(12-08-2016 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I did no such thing. I am condemning the segment of black society that blames everything on inequality because of the sheer number of people I know personally and the many public examples of people who took personal responsibility and have succeeded. In this conversation the only person condemning them as a monolith is you.

You've said the vast majority of inequalities experienced by black people are because of black people. Then you backed that up with the argument that they're a drain on society. I'm not sure how that isn't treating them as a monolith. If I'm misunderstanding your argument, bear with me.

Quote:I have no desire to watch either Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart. Both are blowhards heavy on rhetoric and lacking on substance who appeal to the same demographic on the opposite sides of the divide...the lowest common denominator.

haha, well we agree on Bill O'Reilly. I feel like Jon Stewart is a very intelligent guy. I put guys like Bill Maher and Michael Moore on the blowhard level of O'Reilly.

I would recommend you watch 13th with an open mind, though. It's a very interesting documentary.

(12-08-2016 11:21 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I did no such thing. I am condemning the segment of black society that blames everything on inequality because of the sheer number of people I know personally and the many public examples of people who took personal responsibility and have succeeded. In this conversation the only person condemning them as a monolith is you.

You've said the vast majority of inequalities experienced by black people are because of black people. Then you backed that up with the argument that they're a drain on society. I'm not sure how that isn't treating them as a monolith. If I'm misunderstanding your argument, bear with me.

You are misunderstanding it because you automatically assumed that since I don't agree with your stance I'm racist. In other words you are a good little leftist following your cult's group-think. At least I waited until you started down that path before I correctly labeled you as an idiot.

But news flash.....racists aren't typically the type who purposely endanger themselves and ruin their health for another race. I did that for over 20 years and have all the aches, pains, scars, and nightmares to prove it.

Racists aren't typically the type to name someone of another race as the godparents of one of their children. I did that.

Racists aren't typically the kind of people who some of their fondest childhood memories involve the times where the family of another race from down the road came to help us with a big job on the farm or we went there and the resulting huge meal and fellowship that followed. Mine are.

Quote:

Quote:I have no desire to watch either Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart. Both are blowhards heavy on rhetoric and lacking on substance who appeal to the same demographic on the opposite sides of the divide...the lowest common denominator.

haha, well we agree on Bill O'Reilly. I feel like Jon Stewart is a very intelligent guy. I put guys like Bill Maher and Michael Moore on the blowhard level of O'Reilly.

I would recommend you watch 13th with an open mind, though. It's a very interesting documentary.

Again I have no desire to watch either Bill O'Reilly nor Jon Stewart. I haven't watched more than a video clip posted on here or on Facebook by people whose judgement I trust since 2012 when I was assigned to a station where the Battalion Chief was addicted to O'Reilly and the boss got to watch what he wanted to watch. As for Stewart I don't get my news nor opinions from comedians who's entire schtick is making fun of conservatives and appealing to the mindless rhetoric spewing leftists like you.

(12-08-2016 03:48 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:27 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:52 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Well, Trump himself did announce that all Muslim immigration should be banned. Beyond that, I agree with your points.

Are you sure about that? I think in terms of specifics he was talking about immigration from nations from which terrorism springs. Now true most of those are >80 muslim but the rules would apply to all citizens of those nations and a Muslim from say Canada would not be dinged.

What he said, verbatim:

Quote:"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Wait... He said his own name, verbatim?

(12-08-2016 02:52 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

Quote:Secondly I would be *fine* with a small black owned bakery saying "we only cater black weddings"... I would be ok with a florist telling me that they would not cater my wedding because it was interracial.

Really? As someone in an interracial relationship, I would flip my ****.

Life's too short to micromanage ass holes. At *worst* I would have told my family to not do business with them but I'd not let it ruin my wedding or my random tuesday.

I too am in such a marriage..

Quote:

Quote:So you see, the question how long until, is not that silly.

