It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pastor calls to imprison gays for ‘ten years hard labor’ with new constitutional amendment

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: beezzer

I would ask what else the 'pastor' believes in, but I'm almost afraid to ask. Has anyone had the guts to look this guy's other videocasts up? He sounds as insane as David 'MackDaddy!!!!!' Manning.


I'm afraid to look, to be honest. Some use religion as a cudgel to beat down anyone they are biased or prejudiced against. This loser sounds no different.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Being curious I just looked up his website. I feel a bit ill now. He wants to carpet bomb the Gaza strip, he thinks that the Media is automatically the enemy because they're anti-Christian (which would astonish my father), he wants the USA to have a 'Christian' foreign policy (here's a direct quote: A Christian Foreign Policy would start with the premise that in a fallen world many nations will be ruled, controlled and motivated by sin. The result would be nations seeking their own advantage any way they could regardless of any collateral human carnage along the way. They would lie, fudge, prevaricate and twist the truth in a myriad of ways - without shame even after being caught. In fact they would try to turn it around and blame the ones exposing their lies as "haters" attacking them. They would accuse others of lying and twisting the truth, projecting their own behavior on those they hate and want to destroy. A reality-based Christian Foreign Policy would counter with a rock-ribbed insistence on truth no matter what and a "trust but verify" policy in all dealings with nations known to be non-Christian either in fundamental basis or population majority or both. Such a policy would expect cheating on any treaty or agreement and counter with multiple provisions to detect and expose such cheating. Any nation that refused to sign a treaty with such built-in protections would not be negotiated with. Instead it would be viewed and treated as a hostile enemy needing to be contained as the Soviet Union was met with a policy of containment during the Cold War. The containment would be enforced by iron-fisted military power and an instant willingness to use it at a moment's notice. Sin can't be negotiated with, only restrained and contained, thus only a policy accepting of reality would have any chance of success.), he thinks that Evolution is fraudulent (I was massively unsurprised by that) and finally, as I couldn't stand any more insanity, he is almost deranged in his hatred of gay people.

I am now going away to sponge my brain off.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It seems that conservatives want to pigeon hole Liberal thought into the "Big Gov, More taxes, more laws" camp and that isn't necessarily the truth.

Perhaps we need a new designation...the "Liberaltarians" who are socially "live and let live" and anti Govt. control of a persons private lives, anti big govt, anti more laws, and anti more taxes.

What I find disconcerting about Conservative thought is they favor more social control thru Law enforcement, the military, federal authority and moral watchdogs like the Protestant religious establishment.

It's hard to want more control over peoples personal lives and less government at the same time.....they go hand in hand it seems to me.





edit on 26-8-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So, in a nut-shell (how appropriate) he wants a one-world Christian theocracy.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




I honestly believe that many of us who call ourselves (libertarian, conservative etc) are confusing the more leftist of the membership here.

Since their ideology is practically in lock-step with each other, they assume that the opposite aspect must also be in lock-step with everyone else who calls themselves "conservative".


You post that about people on the other side of the political spectrum, here on ATS, and you expect to have a respectable debate?

Like NavyDoc who posted, a few posts back, that "progressive" now means "Marxist", the "conservatives" have shown their true selves as "Facist".

Conservatives tout smaller government and then write law after law to restrict women's rights, deliberately coming between a woman and her doctor. They lobby hard against equal protection of all minorities. They revel is slashing voting rights, access to health care, and want to rewrite our history books in order to teach children that slavery was a palatable part of America's past in order to indoctrinate them into a corporate slave mentality.

They want to "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran, but are happy to see American children going hungry, while they demand that food stamps benefits are slashed.

The "Compassionate Conservative" is dead, if he ever existed in the first place. He's being replaced with a fundamental dominionism





edit on 26-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

You post that about people on the other side of the political spectrum, here on ATS, and you expect to have a respectable debate?


That is the truth, respectable? Up to the individual.


Like NavyDoc who posted, a few posts back, that "progressive" now means "Marxist", the "conservatives" have shown their true selves as "Facist".


