rioting for the beginning. You just haven’t paid attention.

What about the Sovereign Citizen nut jobs?
giphy.gif
 
Sorry, I'm calling BS. If he said anything at all he most certainly qualified it saying "peaceful protests" are good....meanwhile his media arm, the MSM, referred to burning and looting as peaceful from the beginning of this crap.

You are being intellectually dishonest by pretending Biden condemned the riots from the beginning. That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say...even for you. The left calculated that it would help Biden. They were wrong and NOW he's condemning it. LMAO that you're even trying to say this crap.

Now you will scramble to find some out of context comment from Biden's basement where he said something about violent protests months ago and you'll post it here....and I will laugh again. We both know that you're FOS here.

Sovereign Citizens are out of their heads in my experience. Most get their law degrees from youtube and end up in jail, when they likely wouldn't have otherwise, as a result. I rarely had real issues with them as a Deputy Sheriff because Sheriff's are elected officials but some of the dumber than average tried.
But peaceful protests are fine. And you can’t blame Biden for the media.

What about the Q nut jobs?
 
But peaceful protests are fine. And you can’t blame Biden for the media.

What about the Q nut jobs?

When fires are lit and looters loot, it ceases to be peaceful or even "mostly peaceful" regardless of how many times Der Stürmer says otherwise.

I can and do blame Biden and his campaign for purposefully turning a blind eye for political expediencey until the political winds shifted.

I know almost nothing about Q. Your unrelated questions are amusing. I bet you think that you're being slick. You can ask me whatever you like...I'll answer the question if I have an answer. No reason for you to try to be slick in introducing them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gatordad3
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT