Many people here have called for executions of a lot of the people trying to bring us all into permanent slavery, or who were responsible for coof and that response, and for good reason.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of corrupt insurance companies / heads, who likely have some pretty severe crimes under their belts that likely need to be dealt with as well. He names some issues, and I have heard insurance claims workers lament having to do those exact things for financial reasons.
So what’s the difference, here?
Imo it’s whether we go French Revolution and start chopping off heads in the street, Jacobin/Robespierre style, or whether we go by calm headed Rule of Law and sound judgment, and we should also further aim for mercy and redemption where possible, rather than mere establishment of guilt and condemnation.
What this guy’s error seems to be, is not necessarily identification of a crime, but in supporting “street justice”. It is quite possible that many of us have done that in a moment of anger. Does this man have a pattern of doing this? If so, find and record that pattern, which seems likely to be there, rather than going for a “gotcha!” Has he been kindly, repeatedly rebuked on his approach?
But I don't understand is the idea that I'm not supposed to agree with him. These people have been ruining lives their entire careers, people have died because of these assholes. People have lost their retirements because of these assholes. People have lost their homes. Families have been destroyed. Justice has been delayed for like three or four generations now. When Justice by the law is denied then Justice by the torch becomes inevitable
Street Justice will result in the French Revolution, because TPTB love hijacking chaos and inserting bad optics whenever and wherever they can. We saw that exact thing happening all throughout the Summer of Love and many other “protests”.
If crimes have been committed, name them, prosecute them, judge them as you would be judged, oh jury, and be ready to offer earnest mercy to earnest proven repentance, where it can be offered.
If they are the party of the mob, and of unrighteous judgment, we have to not be that. What we need to be after is not ridding ourselves of some man, but of removing evil from our midst. Take the specific evils he named, both his own and of others, and show a better path forward. Is that not better than condemnation?
Are you talking about the guy in this video or the UHC president?
The guy in this video is glad this happened because UHC was refusing to pay for treatments they should have been obligated to pay for that resulted in people dying.
You seem to be saying that he needs to die for that?
How does that make you different from him?
If you mean the guy in this video, and if he is publicly, repeatedly calling for violence in the streets, what is the biblical and lawful procedure for addressing it? He needs to be asking the same questions.
Matthew 5:21-26
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Can we pause for a moment and take a step back?
This is where both sides need to get looked at.
Many people here have called for executions of a lot of the people trying to bring us all into permanent slavery, or who were responsible for coof and that response, and for good reason.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of corrupt insurance companies / heads, who likely have some pretty severe crimes under their belts that likely need to be dealt with as well. He names some issues, and I have heard insurance claims workers lament having to do those exact things for financial reasons.
So what’s the difference, here?
Imo it’s whether we go French Revolution and start chopping off heads in the street, Jacobin/Robespierre style, or whether we go by calm headed Rule of Law and sound judgment, and we should also further aim for mercy and redemption where possible, rather than mere establishment of guilt and condemnation.
What this guy’s error seems to be, is not necessarily identification of a crime, but in supporting “street justice”. It is quite possible that many of us have done that in a moment of anger. Does this man have a pattern of doing this? If so, find and record that pattern, which seems likely to be there, rather than going for a “gotcha!” Has he been kindly, repeatedly rebuked on his approach?
Just a thought.
But I don't understand is the idea that I'm not supposed to agree with him. These people have been ruining lives their entire careers, people have died because of these assholes. People have lost their retirements because of these assholes. People have lost their homes. Families have been destroyed. Justice has been delayed for like three or four generations now. When Justice by the law is denied then Justice by the torch becomes inevitable
It’s his approach, which I noted.
Street Justice will result in the French Revolution, because TPTB love hijacking chaos and inserting bad optics whenever and wherever they can. We saw that exact thing happening all throughout the Summer of Love and many other “protests”.
If crimes have been committed, name them, prosecute them, judge them as you would be judged, oh jury, and be ready to offer earnest mercy to earnest proven repentance, where it can be offered.
If they are the party of the mob, and of unrighteous judgment, we have to not be that. What we need to be after is not ridding ourselves of some man, but of removing evil from our midst. Take the specific evils he named, both his own and of others, and show a better path forward. Is that not better than condemnation?
I say we send them to the Lord for judgment. He'll sort it out better than we ever could.
Are you talking about the guy in this video or the UHC president?
The guy in this video is glad this happened because UHC was refusing to pay for treatments they should have been obligated to pay for that resulted in people dying.
You seem to be saying that he needs to die for that?
How does that make you different from him?
If you mean the guy in this video, and if he is publicly, repeatedly calling for violence in the streets, what is the biblical and lawful procedure for addressing it? He needs to be asking the same questions.
Matthew 5:21-26