What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

[IBDaMann]

Well a lot of those so-called Communists were really just conservative Fascists like Stalin.
There are people in every category who are against LGBT rights, but it's mostly a right-wing thing.

HATRED is almost exclusively on the Left. Only white evangelicals are a bit more opposed to gay marriage than "blacks" but their numbers pale in comparison. Of black Protestants, 65% oppose gay marriage whereas other non-hispanic blacks are 60% opposed. Ouch.

In California in 2008, Whites and Asians voted heavily against Proposition 8, a State Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. California blacks, however, rallied the vote and rammed the Constitutional prohibition through. Proposition 8 was later nullified by the courts and Gay marriage became legal in 2013 when Prop 8 was discarded ... but everyone saw the voting demographic.

 

[StoneByStone]

HATRED is almost exclusively on the Left. Only white evangelicals are a bit more opposed to gay marriage than "blacks" but their numbers pale in comparison. Of black Protestants, 65% oppose gay marriage whereas other non-hispanic blacks are 60% opposed. Ouch.

I wish I didn't have to say this, but being black doesn't automatically make someone left-wing.
Most Blacks are actually pretty conservative. They vote Democrat for extremely obvious reasons, but they're socially very conservative. Same goes for Arabs and Hispanics.

 

[IBDaMann]

Who said anything about forcing them to procreate?

 

[IBDaMann]

Most Blacks are actually pretty conservative.

You don't have anything to support that statement that you just pulled out of your nose.

They vote Democrat for extremely obvious reasons,

It's not obvious. Explain it.

 

[StoneByStone]

... which would be exactly zero times if there is no such thing as "Alt-right" ... which there isn't as far as anything you have defined.

Oh dear....

So I want to be very clear here, I'm not accusing you of being part of the Alt-Right. That being said, denying the existence of the Alt-Right is absolutely insane. There were so many popular figures on YouTube calling themselves Alt-Right, that YouTube had to start banning them.
If it was just a few people, I'd agree there isn't evidence of a real movement. But when a movement has popular activists that are getting rich off of said movement, then that means there are tons of people who believe in what these activists are saying. If the Alt-Right didn't exist, people like Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch wouldn't be able to make a living off of political work.

Allow me to make a polite suggestion. You don't strengthen your argument by pretending to speak for others or by pretending to know what others think. No one believes that women are happier with less freedom.

According to Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch, Nick Fuentes, James Allsup, and their thousands of Alt-Right fans, women were happier before they were given equal rights.
Again, these aren't just random fringe people. These are popular figures with thousands of followers.

Would you be surprised that a Leftist would call people "homophobic" who aren't just because s/he doesn't have sufficient vocabulary to use the correct word?

Sure. But the reason for anti-gay feelings is fear. It's not so much about hating gay people as it is a fear that one might be gay.

I am willing to agree with you that many Christians are forced by their faith to deny the very nature of homosexuality. Their particular denomination tells them that they must consider homosexuality an "abomination" while they are required to believe that God made all people in His image. Hence the question, "how could God create an abomination?" The denomination answers "Homosexuality is a choice!" which leads to "Love the sinner, hate the sin." This is an example of a religion being wrong.

I fully support all people adopting whatever assumptions they need for the world to make sense. Scientists and mathematicians do it with every model. We can never understand anything completely so we must fill in gaps with hunches, assumptions and educated guesses. However, the moment one ceases to be honest with oneself and adopts assumptions that require denial of what is already known then the assumption is a false assumption and the system as a whole and all conclusions derived thereof are false. Ergo, Christians who refer to homosexuality as a "choice" are not being true to themselves and are wrong. Christianity has no HATRED requirements.

It doesn't, but for reasons you outlined, Christianity often leads to hatred. All religion is very not based.

In the military, the mission is all that matters. Failure is not an option. The military is the tool for accomplishing the mission; it is not a social experiment. There is no "fairness" requirement. If you need a sniper to take out a terrorist NOW and the only guy who can do it is a RACIST! HOMOPHOBE! MISOGYNIST! WHITE SUPREMACIST! TIMESHARE SALESMAN! ... then you have that guy take out the terrorist.

