The Left's failed attempt to RICO and set up the Southern Baptist Church fails

[impartialobserver]

Just now, West said:

Biden said he was going after Christians in his SOTU address. 

Can you give an exact quote that matches up with this ^^^^? No interpretations, paraphrasing, or subjectivity.

I laugh at your simplistic reasoning. The _____ Dept of whatever was corrupt only because of _____. Yet the boots on the ground, everyday folks do the same job year after year.. from one president to another. 

[West]

44 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Can you give an exact quote that matches up with this ^^^^? No interpretations, paraphrasing, or subjectivity.

I laugh at your simplistic reasoning. The _____ Dept of whatever was corrupt only because of _____. Yet the boots on the ground, everyday folks do the same job year after year.. from one president to another. 

I don't know why you laugh. It's crazy to think that in 2023 or 2024 or 2014 they are still putting people in prison or filing lawsuits because they didn't agree with a political position on abortion, gun rights, contraception, etc etc. Pretty wild that the Biden and Obama administrations saw fit to surveil pro life catholics, put the largest conservative protestant denomination under criminal investigation based on faulty pretenses, etc.

There's something extremely vile about it all.. and you don't come across as impartial.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, West said:

I don't know why you laugh. It's crazy to think that in 2023 or 2024 or 2014 they are still putting people in prison or filing lawsuits because they didn't agree with a political position on abortion, gun rights, contraception, etc etc. Pretty wild that the Biden and Obama administrations saw fit to surveil pro life catholics, put the largest conservative protestant denomination under criminal investigation based on faulty pretenses, etc.

There's something extremely vile about it all.. and you don't come across as impartial.

First, interesting that you dodged the challenge. Not surprising. You have shown yourself to not be objective. 

Second, you missed my point. Again not surprising. When someone does not validate your views, feelings, value... you always move the goal posts. 

[West]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Your source is trash.

 

HarperCollins, her publisher, is the second largest publisher in the world. 

There are multiple levels of everything from editing, to legal etc. Do you actually think that what she wrote has not been heavily scrutinized? The publisher itself publishes a wide range of content as well. 

The critiques do not actually take on the content of the book, but rather strawman the argument made within the pages. It's pretty vile and just shows that the left choose to remain ignorant 

Just now, impartialobserver said:

First, interesting that you dodged the challenge. Not surprising. You have shown yourself to not be objective. 

Second, you missed my point. Again not surprising. When someone does not validate your views, feelings, value... you always move the goal posts. 

I'm not going to sit through his state of the unions to find it. I remember watching it and thinking that it was vile. Then later found out the depth of the surveillance using January 6th and other bullshit narratives to justify. 

Just like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin had no real reason to violate the rights of their victims.

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, West said:

HarperCollins, her publisher, is the second largest publisher in the world. 

There are multiple levels of everything from editing, to legal etc. Do you actually think that what she wrote has not been heavily scrutinized? The publisher itself publishes a wide range of content as well. 

The critiques do not actually take on the content of the book, but rather strawman the argument made within the pages. It's pretty vile and just shows that the left choose to remain ignorant 

I'm not going to sit through his state of the unions to find it. I remember watching it and thinking that it was vile. Then later found out the depth of the surveillance using January 6th and other bullshit narratives to justify. 

Just like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin had no real reason to violate the rights of their victims.

more obfuscation. I have never mentioned January 6 on this thread.. it is irrelevant to my point. 

[West]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

more obfuscation. I have never mentioned January 6 on this thread.. it is irrelevant to my point. 

You are intentionally ignoring the facts. 

As the original article pointed out, it was the BIDEN DOJ that opened this investigation into leadership of the SBC alleging that they had a bunch of men running around raping kids and they were doing nothing about it. 

Does it not bother you in the least that innocent people had their reputations tarnished? 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

Haha.. 

Using leftist opinions to discard the source. How predictable 

You're TRYING to use right wing OPINIONS to prove your point and it's not working. As USUAL.

[robosmith]

21 hours ago, West said:

You are intentionally ignoring the facts. 

As the original article pointed out, it was the BIDEN DOJ that opened this investigation into leadership of the SBC alleging that they had a bunch of men running around raping kids and they were doing nothing about it. 

