« Heads up to those with my RSS feed: Old Posts about Al Mohler are reposted | Main

2021.01.11

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Shaver

In 100% agreement

Dr. Joe Aguillard

Fantastic Article! Please keep informing all of us!
Dr. Joe Aguillard
President Emeritus, La. College

I preached on this move by Russell Moore this past Sunday.

https://youtu.be/6e6Tpi-F23I

Carolyn Spears

Looks like to me the entire Southern Baptist Convention is swinging to the liberal left which seems like a bad idea to me. May lose a good bit of income.

Frank R Robertson

The issue was raised by our church senior pastor who posted a link to this article on his facebook page, sadly, most SBC members will never be informed of the actions commented upon here.

Christiane

Hello Peter Lumpkins,

the 'evidence' of incitement to insurrection that the nation is all free to look at is recorded on film and includes the voice of DT speaking to his followers

People can listen to it for themselves and make of it what they will just by SEEING and HEARING.
DT lays it all out there for people to hear for themselves, so no one is getting fooled by 'spin' on what he said to his followers.

But, having three military in my family, I, at least, was much comforted to know this today:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20449003/pages/jcs-message-to-the-joint-force-jan-12-21-p1-xlarge.gif?ts=1610487453593

I read the document from the joint chiefs and felt that my own family who serve are in good hands with the Pentagon's affirmation of loyalty to the US Constitution and the Rule of Law.

I am very grateful for their statement.

Christiane

Hello Peter Lumpkins,

you might want to include Trump and family and lawyer's OTHER STATEMENTS to the crowd,

as it does reflect on the outcome of events also.

It's better to lay it all out there even when the language gets violent because just listing the 'comfortable' parts don't show the whole intent of Trump's speech to that crowd.

You know, Peter, Trump did not go with the crowd to the Capitol as he promised them, no. Instead, he went back to the White House to watch the proceedings on telly.

There's an old manipulation game, this:

"Hey, let's you and them go fight" where the instigator sits back and watches what happens.
Unfortunately, the Wednesday event does reflect something of this kind of manipulation.

Sadly, though, five people are dead. And there are terrible injuries. There will need to be accountability for the sake of justice and the law.

Trump tried to tell McCarthy is was just 'antifa' who mobbed the Capitol building,
but McCarthy corrected Trump by saying: 'no, it wasn't antifa, it was MAGA. I was there.'

when someone who has been trusted and counted on shows you who they really are,
believe them the first time - good advice these days, I think.

Hope you are well, Peter. Thanks for letting me speak here.

peter lumpkins

I appreciate your feedback and encouragement. So sorry to delay in responding. I'm getting too old for this!

Peter

peter lumpkins

Hi Christiane,

Perhaps you missed it. I intentionally placed a link to the entire speech by Donald Trump published by ABC News in my original post and encouraged all to “Read the speech for yourself and make your own conclusions.” You rightly indicate as did I that people could judge for themselves, but you then conclude “no one is getting fooled by 'spin' on what he said to his followers.” It’s hard to tell what you meant by getting fooled by “’spin’ on what he said.”

At first, I cautiously agreed with you, but then you came back and logged again which affirmed my caution. You apparently was referencing me as spinning what Trump said:

“you might want to include Trump and family and lawyer's OTHER STATEMENTS to the crowd… It's better to lay it all out there even when the language gets violent because just listing the 'comfortable' parts don't show the whole intent of Trump's speech to that crowd.”

I guess I was right to be cautious in agreeing with you.

In response, this post specifically addressed the words of Donald Trump, not anybody else’s. I was very clear about that. So, no, I presently see no need to address any one’s else’s words while dealing with Trump’s words, unless, of course, I was denying any one made any wrongful statement or employed inciteful language. And since that was not then and is not my purpose now, I won’t be sidetracked into dealing with others’ speeches when my point is Trump’s speech. In fact, that only allows some people to distract. Language experts call that a red herring, something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with. And the matter here is Trump's speech.

Second, you sadly imply I intentionally overlooked parts of Trump’s speech when the “language gets violent” and only quoted the “'comfortable' parts” presumably in order to hide the “whole intent of Trump's speech to that crowd.”

In response, while you make a serious claim about what I posted above (or didn’t post above), imputing to me an intentional purpose to deceive my readers about the content of Trump’s speech, I find it convenient of you to make a claim like that without also making your claim good. Tell me, Christiane, just where in Trump’s speech is this “violent language” he used about storming Capitol Hill? What did I hide? Or ignore?

I challenge you or anyone else to post on this thread these “violent” words from the speech Trump gave. Go ahead. Embarrass me. If I’m that blind in my reading, I deserve to be embarrassed!

But I won’t hold my breath. Why? Because I’m confident you won’t post anything here, because you won’t find the "language of violence" you claim exists, the verbiage you implied I intentionally left out. Indeed, if the “violent language” was present in Trump’s speech, you would have already posted it! And if not you, others would love to embarrass and shame anyone who dares question the mainstream narrative about Trump.

Now there could be an exception to this, I admit. The slim possibility exists that ABC News expunged the "violent language" from the transcription of Trump's speech they have online and to which I linked above. I doubt that very much, and remain fully convinced that had that happened, it would have been a front page headline! But in fairness, that possibility remains.

What’s humorous is, what you call the “comfortable parts” of Trump’s speech I posted here, good luck finding them on the mainstream media outlets. MSM seemed to have intentionally left these “comfortable parts” out because they demonstrate that Trump, at least once, explicitly called for a peaceful protest to let their voices be heard.

So, thanks again for the feedback, Christiane. And please, if you log on again, I’d like you to specifically address what Trump did say about the march down to the Capitol not what he didn’t.

Peace

With that, I am…
Peter

peter lumpkins

For others who are curious and wonder whether Christiane was correct in indicting me with intentionally only posting the "comfortable parts" of Donald Trump's speech, you can find corroboration to my post in an article written by former DC prosecutor, Jeffery Scott Shapiro, at the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966?reflink=share_mobilewebshare&fbclid=IwAR2v8zGXjqgpCxXRKlwKT5kDoIvuDhbjBTTpfRFzPfcMRnnhfVj97g-5lYk

Margaret Eppling

Thanks for posting the truth. This one sided attempt to destroy our President will only make him more popular. He has exposed the corruption of the swamp & they can’t control him. For that he is & has been hated since day one. His presidency has opened the eyes of millions of Americans to how corrupt the swamp is.

Robert Vaughn

Twitter (the company) wouldn't know what moral high ground looked like even if they were accidentally standing on it.

The comments to this entry are closed.