Having said that, no military commander can be successful if his unit suffers from breakdowns in discipline. Are there large numbers of people in the military who have trouble trusting transgender people? Yes. Is that the transgender person's fault? No. Does that matter one iota? No. You can't tell a commander that mission success is all that matters and then force a breakdown in discipline upon him/her. Again, it's no one's fault. It's a human nature situation and the solution is to take the transgender person out of the equation and achieve mission success.

But we've already had trans people in the military for years and it didn't cause problems. This would be like deciding we need to kick all Wiccans out of the military because having Wiccans there might cause problems. Like, yeah sure, it might.... but what exactly are we basing this on? Is there data confirming this? Is this just a hypothesis with no evidence?
If Trump actually presented a study showing that having trans people in the military has been harming the military all these years, then at least he'd have a good argument. The truth is, he only said this to suck up to the Christian Right.

It's not fair that a 5'6" man cannot choose his height and therefore will never be accepted on the LA Lakers as "one of the team" ... but the Lakers need to win above all else so even if you force Shorty onto the team, the coach isn't going to play him. If the high-priced, highly-trained top talent of the Laker team happen to be Shorty-Phobic and will refuse to even play if Shorty so much as enters the locker room then Shorty will not be allowed in the locker room.

Yeah and I'm fine with discrimination when it makes sense. I don't want to have crippled people fighting in the military because duh. But if being trans isn't stopping people from reaching the requirements, what's the problem?

Germany has tried this. Germany has required its military to accept transgenders. What is the result? The transgenders are intentionally isolated. They are given odd jobs that they can do by themselves, they don't shower with the rest of the troops, they aren't deployed on regular missions, ... but they wear the uniform and Germany points to them and says "See, we integrated transgenders." Nope. They didn't.

That's just not true. Of course there is transphobia in the German military. There's also sexism, homophobia, and religious bigotry. But they're not isolated. Many of them have important positions just like everyone else.
https://www.dw.com/en/meet-anastasia-germanys-first-transgender-army-commander/a-51350096

Generally speaking, each generation is more tolerant than the last. At one point, the German military was controlled by Prussia and there was discrimination against Bavarians, Swabians, Rhinelanders, Hessians, and so on. Eventually the Prussians got used to them, and of course there was still discrimination, but it became a lot less common.

LGBTQIATIOAPP rights are being fully protected. No one has the right to serve in the military. The military is like a sports team and they "draft" the people they believe they need to win and they say thank you but no thank you to the ones they simply do not want.

That's worth repeating: No one has a right to serve in the military and the military can nix anyone at any time. They need to win. To this end, the US military can have non-US citizens all the way up to O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel or Commander).

If you want to get technical, serving in the military is more of a civil liberty. And yeah, not everyone should have every civil liberty. Blind people aren't allowed to drive, I think that's fair enough. But I've yet to hear a good argument complete with data that explains why trans people can't serve in the military.

 

[StoneByStone]

You don't have anything to support that statement that you just pulled out of your nose.

You just presented data that Blacks are more likely to oppose gay rights, so I'm not sure why you think I just made this up.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx

It's not obvious. Explain it.

Liberal policies are better for the poor, Blacks are more likely to be poor. Democrats also fight for affirmative action.
No, Liberals did not destroy the black community. Liberal policies made Blacks less poor than they used to be. No, Liberals did not destroy the black family, out-of-wedlock births have been growing among people of all races. Yes, Robert Byrd used to be a Klansman, he wasn't embraced by modern Democrats until after he left and condemned the KKK. I've heard every "dEmS aRe ThE rEaL rAcIsTs" argument and I find them very cringe.

In addition to Democrats' policies being better for Blacks, Republicans are known for being racist in the black community. Both parties shamelessly suck up to Blacks, but Republicans also suck up to White Nationalists. Which I understand, all they care about is winning elections, but you can't play both sides of the fence and expect nobody to notice.

Now that's not to say everything Democrats do is good for the black community. Third world immigration hurts all working-class people. But the Republicans really haven't done much more to stop that than the Democrats have. So if you're black, it just makes a lot more sense to vote Democrat, even if you disagree with their stance on LGBT rights and secular education.

 

[Lightbringer]

It was all cool with Byrd when he left the KKK? As if he'd never been a part of it?