If true, that is interesting. Without getting into what the bible does and does not say about transgender, I'm not sure how the bathroom would make any difference. There's no religious ceremony to using a bathroom in the way that there is religious ceremony to marriage.

You can't simultaneously say "lets not get into the doctrine of the christian faith" and "what difference does it make in the christian faith"...

That's a very dangerous proposition. Because it's letting someone who does not subscribe to the faith pick and choose what is and is not ok.

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak"

"Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."

They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Here is how the retired pastor of my Church addressed the issue when it came up:

"Manhood and womanhood are understood and intended in the Bible — that is, intended by God our Creator — that our sex is biologically or genetically identified. Of course, the biblical authors didn’t know anything about genetics, but I am throwing it in because we do and it is in sync with biology, which they did know. There is vastly more to the meaning of manhood and womanhood than biology and genetics in the way we relate to each other, but not less. In other words, manhood and womanhood are glorious, personal realities that transcend genetics and biology, but are never intended to be severed from biology. And one of the clearest ways to see this reality in the Bible is that there are so many references to “male child” or “female child.” I looked them up just to make sure. This fact is so obvious that people wonder, Why are you even arguing? But we need to.

In other words, before children were old enough to express any gender-specific behaviors or desires or preferences, they were identified as male and female. And this identity defined their lives — for example, sometimes in matters of inheritance and other ways. There is no thought in the Bible of the possibility that the sex biologically identified could change because of its rooting in biology. Therefore when Genesis 1:27 says, “God created us male and female,” there is every reason to think that this included our biological, genetic nature at the root of all the other transcendent aspects of male and female personhood. So we have a pervasive, biblical warrant to say that God wills for our sexual identity to be of one piece with our biological, genetic identity. Now that is my biblical premise.

And let me just mention an exception. We all know that there are very, very rare situations of heart-breaking biological anomalies where the anatomical sexual organs are ambiguous or compromised. In those cases, we face very unusual challenges. And if I were a parent to a child who was born in that situation, I think I would ask for genetic testing (which you couldn’t do generations ago) and opt for surgery that suits the child best for what his genetics say he or she is and then raise him or her with that expectation. But that is very, very rare. And we are talking mainly here about clearly identifiable sexual organs at birth through life that should define the trajectory of the sexual and gender life and understanding."

(12-08-2016 11:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  In other words you are a good little leftist following your cult's group-think.

Kaplony Wrote:labeled you as an idiot.

Kaplony Wrote:mindless rhetoric spewing leftists like you.

Got it.

(12-08-2016 11:42 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  What he said, verbatim:

Quote:"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Wait... He said his own name, verbatim?

Yep.

Quote:Life's too short to micromanage ass holes. At *worst* I would have told my family to not do business with them but I'd not let it ruin my wedding or my random tuesday.

I too am in such a marriage..

To each their own. For me, I would've let them know where they can shove it lol.

Quote:You can't simultaneously say "lets not get into the doctrine of the christian faith" and "what difference does it make in the christian faith"...

That's a very dangerous proposition. Because it's letting someone who does not subscribe to the faith pick and choose what is and is not ok.

I read everything past this, which was interesting. I think the point that I'm making is if your church has transgender members, giving them a bathroom option isn't a celebration of their being transgender in the way that marriage can be a religious celebration of love. On this issue, I'll be interested in how it shakes out.

(12-08-2016 11:57 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

Quote:You can't simultaneously say "lets not get into the doctrine of the christian faith" and "what difference does it make in the christian faith"...

That's a very dangerous proposition. Because it's letting someone who does not subscribe to the faith pick and choose what is and is not ok.

I read everything past this, which was interesting. I think the point that I'm making is if your church has transgender members, giving them a bathroom option isn't a celebration of their being transgender in the way that marriage can be a religious celebration of love. On this issue, I'll be interested in how it shakes out.

Well, many churches cannot have transgender members. You would be denied membership or excommunicated...

The point here is you are forcing a religious body to do, encourage, or enable something which is not in accordance with their faith.