Truth hurts.


Conservatives tout smaller government and then write law after law to restrict women's rights, deliberately coming between a woman and her doctor. They lobby hard against equal protection of all minorities. They revel is slashing voting rights, access to health care, and want to rewrite our history books in order to teach children that slavery was a palatable part of America's past in order to indoctrinate them into a corporate slave mentality.


Being for the rights of unborn children isn't against womans rights.
Equality should be. . . um. . . equal.
Voter ID is against voting rights?
Obamacare, really?
Slavery was bad, m'kay.


They want to "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran, but are happy to see American children going hungry, while they demand that food stamps benefits are slashed.


We actually giggle at the hungry. They look so skinny! (are you even serious on this one???)


The "Compassionate Conservative" is dead, if he ever existed in the first place. He's being replaced with a fundamental dominionism


And I get accused of painting with a broad brush.

lolz



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It's funny.

If you replaced "gays" with "Christians" and made this guy just a spokesman for progressives, many here would probably be in agreement with him.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Being curious I just looked up his website. I feel a bit ill now. He wants to carpet bomb the Gaza strip, he thinks that the Media is automatically the enemy because they're anti-Christian (which would astonish my father), he wants the USA to have a 'Christian' foreign policy (here's a direct quote: A Christian Foreign Policy would start with the premise that in a fallen world many nations will be ruled, controlled and motivated by sin. The result would be nations seeking their own advantage any way they could regardless of any collateral human carnage along the way. They would lie, fudge, prevaricate and twist the truth in a myriad of ways - without shame even after being caught. In fact they would try to turn it around and blame the ones exposing their lies as "haters" attacking them. They would accuse others of lying and twisting the truth, projecting their own behavior on those they hate and want to destroy. A reality-based Christian Foreign Policy would counter with a rock-ribbed insistence on truth no matter what and a "trust but verify" policy in all dealings with nations known to be non-Christian either in fundamental basis or population majority or both. Such a policy would expect cheating on any treaty or agreement and counter with multiple provisions to detect and expose such cheating. Any nation that refused to sign a treaty with such built-in protections would not be negotiated with. Instead it would be viewed and treated as a hostile enemy needing to be contained as the Soviet Union was met with a policy of containment during the Cold War. The containment would be enforced by iron-fisted military power and an instant willingness to use it at a moment's notice. Sin can't be negotiated with, only restrained and contained, thus only a policy accepting of reality would have any chance of success.), he thinks that Evolution is fraudulent (I was massively unsurprised by that) and finally, as I couldn't stand any more insanity, he is almost deranged in his hatred of gay people.

I am now going away to sponge my brain off.


Yep, he looks like a nut job cut from the same cloth as those fanatics at the Westboro Baptist Church. His foreign policy positions seems more Old Testament fire and brimstone than Christ like though. I find it interesting how many Christian fundamentalists seem to ignore the whole New Testament and stick with the juicer and more salacious old testament. I don't recall reading anything where Christ would support carpet bombing.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
It's funny.

If you replaced "gays" with "Christians" and made this guy just a spokesman for progressives, many here would probably be in agreement with him.


LOL, true, true. Not just "Christians" but "gun owners" "property owners" "capitalists." I've seen leftists call for imprisonment and even execution of those they dislike just as well.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer




I honestly believe that many of us who call ourselves (libertarian, conservative etc) are confusing the more leftist of the membership here.

Since their ideology is practically in lock-step with each other, they assume that the opposite aspect must also be in lock-step with everyone else who calls themselves "conservative".



Like NavyDoc who posted, a few posts back, that "progressive" now means "Marxist", the "conservatives" have shown their true selves as "Facist".


dominionism






That's not true. The left calls for government control, regulation, taxation, and restrictions--that'd make them more fascist as well. (And yes, you can be a leftist fascist as well.)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So, in a nut-shell (how appropriate) he wants a one-world Christian theocracy.



And like any theocracy, he'll start persecuting Christians he didn't think were the "right kind of Christians," as we have seen so often in the past. This is why government should be secular and neutral to belief systems.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Hmmm.