 

[IBDaMann]

It's not a buzzword, it refers to decisions being made by a population. Socialists want anyone who works at a corporation to be able to vote on decisions instead of just leaving everything up to the owners and shareholders.

This is communism, not socialism. I gave you a link to the Manifesto. You are refusing to read it to maintain plausibility that you are simply unaware and that your error is just an honest mistake.

I'm not a fan of Marxism, Socialism, or Communism either.

You are a textbook socialist. Of course you are making a huge deal to deny it. It's just WACKY what you're doing.

I just think that the words should be used correctly.

Nope. You intentionally misuse words in just about every post.

If someone says modern China is a Socialist state, that's just objectively wrong,

Do they have central planning and control?

And there are parts of Marx's philosophy that aren't bad.

It's a religion, every part of which takes some economic principle and bastardizes it.

Many of his criticisms of Capitalism are spot on.

Spken like a true socialist.

Nothing Marx said is correct. Like I said, pick your favorite paragraph or two and I'll tell you what's wrong with it.

But abolition of private property isn't the right way to deal with Capitalism.

It irreparably violates the supply/demand curve of a free real estate market.

I much rather redistribute wealth through generous welfare programs.

Aaaah, you mean "to each according to his needs." Yep, I understand your position well.

Yes, but you said Marx coined the term. I'm saying that he didn't, Blanc did. Marx got it from him.

You said that the semantic that we use today comes from Blanc. It does not. The term carries Marx's semantic.

It's not about fairness or unfairness,

Socialists are all about claiming that the totally unfair is absolutely necessary to make things fair.

You are a socialist. You want things to be unfair. Period. No amount of justification will transform the unfairness you support into fairness. Don't even try.

it's about taxing people who could spare the money and will themselves benefit from paying more.

What's the most polite way to express that this is the stupidest comment I have read this week?

Let's have some fun. Let's apply your logic. Give me half your money ... because I am assuring you that I can spend your money better than you can, and thus you will benefit more by paying me more of your money.

When should I expect a check?

If we were to pay for universal healthcare with taxes from the 1%,

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Sure, anyone can buy stuff with money stolen others. Another option, however, is to not steal from others like a piece of schit thief. One option is for all of us to get jobs and to pay for our own stuff. What do you think of that? Each person paying for his/her own stuff! What? That doesn't resonate with socialists? Well, now you see the problem with socialists. They're no better than criminals.

The best option is to elect Trump, get unemployment down to record lows and have everyone purchase the healthcare he/she wants (or spend the money on something else.)

However, the economy would be much better, because money would be flowing more instead of just sitting in a bank.

Nothing about this sentence is correct. Please notice that Venezuela's is not prospering from your brand of socialist wealth redistribution. Venezuela ran out of other people's money long ago and then went into stage two of total ruin at the hands of socialism by then resorting to simply printing money to cover for the lack of other people's money until hyperinflation set in and now any money that is printed is itself worthless.

Oh, and the claim that money just sits in the bank is what total dumbasses tell themselves to help them feel better about demonizing people they don't know so they can feel good about stealing from them. I don't get it. You are a total socialist. Why don't you own it? I would like to meet any person you are actually fooling.

And obviously you can't compare that to raising taxes on working-class people, you big sillypants.

Socialists make this error. You give yourself away. Jeff Bezos is working class. Why can't I compare raising taxes on him to raising taxes on him?

This is something I really dislike about Conservatism.

... and you don't know what that is either.

Truth is not determined by people. There are no "alternative facts." We have objective truth and we have opinion.

I have bad news for you. Each of these statements is false. You are operating under some serious misconceptions.

1. Truth only exists within closed functional systems ... which are determined by people. Math and logic would be two examples. Notice that science is not in that list.
2. There are always alternative facts ... you just don't know what the word fact means, i.e. you think it means some objective truth. It does not.
3. It is not possible to understand "the whole truth." There is always something that is not known. A mathematician Goedel proved that any system of predicates is incomplete, even infinite ones.

If someone thinks the Earth is flat because that's part of their culture, sorry, schools should still teach that the Earth is round.

Wrong. The schools should show children photographs of the planet, and let the parents explain what that means. Schools should explain geometry and shapes ... but parents should be explaining how to interpret what they learn in school.