(12-09-2016 12:21 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Well, many churches cannot have transgender members. You would be denied membership or excommunicated...

The point here is you are forcing a religious body to do, encourage, or enable something which is not in accordance with their faith.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see the result if it makes it to the supreme court. My feelings on it are that some people are way too concerned about what pot someone pisses in, and it's odd for a Christian church to discriminate like that. I'm an evil leftist, though.

(12-09-2016 12:39 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 12:21 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Well, many churches cannot have transgender members. You would be denied membership or excommunicated...

The point here is you are forcing a religious body to do, encourage, or enable something which is not in accordance with their faith.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see the result if it makes it to the supreme court. My feelings on it are that some people are way too concerned about what pot someone pisses in, and it's odd for a Christian church to discriminate like that. I'm an evil leftist, though.

It's odd for a Christian Church to follow sound doctrine?

Were getting off the point here though... When someone said "how long until they force churches to perform gay weddings" you shrugged it off as if it were never going to happen.

As you can see the far left wants to dictate to churches what they will do and how.

(12-09-2016 12:55 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  It's odd for a Christian Church to follow sound doctrine?

I think it's odd for someone considering themselves a Christian to judge others in that way and to deny someone seeking the word of God. But we are off point as you said.

Quote:Were getting off the point here though... When someone said "how long until they force churches to perform gay weddings" you shrugged it off as if it were never going to happen.

As you can see the far left wants to dictate to churches what they will do and how.

I can't see that being a winning recipe for either side, but agree that it's not out of the realm of possibility.

(12-08-2016 09:33 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:29 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  And I ask one simple question: Why is it my responsibility to pay for the aftermath of an orgasm for which I had no benefit of enjoying? I am all in helping those that can't and those in a TEMPORARY situation that need a bridge. I loathe those that won't and make PERSONAL choices that further cement their position at the bottom of the economic ladder, regardless of color, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. with no responsibility or accountability required on their behalf. They are human tapeworms, and a serious discussion of causation and cessation of this behavior is neither racist nor bigoted. It is absolutely necessary for the survival of this country as we know it, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes some people to have it.

That's a debate that can be had, but not within the context of race. There are freeloaders, to be sure, but the majority of people on welfare and other assistance programs work at McDonald's, Walmart, etc. Companies that make more profit by paying workers less than they should, which feeds into our welfare system. Essentially taxpayers are subsidizing big business. That's where I would start if you're outraged.

That is SUCH a cop-out it's not even funny. Nor even worth entertaining.

There is not ONE 10.00 job out there that is meant to be a career. Not one. Those are for pimply-faced pre-teens (a decent baby-sitter commands close to 15 for 2 kids) or teenagers with LITERALLY no skills.

None.

A virgin dishwasher or floor mopper. Who's going to find 15+$$ of worth in someone mopping the floor, breaking dishes?

How many people and businesses do you want to put out of work? And deny, even those folks struggling on their 2 jobs at ten bucks an hour, the ability to work, learn a skill, learn another one up-stream and be in charge of their own lives? That's how this ish works. Go do something, learn from it, then go do something better.

What's the master plan from the left? I'd love to hear it. Really.

(12-08-2016 10:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 10:36 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 10:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 07:26 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 07:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  No I'm not. The vast majority of the "inequality" imposed upon the black community is imposed by themselves. White America isn't making them breed children they can't afford out of wedlock. White America isn't making them commit crime at a rate that far exceeds any other population demographic.

That's horribly ignorant and racist. I really feel like you should leave your comfort zone and educate yourself on this issue so you can understand your fellow American.

Not racist at all.

Explain how having children out of wedlock, a personal decision, is imposed upon them by someone else.

Explain how going into a life of crime, another personal decision, is imposed upon them by someone else.

Again, your line of thinking on this is racist. You're condemning black people as a monolith.

I did no such thing. I am condemning the segment of black society that blames everything on inequality because of the sheer number of people I know personally and the many public examples of people who took personal responsibility and have succeeded. In this conversation the only person condemning them as a monolith is you.

