What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

Do you even look at what you post? "modern scholarship by the world's most reputable historians of antiquity"?!?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There are Modern scholars who study antiquity, - the ancient world.

The is a specialty in historical scholarship.

How is it possible you do not know this?? Mental retardation??


The fact that you really, really wish a historical Jesus did not exist is an emotional response on your part. And that is exactly the problem I have with those atheists who claim to use reason and logic.

Your desires and wishes fly in the face of a century's worth of scholarship on antiquity, the expert consensus being that there was a historical Jesus.
 
Singapore is 74% East Asian and nearly all of their minorities are South Asian, meaning even their minorities are racially similar to the East Asian majority.
In Europe, the countries with the most immigrants are Russia, France, the UK, and Germany. Each of those countries is over 80% white.
Australia is 99% white due to their earlier White Australia policy.

As for Brazil, the biggest racial group is Whites, but they only make up 48%.



We barely have that. The welfare we have keeps people alive, but that's about it.

Your position seems a bit odd on this. On the one hand, you stress that racial diversity can be problematic. On the other, you want us to spend more on welfare.

What exactly do you expect to accomplish by expanding the welfare state in a society that supposedly has diversity to the point that it is a significant problem? Is this just a matter of paying people tribute to keep them complacent and dependent?
 
Not really. Unless that means lots of welfare for rich corporations.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Well, all welfare states usually end up like that. Once you open the door for the state to hand out money to people, the rich always get a piece of the action.
 
Your position seems a bit odd on this. On the one hand, you stress that racial diversity can be problematic. On the other, you want us to spend more on welfare.

What exactly do you expect to accomplish by expanding the welfare state in a society that supposedly has diversity to the point that it is a significant problem? Is this just a matter of paying people tribute to keep them complacent and dependent?

How is that an odd position? There's no reason we can't have an ethnostate with generous welfare programs. That's what Japan and South Korea have.

Well we can still improve America even with the problem of multiracialism. Much better we be Brazil than Somalia.
 
No, most homeless people are drug addicts, alcoholics, or mentally ill. That's why they vote Democrat. And ALL of the homeless problems you hear about are in blue states - California first and foremost.
Chronically homeless don't vote from their cardboard boxes. No legal address. Some don't even have ID. Most are mentally ill so even if the bleeding hearts and Christians got them registered and offered to pick them up on election day, they will most likely not show.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/homeless-americans-can-vote-but-it-isnt-easy.htm
 
How is that an odd position? There's no reason we can't have an ethnostate with generous welfare programs. That's what Japan and South Korea have.

Well we can still improve America even with the problem of multiracialism. Much better we be Brazil than Somalia.

Well, the good news is that we're better than Brazil and Somalia.
 
Well, the good news is that we're better than Brazil and Somalia.

For now. But the point is that Brazil is way better than Somalia. So even with multiracialism, we could still improve America.
I also think it's possible that we could liberalize the Right, like in Europe.
 
For now. But the point is that Brazil is way better than Somalia. So even with multiracialism, we could still improve America.
I also think it's possible that we could liberalize the Right, like in Europe.

Liberalize the right? For what -- unlimited migrant entrance?

The fact that the right in most of Europe is reduced to being a watered down version of the left is the reason why Europeans as a people will eventually be replaced by various Asian groups, particularly Muslims. The direction that Europe has gone in spells the death of a culture.

Granted, the irony is that the cultures that will replace them will be much more traditional and conservative. So, I guess it's not all bad.
 
Liberalize the right? For what -- unlimited migrant entrance?

The fact that the right in most of Europe is reduced to being a watered down version of the left is the reason why Europeans as a people will eventually be replaced by various Asian groups, particularly Muslims. The direction that Europe has gone in spells the death of a culture.

Granted, the irony is that the cultures that will replace them will be much more traditional and conservative. So, I guess it's not all bad.

Actually, the Right in most European countries is only different from the Left in that they're Ethnic Nationalists. When things like universal healthcare went mainstream in Europe, the Right was forced to admit that it worked well. However, because multiracialism never worked, the Right never had to change their stance on this one issue.
It's kind of the same situation in America, just to a smaller degree. The Right was forced to accept abolition, women voting, Catholic immigration, having a Catholic president, and gay marriage. I'm hoping that Democrats will pass Medicare for All at some point, the Republicans will cry for a few months, then eventually accept it as just a normal part of American life.
This is what I mean by liberalizing the Right. We need to make the Right accept every liberal policy that works well, to the point where the only things they're fighting for are Ethnic Nationalism, freedom of association, and states' rights.
 
Disagreed on backpedaling. Correct; it's a good example of taking something on faith even though it's based upon Natural Universe rules. It's just a theory. If you are as educated as you believe yourself to be, then you'll take a closer look at the math and examine how the variables were derived (consider GIGO). All are educated guesses because, as you should know, there is zero evidence of non-terrestrial life. That said, like you, I have faith in the math even though it's unproved.


Sent from a Commodore 64 using my dial-up 300 baud modem
The math is based on reality. Faith in God is based on wishful thinking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Chronically homeless don't vote from their cardboard boxes. No legal address. Some don't even have ID. Most are mentally ill so even if the bleeding hearts and Christians got them registered and offered to pick them up on election day, they will most likely not show.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/homeless-americans-can-vote-but-it-isnt-easy.htm
Modern conservatives are severely paranoid, as they keep demonstrating here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
The math is based on reality. Faith in God is based on wishful thinking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If that was true then you'd be able to demonstrate the math cacluating how much life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. You can't because they are all guesses. GIGO. <---I mentioned that before along with Fermi's Paradox. The fact remains you, like me, have faith the math is a reasonable assumption althought the Fermi question should give everyone pause.

Secondly since you've declared as fact that God doesn't exist, not simply "disbelieve", it means you are an atheist who has faith in something he cannot prove. Good luck with that!

BTW, it's fine to "disbelieve" there is no force behind creation of the universe and/or no existence beyond the mortal one. Stating it as fact without evidence is as unreasonable as a Televangelist declaring Jonah spent 3 days inside the belly of a whale.

Sent from North Texas using telegraph --. ..-. -.--
 
Back
Top