Having 'white nuclear family' promotes white supremacy, says New York professor, report says

[musiclady]

Anyone who has read the entire Bible [not taking single verses out of the context of the whole]  can honestly say the God of Israel is racist and the Bible [which is exclusively about one race, the people of Israel] is a racist book.  In the OT,  God says He chose Israel over all the other people of the earth to be His special people. Jesus Christ [who is the God of Israel incarnate] said He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel [Matthew 15:24.]  In the book of Revelation, the city of New Jerusalem has twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel so they can enter.

Again,  I hasten to add,  racism is GOOD.  It is a natural God-given instinct so kind will produce kind which is fundamental Bible law.

It is the evil globalist NWO that unnaturally forces the races to mix whose globalist NWO media keeps beating the globalist NWO mantra that "racism is evil."

In the Bible, race-mixing is a sin.  If you don't believe me read the book of he Ezra who had to deal with Israelites who committed the race-mixing sin during the Babylonian captivity.

I have read the Bible entirely through, multiple times, so your political superimposition over God's Word does not sway me.

You are free to ignore God's commands in the New Testament to your heart's delight.

But don't speak for the entire word of God when you only believe parts of it............ and not the words and acts of Jesus Himself.

[skeeter]

Pretty much agree.   Where I disagree is that people who are being supported by other people should also not be able to vote at all,  unless of course it is a husband/wife relationship where one of them is the breadwinner.

Yes, exception can be easily made to mean only those able bodied individuals apparently unwilling to support themselves. And we know how many of those there exists today.

[Free Vulcan]

So you won't answer my question, I see.  That's OK, I'll answer yours.   

I condemn identity politics generally.  We are a melting pot, not a mosaic.  Identity politics is a cancer that is changing irrevocably the Democratic party.   I don't want to see it take over the Republicans too. 

I was just reading at lunch Michael Goodwin's always excellent column in the NYPost.  He reports that, in a poll sponsored by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Harvard,  a majority of whites, African Americans, LGBTQ people, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian Americans all believe their own groups are discriminated against.  As Goodwin put it, a whine-whine situation. 

This hyphenated-Americanism has got to stop.   Why can't conservatives speak up against it??

Jesus often answered a question with a question.

At a certain point, as Paul says, you shake the dust off your cloak and move on. When you are dealing with stridently belligerent people, you just ignore them and do what's right. What's right politically is the conservative agenda.

And unfortunately that's mostly going to be 'white' people. When people exclude themselves from you by race, there's little you can do about it. You just take those along with you that are willing and call it good.

They can cry about  'white' people all they want, I'm still going to lower the blade and bulldoze over them. If they don't want to a part of the America that's built on the Constitutuion, they they will have to weep their bitter fruits, I don't care what color they are.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know enough about them to know that we aren't a Democracy.

Well we weren't before the 24th amendment.    We are now.   

What you wish we had in place and what we had (wrongly) in place for 187 years...is as discriminatory as a "whites only" sign over a drinking fountain and just as vile.  And again as I discussed with skeeter...you set up a system that the Liberals will manipulate to their advantage and you'll find yourself on the outside looking in as Dems create their elite Utopia for themselves and not for us.

See my previous post.   I would love to call paying taxes "racist"  so we don't have to do it anymore,   but any rational person understands that you cannot have a system of governance that is not supported by taxation.     

You also cannot have a system of governance in which freeloaders have a say on spending,  because they will vote to get more free stuff.    It is what is called a "moral hazard." 

[txradioguy]

Well we weren't before the 24th amendment.    We are now.

Really?  When did the EC go away?  I don't recall us changing from a Representative Republic.

When did we become Greece? 

See my previous post.   I would love to call paying taxes "racist"  so we don't have to do it anymore,   but any rational person understands that you cannot have a system of governance that is not supported by taxation.

   

And excluding legal citizens of the U.S. from the right to vote simply because they don't pay taxes or happen to live on a Government pension is no different that forcing people with a certain skin color to sit at the back of the bus or sit at their own lunch counter. 

You also cannot have a system of governance in which freeloaders have a say on spending,  because they will vote to get more free stuff.    It is what is called a "moral hazard." 

I understand the concept of a Moral Hazard...as did the Founding Fathers.