Does it not bother you in the least that innocent people had their reputations tarnished? 

Investigations DO NOT make allegations; they INVESTIGATE allegations. Duh

You've presented NO EVIDENCE HERE that the Biden DoJ made such allegations.

Edited March 14 by robosmith

[impartialobserver]

10 minutes ago, West said:

You are intentionally ignoring the facts. 

As the original article pointed out, it was the BIDEN DOJ that opened this investigation into leadership of the SBC alleging that they had a bunch of men running around raping kids and they were doing nothing about it. 

Does it not bother you in the least that innocent people had their reputations tarnished? 

I am not taking your bait. The morality involved is not my point. Your wrath should be pointed at those at the very top and not the majority of employees in a given dept. 

[West]

17 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I am not taking your bait. The morality involved is not my point. Your wrath should be pointed at those at the very top and not the majority of employees in a given dept. 

No bait at all.

Does it not bother you that innocent people have had their reputations ruined? 

I'm reading reports that some even had their wives contacted demanding they get a divorce. 

So say whatever you want, at least I'm not trying to break up someone's marriage because they don't share my political views. 

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, West said:

No bait at all.

Does it not bother you that innocent people have had their reputations ruined? 

I'm reading reports that some even had their wives contacted demanding they get a divorce. 

So say whatever you want, at least I'm not trying to break up someone's marriage because they don't share my political views. 

^As ALWAYS a sucker for any "reports" that confirms your agenda.

[Hodad]

15 hours ago, West said:

You are intentionally ignoring the facts. 

As the original article pointed out, it was the BIDEN DOJ that opened this investigation into leadership of the SBC alleging that they had a bunch of men running around raping kids and they were doing nothing about it. 

Does it not bother you in the least that innocent people had their reputations tarnished? 

Seems like the real problem is that you don't think that allegations of institutional sexual abuse enablement should be investigated. 

Long live Penn State and the Holy See?

[West]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Seems like the real problem is that you don't think that allegations of institutional sexual abuse enablement should be investigated. 

Long live Penn State and the Holy See?

I don't believe fabricated bullshit should be the premise of harassing religious institutions with law enforcement, no.

[Hodad]

53 minutes ago, West said:

I don't believe fabricated bullshit should be the premise of harassing religious institutions with law enforcement, no.

So to be clear, when someone reports that an organization is covering up and facilitating sexual abuse, do you believe that law enforcement should not investigate? Should there be no investigation?

[West]

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

So to be clear, when someone reports that an organization is covering up and facilitating sexual abuse, do you believe that law enforcement should not investigate? Should there be no investigation?

In normal circumstances, yes. In circumstances where a president is signaling they plan on taking down conservative organizations, that oversteps and is a violation of civil liberties imo. 

I also find it ludacris that someone in say Missouri is placed under criminal investigation for something that happened in New York when they had no knowledge. 

Do you believe in this instance wasting 2 years of resources should result in criminal charges against the organized group of people who appeared to weaponize sex abuse and cover up allegations against innocent people? 

Edited March 14 by West

[impartialobserver]

20 hours ago, West said:

No bait at all.

Does it not bother you that innocent people have had their reputations ruined? 

I'm reading reports that some even had their wives contacted demanding they get a divorce. 

So say whatever you want, at least I'm not trying to break up someone's marriage because they don't share my political views. 

I know that you can't be convinced but the President had absolutely nothing to do with the actual investigation. He may have read about it on the Internet much like you but he was not operationally involved. Also, the boots on the ground were simply following orders. Your attributing all of this to the President tells a lot about you. 

[West]

29 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I know that you can't be convinced but the President had absolutely nothing to do with the actual investigation. He may have read about it on the Internet much like you but he was not operationally involved. Also, the boots on the ground were simply following orders. Your attributing all of this to the President tells a lot about you. 

I take Biden and his media machine at their words. 

[impartialobserver]

6 minutes ago, West said:

I take Biden and his media machine at their words. 

You are easily manipulated. You seriously think that Trump is doing the arrests of these illegals.. as an example. 

[West]

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You are easily manipulated. You seriously think that Trump is doing the arrests of these illegals.. as an example. 

Nah I just do alot of reading on the topic. 