Sounds like he is more like a misguided Centrist/Liberal.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

But Fascists/National Socialist use many Marx ideals.

Corporatism uses many of the 10-Planks.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
It's funny.

If you replaced "gays" with "Christians" and made this guy just a spokesman for progressives, many here would probably be in agreement with him.


Oh yeah! Love the whole "Christians are sooooo persecuted in America" angle! LOL

NOT!


edit on 26-8-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Hmmm.

Sounds like he is more like a misguided Centrist/Liberal.




Hush, old fox. You're stirring again!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Gosh, beez, are you saying that progressives might not be all bad?


Show me a progressive that wants a smaller government, more freedom, a return to personal responsibility, individualism, and I will humbly apologise.


You're looking at one. Or... typing with one. I am a progressive, but I want a smaller government. Maybe not in the same areas that you would like it to shrink, but I want the government OUT of our personal business, out of the rest of the world's business and to take care of things here at home, as they should. I don't have a lot of hope for it, but that's what I want. I'm ALWAYS for more individual freedom.

And you don't owe me an apology. I'm just trying to show you something. You label people "progressive" like it's foulest thing you've ever heard, and frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.



Now am I still considered a conservative Christian if I support gay marriage?


I don't put people in boxes. That's your thing. It's none of my business.

Reading over this thread, we can see that labeling people and making assumptions about people's political beliefs is what makes it so difficult to have a decent conversation. And sorry, but you are one of the worst offenders on the board. You hear one belief of a person (like supporting gay rights) and label them "progressive", assuming they want everything the extreme left wants... Your mind is closed. You put them on the "other side" and all your communications with them, reflect your judgments.

It's really too bad, because you're a fun person and I believe a good person. But your political baiting turns me OFF.

And you SAY you believe in smaller government, personal responsibility, personal freedoms - except when it comes to a pregnant woman. Then you want the government to step in, dictate her personal responsibility, and take away her freedom to do with her own body what she sees fit.


edit on 8/26/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

And you SAY you believe in smaller government, personal responsibility, personal freedoms - except when it comes to a pregnant woman. Then you want the government to step in, dictate her personal responsibility, and take away her freedom to do with her own body what she sees fit.



I'm just considering the rights and life of the unborn child. Not an issue I'm likely to waiver on.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

And you SAY you believe in smaller government, personal responsibility, personal freedoms - except when it comes to a pregnant woman. Then you want the government to step in, dictate her personal responsibility, and take away her freedom to do with her own body what she sees fit.



I'm just considering the rights and life of the unborn child. Not an issue I'm likely to waiver on.


Let's not get this thread off-topic. I'm about to hold my breath and dive into our nutty pastor's website again. Wish me luck!



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

DON'T do it. ITS a comedy that isn't funny, a ranting nut job who picked a paycheck so he could spew his garbage.
HE doesn't help anyone out.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

And you SAY you believe in smaller government, personal responsibility, personal freedoms - except when it comes to a pregnant woman. Then you want the government to step in, dictate her personal responsibility, and take away her freedom to do with her own body what she sees fit.



I'm just considering the rights and life of the unborn child. Not an issue I'm likely to waiver on.


It's a side issue, but one that even libertarians waiver on. Everyone can agree that everyone should have the right to do what they want to their own bodies, the conflict comes into the abortion debate because it is not just one individual's body that is effected.

Some see that as the government telling women what they can do with their own bodies and some people see it as the government doing one of the few things it is supposed to do--keeping one citizen from killing another without just cause. It really isn't as simple as "forcing a woman to do something" if one bothers to think about it.

OTOH, I see so many people who say they are for "personal choice" when it comes to abortion, but not to own a gun or eat meat or refuse to work or serve someone part of a protected class--personal choices all-- and have no problem with the government forcing those choices on other people at all. That's a hypocritical stance too.

Nobody thinks this pastor dude is sane and nobody here supports him and it's rather silly to paint everyone with the broad brush of this one guy's insanity.
edit on 26-8-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join