You can bet I helped my kids with their homework and I was Johnny-on-the-spot to explain whenever a teacher got something wrong.

The way it works is that homeschooled children have to pass tests to prove they're learning.

What if a child isn't learning? You didn't think this one through.

If those tests prove that a child doesn't know basic math, then the parents should lose the right to homeschool.

So when students in Chicago cannot perform basic math then schools lose the right to educate the children and they are sent home to be homeschooled, right?

Really, the reason Conservatives love homeschooling is because there are lots of facts they refuse to accept.

The Left has a virtual monopoly on being uneducated intellectual cowards. Just look on this board. There are plenty of complete morons and they are all leftists. What are the odds? You think that's just a coincidence?

To be clear, I did not say that all the leftists on this board are total morons. I said that all the total morons on this board are leftists.

Then they complain about schools being "liberal."

They are. They absolutely are. The uneducated leftist cowards on this board are products of those liberal indoctrinations ... I mean "schools."

No shit, because the Nazis weren't Socialists.

You are in denial. We can leave it a

Call it whatever you want, but the Nazis didn't control most of Germany's means of production.

Just admit it. You deny the four-year plan.

The vast majority was in the hands of citizens and was run privately.

Tell me, what was Goering unable to control?

An organization requires some kind of central leadership. BLM, Antifa, Neo-Nazis, the Tea Party, the Alt-Right, all of these are movements that have no central leadership or ownership.

ANTIFA and BLM have central leadership. I never accused you of knowing who that is. The DNC pulls the organizaers' strings directly.

Absolutely anyone can march under the banner of any of those movements. And if you ask people at a BLM rally what they're there for, nine out of ten will say something along the lines of "racial justice," not Marxism.

Nine out of ten will claim that capitalism needs to be abolished, not "we need to eliminate regulatory burden from businesses."

I don't want to rehash you being naieve and gullible. BLM did not magically come into existence in 2013. They already existed as a socialist organization that simply seized the opportunity to rebrand in the noise of George Zimmerman's shameful persecution. I take it you never noticed that they didn't even bother to change their logo (except to color it from black to red). You can see them in my signature on every post.

 

[Lightbringer]

TL;DR

 

[IBDaMann]

So I want to be very clear here, I'm not accusing you of being part of the Alt-Right.

What makes it an "accusation"? You still have not defined it. I'm happy to be "Alt-Right" if I, in fact, meet the definition. Is there an official "Alt-Right" homepage?

To be honest, it sounds like a made-up word that actually has no meaning used to virtue-signal.

That being said, denying the existence of the Alt-Right is absolutely insane.

... or it might be insane to believe that a slur is actually a realy thing. We can both agree that it is a very real virtue-signal. How's that?

There were so many popular figures on YouTube calling themselves Alt-Right,

There are countless Leftists who worship Global Warming who nonetheless claim to be atheists. Claims do not make something true.

... or we acknowledge that I claim to be the smartest person on this board and presume that to be true because I claimed it. I'm good with that.

that YouTube had to start banning them.

Is claiming something about oneself now being banned by YouTube?

Sure. But the reason for anti-gay feelings is fear.

You are not a mind reader. You can't expect anyone to believe that you are.

My anti-LGBTQIATIOAPP sentiments are annoyance. There is no fear involved. Absolutely none. I know others whose sentiments are revulsion at the thought of gay sex, and that is not fear. Your misuse of the "phobia" suffix is erroneous.

How about LGBTQIATIOAPP-annoyance in my case? I'll own it. I also don't expect you to ever type it, HA!

It's not so much about hating gay people as it is a fear that one might be gay.

I still think revulsion is the right word.

It doesn't, but for reasons you outlined, Christianity often leads to hatred. All religion is very not based.

Belief in victimhood leads to hatred of the perceived class of victimizers. LGBTQIATIOAPP whip themselves into a raving hatred of "Christians," they demonize them, and they actively fúq with them for no reason other than they HATE Christians. They convert themselves into bigots and then act on their HATRED. They get no sympathy from me.

But we've already had trans people in the military for years and it didn't cause problems.

Yes it did. Lots of problems. You weren't in the military when all that happened. Ask me how I know.