Quote:

Quote:And don't give me the typical leftist talking point of "They don't have any other choice" because it's horseshit. Plenty of examples of people who made the right choices and bettered their lives because of it. I personally know of several myself after spending over 20 years working in fire stations and serving primarily areas of government housing.

For an intro, watch this very good debate between John Stewart and Bill O'Reilly.

https://youtu.be/8raaT7SRx18

If you're interested beyond that, watch 13th on Netflix.

I have no desire to watch either Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart. Both are blowhards heavy on rhetoric and lacking on substance who appeal to the same demographic on the opposite sides of the divide...the lowest common denominator.

(12-09-2016 01:17 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:33 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:29 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  And I ask one simple question: Why is it my responsibility to pay for the aftermath of an orgasm for which I had no benefit of enjoying? I am all in helping those that can't and those in a TEMPORARY situation that need a bridge. I loathe those that won't and make PERSONAL choices that further cement their position at the bottom of the economic ladder, regardless of color, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. with no responsibility or accountability required on their behalf. They are human tapeworms, and a serious discussion of causation and cessation of this behavior is neither racist nor bigoted. It is absolutely necessary for the survival of this country as we know it, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes some people to have it.

That's a debate that can be had, but not within the context of race. There are freeloaders, to be sure, but the majority of people on welfare and other assistance programs work at McDonald's, Walmart, etc. Companies that make more profit by paying workers less than they should, which feeds into our welfare system. Essentially taxpayers are subsidizing big business. That's where I would start if you're outraged.

That is SUCH a cop-out it's not even funny. Nor even worth entertaining.

There is not ONE 10.00 job out there that is meant to be a career. Not one. Those are for pimply-faced pre-teens (a decent baby-sitter commands close to 15 for 2 kids) or teenagers with LITERALLY no skills.

None.

A virgin dishwasher or floor mopper. Who's going to find 15+$$ of worth in someone mopping the floor, breaking dishes?

How many people and businesses do you want to put out of work? And deny, even those folks struggling on their 2 jobs at ten bucks an hour, the ability to work, learn a skill, learn another one up-chain and be in charge of their own lives? That's how this ish works. Go do something, learn from it, then go do something better.

What's the master plan from the left? I'd love to hear it. Really.

Is it? How many of Trump's voters were from small to medium sized towns where the factories have left and a large number of those people are now having to work in food service or retail to make the ends meet? And even then, the ends don't meet, so they are forced to look towards the government for assistance?

And you're conflating something I haven't said. I do not favor a $15 minimum wage. However, I am appalled at large companies like Walmart that turn profits in the billions each year where their employees can barely afford to eat. I'm not sure what the solution is to that, but it's exhibit A in how very little, if anything, trickles down from the top.

(12-09-2016 01:29 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 01:17 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:33 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:29 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  And I ask one simple question: Why is it my responsibility to pay for the aftermath of an orgasm for which I had no benefit of enjoying? I am all in helping those that can't and those in a TEMPORARY situation that need a bridge. I loathe those that won't and make PERSONAL choices that further cement their position at the bottom of the economic ladder, regardless of color, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. with no responsibility or accountability required on their behalf. They are human tapeworms, and a serious discussion of causation and cessation of this behavior is neither racist nor bigoted. It is absolutely necessary for the survival of this country as we know it, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes some people to have it.

That's a debate that can be had, but not within the context of race. There are freeloaders, to be sure, but the majority of people on welfare and other assistance programs work at McDonald's, Walmart, etc. Companies that make more profit by paying workers less than they should, which feeds into our welfare system. Essentially taxpayers are subsidizing big business. That's where I would start if you're outraged.

That is SUCH a cop-out it's not even funny. Nor even worth entertaining.

There is not ONE 10.00 job out there that is meant to be a career. Not one. Those are for pimply-faced pre-teens (a decent baby-sitter commands close to 15 for 2 kids) or teenagers with LITERALLY no skills.

