Trump lashes out again at London mayor

No Trump's visit has been put on hold. Apparently he let May off by saying he did not want a State visit which was characterised by mass demonstrations against him.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-state-visit-to-britain-put-on-hold

 

Aww, poor babies feelings are hurts?

 

Why on earth would anyone care what the mayor of London thinks in the first place? That ranks 1,454,954,549,439,533rd on our things to care about list.

 

The people of London. They after all elected him... but I think Trump's visit was put on hold before Khan said anything. There were already planned demonstrations against him and not just in London.

Stop Trump group aims for biggest protests in UK history

 

That should serve Britain's interests well.

So after voting for the rejection of the EU, and the rejection of the US President, who's next? Can anyone come up to the very high standards Britain has set for itself?

Perhaps the answer is here. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uks-brexit-deals-middle-east-738488459

 

Huh! You know nothing!

Secretive DUP Brexit donor links to the Saudi intelligence service

and of course the people who voted to leave the EU in the main are not the same people as advocating to Ban Trump. Lots of strange things going on here which have absolutely nothing to do with Muslims!!

 

Not much of a link....

 

Never mentioned Muslims. Please start using quotes.

Agree that a great of strange things have been going on there though. What could possibly have happened to that once great country?

 

Oh god another Margot. I am sure I would not like your links to where you intended on taking London away from England and making it a little cash cow for yourself either.

Open Democracy is a very legit source. Left wing yes but legit too.

 

Muslims are all I have ever seen you talk about! I never said you used them in the post I quoted and was responding to

We're just being the same as we have always been. Resisting neo fascism. The things I am talking about are something else.

 

I'm not saying anything against Open Democracy, I'm saying the "link" to SA intelligence is not strong.
However, I can't say I'm enthused by the site's hyperbolic use of emotive terms like "dark money", either.

 

Oh really. Usually when people say 'not much of a link', they are referring to the link you gave. You managed a hell of a lot of study in a couple of seconds.

Ah! so now it is the site again or more likely it is just that you do not like what is said. There has been an enormous amount of money which has come in disguised from the need to declare as per election rules. Open Democracy is calling that Dark Money. Sounds perfectly legit to me. Quite a lot was over the Brexit vote so I guess that is why you don't like people looking into it.

 

If you truly believe this, please go back and re-read post #657 in this thread...

 

Look into it all you want, just saying the conclusion was too far a jump from the evidence presented, and the hyperbole undercut any confidence I might otherwise have had in their opinion.

 

Look into what all I want.

You are making no sense because you are putting words on paper that say nothing. You are wasting my time....but I would never expect a man who was hoping to take London away from England to make his cash cow to be concerned about anything to do with ethics -except to try to hush things up. You have lost all credibility with me.

 

It is not about "belief" it is a statement of logical fact. You are committing the logical fallacy - Non Sequitur = it does not follow.

It does not follow that because the Vatican did X, that all of Christianity is guilty.

The acts of the Vatican are not the acts of all of Christianity just as the act of one black person is not the action of all blacks.

Are you seriously this logically impaired ?

 

Obviously, you did not re-read post #657 in this thread, as I suggested.

So I will here quote it for you:

"Well, after I noted--in response to your claim--that Christianity does not attempt to either "convert or kill," you spoke of "the Vatican" and "forced conversions" in post #619 in this thread--thereby associating the two.

"If you really did not mean to imply an association between "the Vatican" and "Christianity in general," why, then, did you say this?

"Are you merely being disingenuous?" [Bold in original]

But let me put it another way: If you did not mean, in any way, to imply that "[t]he acts of the Vatican are not the acts of all of Christianity," then why did you ever introduce the acts of the Vatican into this conversation?

Please think about it before answering...

 

Nonsense - will that sick SOB (the Pope) say this prayer that Modern Secular Humanists can say? "God/Jesus, please change your ways and allow ethical non-believers into heaven and avoid hell - thanks."

The Pope is a vile creature because he lacks the compassion to even say that simple and loving prayer.
Can YOU say that prayer, Ronstar? If not, then I'd argue that you and the Pope have a lot in common.

 

wow, just wow.

you even hate the Pope.

 

Of course I implied that Catholicism is part of Christianity, because this was the point. Your error in logic is thinking that this implies that Catholicism represents all of Christianity.

 

Then you should start broadening your interests.

At one time, when the UK was a single proud culture, there was no need to resist internal 'neo fascism', or any other kind. The people were free and their influence great. Any arrival of Fascism, as you claim there to be, is an historically recent development.

You really enjoy using that Fascist word, don't you? Have you checked out its meaning yet? Hint: It's not the UKIP.

If you want to understand genuine 'Fascism' first check the meaning in the dictionary and then look at a map to see which countries might best fit the description. Another helpful hint: Don't waste your time looking at the democracies.[/QUOTE]

 

Although this was addressed to someone else, I will take a shot at it:

According to New Testament teaching, there is no such dichotomy as "heaven is for good people, whereas hell is for bad people."

If there were, what you say would make enormous sense.

But the New Testament clearly teaches that heaven is only for truly godly people--and the other place, for everyone else.

Note: An objection may be made--and not an entirely frivolous one, either--that many humans have not heard the gospel, and never will; and that is really not their fault. But that is a separate argument.

 

Yes, that's a great argument against Jesus, as well! Good post.

 

Heaven is reserved for those that "believe in Jesus" - pure and simple. It's a cult of Jesus - good deeds and being ethical are not the main criteria - unlike if a Modern Secular Humanist were involved. Ha, the Bible is like if an atheist religion said "you have to believe in Richard Dawkins or we won't let you into heaven!" Ha, that would be ridiculous - but that exactly what the Bible is like.

It's all about belief in the magic man: John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Then in verse 36, Jesus goes on to say, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."

 

Okay, we agree that Catholicism does not represent "all" of Christianity.

Then why did you imply that Christianity (in general, that is) looked with favor upon forced conversions during WWII?

As you said yourself, Catholicism does not represent all of Christianity.