i differintiate mainly between those that seem to want a better world and those who seem to just want to control folks. I think it would be accurate to say I hate the latter.
These aren’t mutually exclusive. I think a better world would be one where every group has their own land to self-govern, which would invariably require the control of people who are allowed into that area. To escape the issue of control you’d have to embrace anarchy to some extent, which I don’t think would make for a better world at all.
What’s ironic is that the people who deserve your hatred hate you more than you could ever hate them in return. You don’t want them to be destroyed, but they want that for you very much, and have been working for decades to achieve this (actually much longer).
The overuse and misuse of the term "hate" is just another symptom of an effeminate, overly luxuriated society mired in emotion and "feelz" at the expense of reason. So is overuse of the term "love." In the past, "hate" was the reasonable emotional response to someone invading your land, burning your crops and house, trying to kill/rape/enslave your family... or the like. Hatred is justified when someone purposefully sets out to ruin or destroy you personally, not your "identity group," not your ancestors. Now it's tossed around indiscriminately as a synonym for "dislike" or "annoyance."
Hate is a completely natural emotion. if we don't allow ourselves to fully Embrace and experience it we will never really know what love feels like.
Electing a man morally bereft of ethics and morality as our president, dispels the idea that we are a Christian country!!
Hating people I don't know and haven't done anything personally to me, my family or close friends is simply a waste of time.
I think it important not to hate someone for disagreeing with you. I don't know what happened to the ability to agree to disagree. Seems odd to make it personal. Love that screen name BTW
Everybody knows that the Republican party is the biggest hate group in the world. See my earlier links to Professor Antony Sutton's books.
Isn't that a wad of Orwellian doublespeak. You mean the hand picked few from 3 intelligence agencies - of 17 ? - after which we got to listen to the head of these agencies - a known liar - claim that there was some consensus among all the intelligence communities. This the same "intelligence community" - and this is where it gets Orwellian - is not allowed (since 2013) to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens. The same intelligence community that has quite a history of Lying to the US public. Is it any surprise that this hand picked clown show omitted the finding of "the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research - who- did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it." http://jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musi...unity-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/
If it wasn't for the traitors in the Republican party ISIS wouldn't exist. MS-13 originated among Central Americans and refugees from those countries which had been menaced by Republican financed death squads going back to the 1970s. Thus, that evil group, like ISIS, can be properly traced to your heroes in the GOP.
I can say that I hate pedophiles... I guess I am willing to tear down that wall If there is video proof that Donald trump urinated on child prostitutes between 6 and 6:30 am in Smolensk
It is always amusing reading atheists claim to be Biblical scholars. So, Ronstar's moral and ideological judgement against a child that is raped is that child is no longer a virgin because a rape victim had sex with the rapist. Such is his personal moralizing judgmentalism as an atheist - that he then declares also is Biblical because he is a Biblical scholar - and in this - as a Biblical scholar - anyone who does not agree with his moralizing judgment against rape victims means the Bible says that person is going to hell for disagreeing with him. The endless comedy routine of some atheists on the forum never ends.