None.

A virgin dishwasher or floor mopper. Who's going to find 15+$$ of worth in someone mopping the floor, breaking dishes?

How many people and businesses do you want to put out of work? And deny, even those folks struggling on their 2 jobs at ten bucks an hour, the ability to work, learn a skill, learn another one up-chain and be in charge of their own lives? That's how this ish works. Go do something, learn from it, then go do something better.

What's the master plan from the left? I'd love to hear it. Really.

Is it? How many of Trump's voters were from small to medium sized towns where the factories have left and a large number of those people are now having to work in food service or retail to make the ends meet? And even then, the ends don't meet, so they are forced to look towards the government for assistance?

And you're conflating something I haven't said. I do not favor a $15 minimum wage. However, I am appalled at large companies like Walmart that turn profits in the billions each year where their employees can barely afford to eat. I'm not sure what the solution is to that, but it's exhibit A in how very little, if anything, trickles down from the top.

Uhhh, do you think those employees would rather not have that job?

Look, the derision of walmart has run it's course. If you dont want to be a cashier there, which is almost entirely populated by unskilled women or elderly folk, then go drive a truck for them.

First year average? Somewhere around 65-85k a year.

IOW's get off your asss. You may have to get a bit dirty, but work is out there. Told my landscaper and trim carpenter just that today. They'll be here at 7 am sharp.

I'm buyin the

(12-09-2016 01:38 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Uhhh, do you think those employees would rather not have that job?

I'm sure they want the job. That isn't point. The point is that many companies are making record profits yet the vast majority of employees don't see any increase in wages. I mean, it's surprising to me that I even have to argue this since supposedly the cornerstone of Trump's campaign was how he was going to help these people.

Quote:Look, the derision of walmart has run it's course. If you dont want to be a cashier there, which is almost entirely populated by unskilled women or elderly folk, then go drive a truck for them.

First year average? Somewhere around 65-85k a year.

IOW's get off your asss. You may have to get a bit dirty, but work is out there. Told my landscaper and trim carpenter just that today. They'll be here at 7 am sharp.

I'm buyin the

What I'm saying is that certain jobs that are available in your area may not be available in many areas, and may not be open to all people. There's a huge difference between being in construction in Dallas vs. Detroit, for example.

(12-08-2016 03:48 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  What he said, verbatim:

Quote:"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

So basically all you heard was :

"]"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH"

Instead of the ENTIRE statement, right?

(12-08-2016 02:52 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

Quote:Secondly I would be *fine* with a small black owned bakery saying "we only cater black weddings"... I would be ok with a florist telling me that they would not cater my wedding because it was interracial.

Really? As someone in an interracial relationship, I would flip my ****.

And there are dozens of other GOOD business outlets, that would be MORE than happy to take your business. Someone does something like that, can't let the consumers decide what's good or bad for business...

Nope, gotta stick the govt's nose in on it.

(12-09-2016 01:29 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 01:17 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:33 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:29 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  And I ask one simple question: Why is it my responsibility to pay for the aftermath of an orgasm for which I had no benefit of enjoying? I am all in helping those that can't and those in a TEMPORARY situation that need a bridge. I loathe those that won't and make PERSONAL choices that further cement their position at the bottom of the economic ladder, regardless of color, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. with no responsibility or accountability required on their behalf. They are human tapeworms, and a serious discussion of causation and cessation of this behavior is neither racist nor bigoted. It is absolutely necessary for the survival of this country as we know it, regardless of how uncomfortable that makes some people to have it.

That's a debate that can be had, but not within the context of race. There are freeloaders, to be sure, but the majority of people on welfare and other assistance programs work at McDonald's, Walmart, etc. Companies that make more profit by paying workers less than they should, which feeds into our welfare system. Essentially taxpayers are subsidizing big business. That's where I would start if you're outraged.

That is SUCH a cop-out it's not even funny. Nor even worth entertaining.