Again, pick up Basham's PUBLISHED book by the second largest publisher which connects the dots. This isn't grassroots... it's a well orchestrated attempt utilizing mass media, government, secular think tanks through colleges to tarnish traditional Christianity. Think tanks have also infiltrated the curriculum, teaching woke progressiveism as if thats the litmus test for faith.

What better way to sway public opinion than to accuse the church of harboring sex criminals and child rapists? 

Also here's a link with what Biden was sharing on the campaign trail. 

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/biden-team-goes-to-extremes-to-condemn-conservative-christians.html

And before I get accused, legitimate sex crimes should be reported. 

Edited March 14 by West

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, West said:

Nah I just do alot of reading on the topic. 

Again, pick up Basham's PUBLISHED book by the second largest publisher which connects the dots. This isn't grassroots... it's a well orchestrated attempt utilizing mass media, government, secular think tanks through colleges to tarnish traditional Christianity. What better way than to accuse the church of harboring sex criminals and child rape? 

Also here's a link with what Biden was sharing on the campaign trail. 

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/biden-team-goes-to-extremes-to-condemn-conservative-christians.html

Well.. I am not going to waste my time anymore. Your link is pure opinion with no direct quotes or really any details/context. Feel free to continue but I am not taking the bait. 

[West]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

Well.. I am not going to waste my time anymore. Your link is pure opinion with no direct quotes or really any details/context. Feel free to continue but I am not taking the bait. 

Biden was very clear about his distain for Christian Nationalism aka traditional Christianity. Its why they went hard after pro lifers, placed conservative catholic under investigations, and targeted other groups. 

It's Soviet style bullshit 

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, West said:

In normal circumstances, yes. In circumstances where a president is signaling they plan on taking down conservative organizations, that oversteps and is a violation of civil liberties imo. 

I also find it ludacris that someone in say Missouri is placed under criminal investigation for something that happened in New York when they had no knowledge. 

Do you believe in this instance wasting 2 years of resources should result in criminal charges against the organized group of people who appeared to weaponize sex abuse and cover up allegations against innocent people? 

I think it was an investigation. That's the job. 

And I also think you are entirely fabricating the notion that Biden said any such thing. That's why you won't cite it. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, West said:

Biden was very clear about his distain for Christian Nationalism aka traditional Christianity. Its why they went hard after pro lifers, placed conservative catholic under investigations, and targeted other groups. 

It's Soviet style bullshit 

And no, "Christian nationalism" is NOT traditional Christianity. 

Traditional Christianity in the context of the United States and it's framework of pluralism and freedom of (and from) religion. Christian nationalists advocate for something VERY different than the founders and very different that traditional American Christianity. -- Don't forget that traditional American Christianity is born of an exodus of Christians trying to escape religious nationalism to practice their faith freely. Christianity was about individual belief and practice, not about political dominance to the exclusion and alienation of others. 

Christians are mostly decent (if deluded) people. Christian nationalists are just the Taliban with the New Testament. 

[West]

25 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And no, "Christian nationalism" is NOT traditional Christianity. 

Traditional Christianity in the context of the United States and it's framework of pluralism and freedom of (and from) religion. Christian nationalists advocate for something VERY different than the founders and very different that traditional American Christianity. -- Don't forget that traditional American Christianity is born of an exodus of Christians trying to escape religious nationalism to practice their faith freely. Christianity was about individual belief and practice, not about political dominance to the exclusion and alienation of others. 

Christians are mostly decent (if deluded) people. Christian nationalists are just the Taliban with the New Testament. 

Christian nationalism is a pejorative being used against Christians who have historically been considered mainline. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts. 

There is no plurality under Joe Biden. If you didn't fall under a certain sect of Christianity who aligned with the Democrat party then you were maligned. 

Edited March 14 by West

[West]

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I think it was an investigation. That's the job. 

And I also think you are entirely fabricating the notion that Biden said any such thing. That's why you won't cite it. 

I think you are living in an alternate universe. 

The big campaign talking point was project 2025. 

The Democrats refused to vote for Russell Voight over his religion. 

What makes you think this investigation wasn't political? Again, Megan Basham provides the receipts to the Democrat machine funding it.