Trump is showing amazing leadership by owning the decision to ban transgenders from military service ... but he's only doing it because military commanders begged Trump to do so, citing all the problems that are caused NOT by the transgenders (no one is claiming that they are the problem) but by allowing transgenders to serve (human nature is the problem). Readiness and discipline suffer and missions are endangered. Trump made the command decision to make our military more effective.

This would be like deciding we need to kick all Wiccans out of the military because having Wiccans there might cause problems.

Nope. Not the same. Normal people can be expected to be uncomfortable around transgenders.

If Trump actually presented a study showing that having trans people in the military has been harming the military all these years

Nope. You still aren't grasping the nature of the military. You aren't grasping that mission success and not fairness is what matters.

When Commanders tell Trump that they need a problem fixed then they need a problem fixed. No 5-year study is required. The problem needs to be fixed now.

Do you have any examples other than the military of transgenders being treated unfairly by Trump or by the government?

But if being trans isn't stopping people from reaching the requirements, what's the problem?[/auote]
It's totally disruptive to good order and discipline. Can't have it. Not in the military.

There's also sexism, homophobia, and religious bigotry. But they're not isolated. Many of them have important positions just like everyone else.

That is NOT what I saw. In which war zone did you observe the German military?

Generally speaking, each generation is more tolerant than the last.

Every year the DNC becomes les and less tolerant. Now they have reached the point whereby they will shut down Congress and pout like children until they have a Democrat sitting in the White House.

Blind people aren't allowed to drive, I think that's fair enough. But I've yet to hear a good argument complete with data that explains why trans people can't serve in the military.

Then you are missing the point. What you are saying makes perfect sense everywhere except in the military. In the military, the Commanders identify a problem, send it up the chain and let the brass solve it if the commanders can't solve it at their level. No studies. Commanders were put in command positions to make those calls. They asked Trump to solve a large swath of problems across the services in one swoop. Done.

Again, do you have any examples outside of the military? If not then this issue is a loser.

 

[IBDaMann]

Liberal policies are better for the poor,

How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?

Democrats also fight for affirmative action.

Yes. Democrats are the party of racism and the party of slavery. Of course they want forced racism legitimized into law.

No, Liberals did not destroy the black community.

How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?

Liberal policies made Blacks less poor than they used to be

Nope. How exactly did Maryland's rain tax make blacks "less poor"?

. No, Liberals did not destroy the black family, out-of-wedlock births have been growing among people of all races.

Liberal policies created welfare dependency. There was no way to break the cycle.

In addition to Democrats' policies being better for Blacks, Republicans are known for being racist in the black community.

Democrats are the party of racism and Republicans came into existence to end slavery.

Deny this:

Both parties shamelessly suck up to Blacks,

Only Democrats.

... but Republicans also suck up to White Nationalists.

Do you mean to say that Republicans pander to caucasian patriots? Sure, of course.

Now that's not to say everything Democrats do is good for the black community.

Can you give me one example of some Democrat policy that isn't aimed at enslaving blacks?

Third world immigration hurts all working-class people. But the Republicans really haven't done much more to stop that than the Democrats have.

Enter Donald Trump. 300 miles of fence up and building at a rate of two miles per day.

So if you're black, it just makes a lot more sense to vote Democrat,

Only if you seek hopeless bondage.


.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I wish I didn't have to say this, but being black doesn't automatically make someone left-wing.
Most Blacks are actually pretty conservative. They vote Democrat for extremely obvious reasons, but they're socially very conservative. Same goes for Arabs and Hispanics.

You are right. Many POC are also very devout Christians, and are anti-abortion. But let's not let facts get in the way of the racists' beliefs, eh?

 

[rjhenn]

Why do you agree with the genetic component making people Gay, or Lesbian?

But, not with the genetic component making people Criminal, which just happen to be higher in Blacks?

I doubt that the genetic component actually makes people gay or lesbian. I think it's more likely that the genetic component makes one more susceptible to an in vitro event that is what actually makes one homosexual.
As for blacks, I think the problem is more with their culture than their genes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Too funny. ThatOwlCoward doesn't know the difference between a religion and political leanings ... and claims to have gone to college.

You can't make this schit up.

You make up a lot of "schit".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

This is communism, not socialism. I gave you a link to the Manifesto. You are refusing to read it to maintain plausibility that you are simply unaware and that your error is just an honest mistake.