There is not ONE 10.00 job out there that is meant to be a career. Not one. Those are for pimply-faced pre-teens (a decent baby-sitter commands close to 15 for 2 kids) or teenagers with LITERALLY no skills.

None.

A virgin dishwasher or floor mopper. Who's going to find 15+$$ of worth in someone mopping the floor, breaking dishes?

How many people and businesses do you want to put out of work? And deny, even those folks struggling on their 2 jobs at ten bucks an hour, the ability to work, learn a skill, learn another one up-chain and be in charge of their own lives? That's how this ish works. Go do something, learn from it, then go do something better.

What's the master plan from the left? I'd love to hear it. Really.

Is it? How many of Trump's voters were from small to medium sized towns where the factories have left and a large number of those people are now having to work in food service or retail to make the ends meet? And even then, the ends don't meet, so they are forced to look towards the government for assistance?

And you're conflating something I haven't said. I do not favor a $15 minimum wage. However, I am appalled at large companies like Walmart that turn profits in the billions each year where their employees can barely afford to eat. I'm not sure what the solution is to that, but it's exhibit A in how very little, if anything, trickles down from the top.

The employees can leave. They are not forced to work there. Wal-Mart has no obligation to cut into its profits.

(12-09-2016 01:03 AM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 12:55 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  It's odd for a Christian Church to follow sound doctrine?

I think it's odd for someone considering themselves a Christian to judge others in that way and to deny someone seeking the word of God. But we are off point as you said.

It would be no different than having an open bar in a church because maybe if you don't provide drinks an unsaved alcoholic won't come.... But you're right... Back to the point.

Quote:

Quote:Were getting off the point here though... When someone said "how long until they force churches to perform gay weddings" you shrugged it off as if it were never going to happen.

As you can see the far left wants to dictate to churches what they will do and how.

I can't see that being a winning recipe for either side, but agree that it's not out of the realm of possibility.

But the point is, that by in large, SJW's don't care about bettering the things they want to change!

Do you think Anita Sarkeesian cares if her quest to apply social justice to video games destroys that industry?

It's seriously not a question of "will the SJW's come for churches" it's just a question of when.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...hurch.html

"The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages."

(12-08-2016 11:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You are misunderstanding it because you automatically assumed that since I don't agree with your stance I'm racist. In other words you are a good little leftist following your cult's group-think. At least I waited until you started down that path before I correctly labeled you as an idiot.

Let me try and help you with Gak, Kap.

Kap and people like him (including me) don't blame ALL blacks for the choices of some... but to deny that the mistakes of some have an impact on 'others' is to deny reality... ESPECIALLY in terms of 'legislation intended to address the needs of Black Americans'.... because by and large, the needs of black Americans are absolutely no different than the needs of white Americans.

Therefore the issues 'unique' to the black community that such legislation tries to address is specifically the issues that Kap is talking about. Certainly those issues also impact plenty of white and hispanic people as well, but the legislation is DESIGNED to help 'black people' in those situations.... so we're only talking about THAT SUBSET of 'black america'.

So the legislation itself is racist... but we ignore that because the goal is to 'help'... but then when white people talk about the people it is helping, we are accused of lumping ALL black people into that group... and WE are the racists? It's literally a catch-22.

I believe that many (not all or maybe even not most but many) democrat's and activists hearts are in the right place in trying to get people with similar needs into a relatively small area so that those needs can be efficiently addressed... but a byproduct of doing so is that you create (for many) a sense of abject hopelessness... because everyone around them they see every day is in just as bad a situation as they are. Hopelessness begets desperation, desperation leads to crime and crime runs off the only hope that any sort of business will come back into the area unless they are paid a substantial premium to do so... which only makes 'assistance' even more expensive, and expensive to deliver. Forget about CHANGING things.

