User

And? Another useless lazy spambot trolling thread.

You can never argue honestly. It is not about impersonation; it is about requiring a voter to prove they can actually vote. If you have same-day registration and voting, a bunch of illegal immigrants show up and vote... when do you figure that out? There was that mayor in Kansas who had been voting his whole adult life and was not even a citizen.

I have not argued for Catholicism once in this discussion. I have not appealed to Catholic authority. I have not defended Catholic teaching on tattoos. I have not said “Rome says X, therefore X is true.” You are the one who keeps injecting Catholicism into the conversation because you cannot defend your claim on its own terms. The argument has never been: “Catholicism allows tattoos, therefore tattoos are fine.” The argument has always been: You claimed the Bible prohibits tattooing. That claim requires biblical support. Pointing out that your conclusion is an inference rather than a command is not “rejecting Scripture.” It is how biblical reasoning actually works. Saying: “our bodies belong to God” does not automatically equal “therefore tattoos are sinful.” If it did, then every form of bodily alteration would be sinful, including: haircuts grooming jewelry cosmetic surgery medical procedures piercings braces makeup You don’t believe that, which proves the principle alone does not establish the rule. And accusing me of secretly arguing from Catholicism does not fix that gap. It only confirms that when your inference is challenged, you change the subject and attack the person instead of the argument. If you believe Scripture forbids tattooing, then demonstrate the prohibition. If you cannot, then the honest position is to admit that this is your conscience-based conviction, not a biblical command. Anything else is misdirection.

And? She still hit him. When she started accelerating towards him her wheels were straight. Blind? The problem is that you are not blind and still sit here being dishonest.

This happened days ago and we have video from multiple cameras, different angles, the cell phone of the officer, medical reports… and you are still pushing absolute ignorant falsehoods. There is no excuse for this.

You can never argue the actual facts, you always have to come up with some sideways comment.

No, you dishonestly conflate immigrants with ILLEGAL immigrants. It is a crime to enter the US unlawfully; the fact that you are pending an asylum claim that will almost certainly be rejected doesn't change that fact. Asylum seekers arrive at the border, present themselves at a border facility at a port of entry, declare themselves, and make the request. People who cross illegally, get caught, then try to claim asylum are in fact illegal immigrants.

Nope. They do not have lawful status, they simply have a status of waiting, and even then, that doesn't mean they were waiting in the country, and they can still enter unlawfully and that voids their request and they face deporation... or they could commit a crime or violate the terms of their being here... and that voids the reqest and they face deportation.

You’ve just changed the subject again. The question was never whether Catholicism is correct, whether Rome teaches rightly, or whether I accept every Catholic interpretation. Those are separate debates. The question you made publicly was very narrow and very specific: Does Scripture itself prohibit tattooing? So far, you have not produced: a command, a prohibition, or a moral category in Scripture that actually says tattooing is sinful. Instead, you keep doing the same thing: asserting principles you believe imply a ban, treating your inference as if it were a biblical command, and when that inference is challenged, shifting to attacking my theology or motives. That doesn’t prove your claim. It avoids it. Disagreeing with your conclusion is not “rejecting the Bible.” It is rejecting an extra-biblical rule you are trying to impose as if it were Scripture. If tattooing is sinful, then Scripture must say so in substance, not by assumption. Until that happens, the issue remains unresolved, no matter how often you repeat the accusation. When you’re ready to address that question directly, we can continue.

Yes, just like if a white dude attacked someone at the bus stop, police could have reasonable suspicion to target white dudes in that area, considering their race... Existing while brown at Starbucks getting a coffee... is no problem.

Except, you do not have this standard for anyone else... There is a reason why there are actual LEGAL standards for these things.

Health care is actually much cheaper if you pay cash. There are doctors who will only deal in cash because insurance, especially anything related to the government, is a pain in the ass to file, figure out, and bill for. You go to the average Hospital, and their cash prices for care are like 50% less than insurance prices. IF we could get the government to stop subsiidizing employers and instead, subsidize individuals, empowering them through an HSA, to go get the care they need and they just pay for it themselves, it would be cheaper and better. Leave insurance for actual insurance, like if you get cancer or break your leg or something. Most people with an HSA are already doing this, when they pay out of pocket for everything up front until they hit their deductable and/or out of pocket max, the only difference is that they are getting screwed paying the full insurance billing rates.

It doesn't happen if the Democrats would have been cool with 10,000 National Guard Troops BEFORE it happened. So what? This is an absurd "causality" argument, not a case of direct blame. His statement was a subjective opinion, not a fact, nor a legal argument. The fact that you are here touting it only shows how biased he was.

This reply abandons the argument entirely and replaces it with personal attacks and misrepresentation. Nothing you wrote engages the question that was being discussed: Is tattooing biblically prohibited? Instead, you shifted to: attacking motives, asserting guilt by association, and repeating long-standing caricatures rather than addressing Scripture. That tactic doesn’t strengthen your case. It signals that the case has run out of substance. You are free to disagree with Catholic theology. But disagreement does not excuse misrepresenting it, and it does not turn personal hostility into biblical evidence. Most importantly, none of what you just wrote establishes: a biblical command against tattoos, a moral prohibition, or a clear scriptural teaching that makes them sinful. Until Scripture itself does that, the claim remains unproven. If you want to discuss theology, we can do that seriously and accurately. If the conversation is going to be reduced to insults and slogans, then the point has already been conceded.

Nor have a clue how firearms work.

Show us the video. Let me guess, it only starts when they are arresting him. Funny how these videos leave out the stuff happening before. You are the one lying, as always, and that is why you hide like a coward from me. You call this racial profiling, when it is no more racial profiling than if police are responding to a rape and the witnesses say a black man took off running, and police now have "reasonable suspicion" to stop someone fitting that criteria in that area. Why would they stop an Asian woman or a white man? We know that some 10% of LA is illegal immigrants, the vast majority of them are from South America/Mexico, take cash-only day labor type jobs, and thus that is enough "reasonable suspicion" for ICE to briefly stop for investigation people in those areas. It is not racial profiling because ICE is not stopping any brown person anywhere, just because they are brown. Just like the police looking for the rapist above would not be able to stop any black man anywhere in town any time.

Anecdotes don’t create commandments. Regret doesn’t equal sin. And 2 Corinthians 5:17 is about the heart, not ink. This still isn’t a biblical prohibition.

And as I said, you must be a 12 year old.

You have no problem evicting illegals but cheer on an ICE officer getting ambushed and attacked who was arresting one?

Try reading the whole thing: ”"Garcia Venegas attempted to obstruct and prevent the lawful arrest of an illegal alien." That is why he was arrested.

Just more of your usual obfuscation. See you next time.

Great, another rage baiting 12 year old.

How did I ignore it? I explained how it had nothing to do with anything. See you in the next thread you play these games in.

You are too ignorant or dishonest to defend your assertion about murder. And a POS for cheering on such violence.

LOL, you are in almost any thread where transgender is mentioned, obfuscating and defending the trans ideology and policy madness. 100% you are a culture warrior and your denials are just part of your tactics. See? More silly obfuscation. You are in just about any/every thread on this subject. On this forum and the other one. Even here, you were the one to make mention of it as you did. Yes, you do have tactics and strategy you employ here and I have called you out repeatedly on this in many discussions. No, that is the point, you are not a systems guy, you are an obfuscation guy. You push emotional arguments on the trans issue then quickly retreat from them when challenged.