You are a textbook socialist. Of course you are making a huge deal to deny it. It's just WACKY what you're doing.


Nope. You intentionally misuse words in just about every post.


Do they have central planning and control?


It's a religion, every part of which takes some economic principle and bastardizes it.


Spken like a true socialist.

Nothing Marx said is correct. Like I said, pick your favorite paragraph or two and I'll tell you what's wrong with it.



It irreparably violates the supply/demand curve of a free real estate market.


Aaaah, you mean "to each according to his needs." Yep, I understand your position well.


You said that the semantic that we use today comes from Blanc. It does not. The term carries Marx's semantic.


Socialists are all about claiming that the totally unfair is absolutely necessary to make things fair.

You are a socialist. You want things to be unfair. Period. No amount of justification will transform the unfairness you support into fairness. Don't even try.


What's the most polite way to express that this is the stupidest comment I have read this week?

Let's have some fun. Let's apply your logic. Give me half your money ... because I am assuring you that I can spend your money better than you can, and thus you will benefit more by paying me more of your money.

When should I expect a check?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Sure, anyone can buy stuff with money stolen others. Another option, however, is to not steal from others like a piece of schit thief. One option is for all of us to get jobs and to pay for our own stuff. What do you think of that? Each person paying for his/her own stuff! What? That doesn't resonate with socialists? Well, now you see the problem with socialists. They're no better than criminals.

The best option is to elect Trump, get unemployment down to record lows and have everyone purchase the healthcare he/she wants (or spend the money on something else.)


Nothing about this sentence is correct. Please notice that Venezuela's is not prospering from your brand of socialist wealth redistribution. Venezuela ran out of other people's money long ago and then went into stage two of total ruin at the hands of socialism by then resorting to simply printing money to cover for the lack of other people's money until hyperinflation set in and now any money that is printed is itself worthless.

Oh, and the claim that money just sits in the bank is what total dumbasses tell themselves to help them feel better about demonizing people they don't know so they can feel good about stealing from them. I don't get it. You are a total socialist. Why don't you own it? I would like to meet any person you are actually fooling.

Socialists make this error. You give yourself away. Jeff Bezos is working class. Why can't I compare raising taxes on him to raising taxes on him?


... and you don't know what that is either.


I have bad news for you. Each of these statements is false. You are operating under some serious misconceptions.

1. Truth only exists within closed functional systems ... which are determined by people. Math and logic would be two examples. Notice that science is not in that list.
2. There are always alternative facts ... you just don't know what the word fact means, i.e. you think it means some objective truth. It does not.
3. It is not possible to understand "the whole truth." There is always something that is not known. A mathematician Goedel proved that any system of predicates is incomplete, even infinite ones.



Wrong. The schools should show children photographs of the planet, and let the parents explain what that means. Schools should explain geometry and shapes ... but parents should be explaining how to interpret what they learn in school.

You can bet I helped my kids with their homework and I was Johnny-on-the-spot to explain whenever a teacher got something wrong.


What if a child isn't learning? You didn't think this one through.


So when students in Chicago cannot perform basic math then schools lose the right to educate the children and they are sent home to be homeschooled, right?


The Left has a virtual monopoly on being uneducated intellectual cowards. Just look on this board. There are plenty of complete morons and they are all leftists. What are the odds? You think that's just a coincidence?

To be clear, I did not say that all the leftists on this board are total morons. I said that all the total morons on this board are leftists.


They are. They absolutely are. The uneducated leftist cowards on this board are products of those liberal indoctrinations ... I mean "schools."



You are in denial. We can leave it a


Just admit it. You deny the four-year plan.


Tell me, what was Goering unable to control?


ANTIFA and BLM have central leadership. I never accused you of knowing who that is. The DNC pulls the organizaers' strings directly.


Nine out of ten will claim that capitalism needs to be abolished, not "we need to eliminate regulatory burden from businesses."

I don't want to rehash you being naieve and gullible. BLM did not magically come into existence in 2013. They already existed as a socialist organization that simply seized the opportunity to rebrand in the noise of George Zimmerman's shameful persecution. I take it you never noticed that they didn't even bother to change their logo (except to color it from black to red). You can see them in my signature on every post.

