@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy That’s because American cops have a sad tendency to murder their citizens unlike other countries.
English
Karl Sorrells
5.6K posts
Karl Sorrells
@KarlSorrells
Twitter expert on politics(retired), US elections(retired) and the history of the New Testament. Please note I am not an actual expert on anything.
Huntsville, Alabama Katılım Temmuz 2011
189 Takip Edilen97 Takipçiler
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy You mustn't be an American because every American knows that if you hit a policeman with a car you will very likely be shot.
English
I’ve been repeatedly told that illegal aliens never illegally vote so I’m unsure why this would be an issue if it were to happen
Trader Tony@trader_tony_
ICE at airports is just laying the groundwork for ICE at polling places btw
English
English
English
English
@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy Well he’d have to prove the internal injuries in court since self defense is an affirmative defense.
But no it was not reasonable to assume the driver might try to hit someone else since she clearly wasn’t trying to hit him.
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy He was hit by the vehicle and hospitalised with internal bleeding. Was it reasonable for him to immediately assume the driver might try to hit someone else?
English
@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy Because he could have gotten out of the way and he was hit by the car anyway and didn’t die so a reasonable person wouldn’t say he feared for his life.
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy Why was it wrong for the agent who was actually physically hit by the car to fire on the driver?
English
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy If you could prevent that murder, or any subsequent ones by shooting the driver, would you do it?
English
English
English
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy And if he couldn't? I'm using the socratic method; if you're wondering.
English
@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy I would expect the police officer to get out of the way if he could.
English
English
English
@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy I would certainly hope they would not do that because it’s murder
English
Would a police man or armed government agent fire at you if you drove your car into him or became agitated in close quarters while carrying a gun at a protest? Two things I'd never do because I know the answers to those questions, no matter who is taking my taxes or what administration was in power at the time.
English
@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy Yeah and so is ICE murdering citizens.
Unfortunately sometimes my tax dollars go to things I disagree with.
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy So how come your taxes ended up paying for it then? Do you have any receipts to prove it? The images and the record is fairly clear.
English
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy Of course you don't; you pay taxes so the government can release dangerous mentally ill people into society, and to elevate them to positions of power while calling you a bigot for resisting.
English
@ianatmars @byelin @ingelramdecoucy And I don’t pay taxes to pay for transgender people to shoot citizens either.
English
@KarlSorrells @byelin @ingelramdecoucy More people were killed by transgender mass shooters than ICE agents, over the same period.
English
@KarlSorrells @LauraRbnsn The 14th Amendment also includes the due process clause. It is kind of necessary.
English
"But all these other countries don't automatically give citizenship to people who are just born there! Why on earth would the 14th amendment mean that when no one else has that law?"
IDK it's almost like we're a nation of immigrants or something?
English
@colinsmo The Bible isn’t self attesting though. There is no passage in the Bible that says 2nd Timothy is God’s word for instance.
English
@KarlSorrells You aren’t a serious person if you don’t take the second point seriously. As to the first, God’s word is self-attesting.
English
“I do not call myself a complementarian (neither do I call myself an egalitarian).”
And yet, the Bible either permits women to pastor, or it does not. Either God calls husbands to lead their households and wives to submit to them, or not.
There is no middle ground.
Denny Burk@DennyBurk
The author claims that the evangelical gender debate is unserious. Why? Because the complementarian side accuses the egalitarian side of being unorthodox and because the egalitarian side is too harsh with fellow egalitarians who don't toe the line. Then the author goes on to accuse the complementarian side of being unorthodox and to upbraid publicly egalitarian activists. The irony is so thick but seems to be lost on the author. Also lost in this essay is any argument from Scripture, nature, or reason about the merits of the question. All heat. No light.
English
@colinsmo Well it seems like you would have to prove the Bible is God’s word then.
English
1) God’s Word does not contradict itself because God is one and His word is infallible and true.
2) You as an individual have to decide if you believe it is permitted or not. Your church will either ordain women to the pastorate, or it will not. There is no middle here. It is absurd to pretend otherwise.
English
@LauraRbnsn Yeah it’s pretty crazy when conservatives just decide they don’t like the constitution and want it changed on a whim.
Welcome to my world lol.
English
@KarlSorrells If the constitution gets changed through normal processes, that's how it's supposed to work!
Maybe we should have a different law!
What I'm not okay with is "the president can just decide he doesn't like that law."
English