The government then compounds it, again, perhaps with the heart in the right place, by putting assistance that discourages good choices (you get a more challenging job paying $5,000 more... you lose $10,000 in benefits)... a single mom gets more benefits than a single woman... etc etc etc... and then of course, the lure of getting to keep your benefits, but then make more money illegally than they could legally.

and if cops come in to try and shut down the criminals, they're racist... even if they're black and grew up in the neighborhood.

Can't win

(12-09-2016 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 11:37 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  You are misunderstanding it because you automatically assumed that since I don't agree with your stance I'm racist. In other words you are a good little leftist following your cult's group-think. At least I waited until you started down that path before I correctly labeled you as an idiot.

Let me try and help you with Gak, Kap.

Kap and people like him (including me) don't blame ALL blacks for the choices of some... but to deny that the mistakes of some have an impact on 'others' is to deny reality... ESPECIALLY in terms of 'legislation intended to address the needs of Black Americans'.... because by and large, the needs of black Americans are absolutely no different than the needs of white Americans.

Therefore the issues 'unique' to the black community that such legislation tries to address is specifically the issues that Kap is talking about. Certainly those issues also impact plenty of white and hispanic people as well, but the legislation is DESIGNED to help 'black people' in those situations.... so we're only talking about THAT SUBSET of 'black america'.

So the legislation itself is racist... but we ignore that because the goal is to 'help'... but then when white people talk about the people it is helping, we are accused of lumping ALL black people into that group... and WE are the racists? It's literally a catch-22.

I believe that many (not all or maybe even not most but many) democrat's and activists hearts are in the right place in trying to get people with similar needs into a relatively small area so that those needs can be efficiently addressed... but a byproduct of doing so is that you create (for many) a sense of abject hopelessness... because everyone around them they see every day is in just as bad a situation as they are. Hopelessness begets desperation, desperation leads to crime and crime runs off the only hope that any sort of business will come back into the area unless they are paid a substantial premium to do so... which only makes 'assistance' even more expensive, and expensive to deliver. Forget about CHANGING things.

The government then compounds it, again, perhaps with the heart in the right place, by putting assistance that discourages good choices (you get a more challenging job paying $5,000 more... you lose $10,000 in benefits)... a single mom gets more benefits than a single woman... etc etc etc... and then of course, the lure of getting to keep your benefits, but then make more money illegally than they could legally.

and if cops come in to try and shut down the criminals, they're racist... even if they're black and grew up in the neighborhood.

Can't win

What evidence do you have of this? It has been my understanding at least here locally that governments in fact try and spread poor people out so that they can enjoy the benefits of more affluent neighborhoods. It is the public however that mostly say "not in my backyard" when it comes to public housing.

(12-09-2016 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I believe that many (not all or maybe even not most but many) democrat's and activists hearts are in the right place in trying to get people with similar needs into a relatively small area so that those needs can be efficiently addressed.

What evidence do you have of this? It has been my understanding at least here locally that governments in fact try and spread poor people out so that they can enjoy the benefits of more affluent neighborhoods. It is the public however that mostly say "not in my backyard" when it comes to public housing.

You mean BESIDES the reality that poverty is often concentrated in certain areas?

That a public housing development, whether it is one building or an entire neighborhood concentrates those who RECEIVE public housing? It wasn't Republicans who built the projects in NY and other places, and you can't build single family homes in most of NY.

That social service offices are often specifically set up in areas to provide service to those areas. Spreading them out makes it harder to serve them.

That public transportation (especially to where the jobs are) will ALWAYS reach those concentrations of poverty. Spreading them out decreases their access.

That congressional districts are often created specifically to create representation for minorities? Spreading them out lessens their voting power. It's not Republicans doing this. Even the most racist Republican would be perfectly happy to let them be 13% of every voting block in the country and thus effectively have zero representation.

The PROOF is before your eyes. I'm merely noting some of the things that are either causes or results of it.

(12-09-2016 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me try and help you with Gak, Kap.

My problem with all of this is tossing aside Black Lives Matter as a 'terrorist organization' and saying it's their fault for having kids out of wedlock and being criminals.