You are proof that not all of the total morons on this board are leftists. You can't point to a single case where unrestrained capitalism has been a success. What seems to work best is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, using bits of socialism to patch up the great gaping holes in capitalism and bits of capitalism to patch up the great gaping holes in socialism.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?


Yes. Democrats are the party of racism and the party of slavery. Of course they want forced racism legitimized into law.


How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?


Nope. How exactly did Maryland's rain tax make blacks "less poor"?


Liberal policies created welfare dependency. There was no way to break the cycle.


Democrats are the party of racism and Republicans came into existence to end slavery.

Deny this:

Only Democrats.

Do you mean to say that Republicans pander to caucasian patriots? Sure, of course.


Can you give me one example of some Democrat policy that isn't aimed at enslaving blacks?


Enter Donald Trump. 300 miles of fence up and building at a rate of two miles per day.


Only if you seek hopeless bondage.


.

The War on Drugs, a conservative policy, has done more to harm blacks than your hated "liberal policies". As you demonstrate, despite your denials, the right feeds on lies, paranoia and hate.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[BattleofHodow]

I doubt that the genetic component actually makes people gay or lesbian. I think it's more likely that the genetic component makes one more susceptible to an in vitro event that is what actually makes one homosexual.
As for blacks, I think the problem is more with their culture than their genes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Yes, LGBTQ is probably mostly in the womb.

As for Blacks, they're more aggressive & criminal everywhere.

Even though Blacks all over have different "Cultures".

In fact, even in the USA, for example a Black in Mississippi probably has more in common with a White culturally in Mississippi rather than with a Black in New York City.

But, Blacks all over have more issues with crime.

 

[BattleofHodow]

How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?


Yes. Democrats are the party of racism and the party of slavery. Of course they want forced racism legitimized into law.


How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?


Nope. How exactly did Maryland's rain tax make blacks "less poor"?


Liberal policies created welfare dependency. There was no way to break the cycle.


Democrats are the party of racism and Republicans came into existence to end slavery.

Deny this:

Only Democrats.

Do you mean to say that Republicans pander to caucasian patriots? Sure, of course.


Can you give me one example of some Democrat policy that isn't aimed at enslaving blacks?


Enter Donald Trump. 300 miles of fence up and building at a rate of two miles per day.


Only if you seek hopeless bondage.


.

Caucasian Patriots & White Nationalists are one in the same?

A lot of White Nationalists don't like Albanians, or Chechens, they're Caucasian, and same applies to Jews & Arabs who are technically Caucasian too.

Real-Neo-Nazis usually don't like Polish people, or Russians, either.

You have much in common.

 

[BattleofHodow]

How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?


Yes. Democrats are the party of racism and the party of slavery. Of course they want forced racism legitimized into law.


How are the decades of liberal policies working for the blacks in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis and Chicago?


Nope. How exactly did Maryland's rain tax make blacks "less poor"?


Liberal policies created welfare dependency. There was no way to break the cycle.


Democrats are the party of racism and Republicans came into existence to end slavery.

Deny this:

Only Democrats.

Do you mean to say that Republicans pander to caucasian patriots? Sure, of course.


Can you give me one example of some Democrat policy that isn't aimed at enslaving blacks?


Enter Donald Trump. 300 miles of fence up and building at a rate of two miles per day.


Only if you seek hopeless bondage.


.

Yeah, and Jamaica has sky high out of wedlock, a lot of poverty, a very high murder rate.

Jamaica is Black & doesn't have much, if any welfare state.

How about those Apples?

 

[BattleofHodow]

Notice the difference between a gene and a genetic component.

I follow the science. Do you have a link proving Blacks are criminals because of genetics?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24326626/

doi: 10.1007/s11126-013-9287-x.
The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors
Kevin M Beaver 1, J C Barnes, Brian B Boutwell
Affiliations expand
PMID: 24326626 DOI: 10.1007/s11126-013-9287-x
Abstract
There has been a great deal of research examining the link between a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene and antisocial phenotypes. The results of these studies have consistently revealed that low activity MAOA alleles are related to antisocial behaviors for males who were maltreated as children.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ncarceration_and_lifetime_antisocial_behavior

The effects of the 2-repeat allele could not be examined in Caucasian males because only 0.1% carried it.