Still is a pretty pathetic fig leaf for your justification of racism and discrimination.

[KingsX]

Anyone who has read the entire Bible [not taking single verses out of the context of the whole]  can honestly say the God of Israel is racist and the Bible [which is exclusively about one race, the people of Israel] is a racist book.  In the OT,  God says He chose Israel over all the other people of the earth to be His special people. Jesus Christ [who is the God of Israel incarnate] said He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel [Matthew 15:24.]  In the book of Revelation, the city of New Jerusalem has twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel so they can enter.

Again,  I hasten to add,  racism is GOOD.  It is a natural God-given instinct so kind will produce kind which is fundamental Bible law.

It is the evil globalist NWO that unnaturally forces the races to mix whose globalist NWO media keeps beating the globalist NWO mantra that "racism is evil."

In the Bible, race-mixing is a sin.  If you don't believe me,  read the book of Ezra who had to deal with Israelites who committed the race-mixing sin during the Babylonian captivity.

Furthermore...  the sin in the days of Noah was race-mixing.

Jesus said the end of the age would be as in the "days of Noah" and "days of Lot."

Race-mixing and sodomites are the two major sinful abominations being promoted today.

Believe me,   you don't want to be among those who  practice or promote those twin evils.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm just going to throw a couple of pennies at the tax/voting issue, in hopes I don't get sucked into some grand argument:  I think people who vote need to have "skin in the game." 

At our founding, one of the principles and rallying cries was "No taxation without representation."  We are observing that representation without taxation ain't no great shakes either.  People are voting without having to give two carps about what it's doing to the taxing structure, and I don't think that's a good thing for us as a Nation.

[musiclady]

I changed my mind when I said there were no racists on TBR.

One has recently joined us............... and is seeking to cover her sin with misuse of Scripture. 


Yikes.  Trouble ahead for this one........


(Edited to add........ most likely a liberal troll acting like a stereotypical racist conservative to make actual conservatives look evil).

[skeeter]

I'm just going to throw a couple of pennies at the tax/voting issue, in hopes I don't get sucked into some grand argument:  I think people who vote need to have "skin in the game." 

Consider that what we have today is even worse - there are thousands of people currently voting who have skin in someone else's game.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really?  When did the EC go away?  I don't recall us changing from a Representative Republic.

When did we become Greece? 

When we passed the 24th amendment.   Try and keep up.   


Demo-Cracy.   Demos = People,   Cracy =  rule.   


   

And excluding legal citizens of the U.S. from the right to vote simply because they don't pay taxes or happen to live on a Government pension is no different that forcing people with a certain skin color to sit at the back of the bus or sit at their own lunch counter. 

If comprehending economics and the realities of human nature are racist,   just call me a racist. 

I understand the concept of a Moral Hazard

You aren't acting like you understand it.   It is a grave threat.   We have spent 21 trillion dollars on bribing poor people to vote for Democrats,   and as a result of electing Democrats,  we have compiled over 100 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations.    That's over and above the 20 trillion dollar national debt.   

...as did the Founding Fathers.

And that's why they required the payment of taxes to vote.   

Still is a pretty pathetic fig leaf for your justification of racism and discrimination.

If you think 21 Trillion,  plus an additional 100 trillion is a "fig leaf",   I'd hate to hear what you consider to be a serious justification.   

[KingsX]

I changed my mind when I said there were no racists on TBR.

One has recently joined us............... and is seeking to cover her sin with misuse of Scripture.

Yikes.  Trouble ahead for this one........

(Edited to add........ most likely a liberal troll acting like a stereotypical racist conservative to make actual conservatives look evil).

You only assumed I knew nothing about holy scripture.   I have proved you wrong.

Now you resort to personal insults.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm just going to throw a couple of pennies at the tax/voting issue, in hopes I don't get sucked into some grand argument:  I think people who vote need to have "skin in the game." 

At our founding, one of the principles and rallying cries was "No taxation without representation."  We are observing that representation without taxation ain't no great shakes either.  People are voting without having to give two carps about what it's doing to the taxing structure, and I don't think that's a good thing for us as a Nation.

Your statement is concentrated common sense.    Allowing people to vote without putting skin into the game is immoral.  Indeed,  it is in fact a form of slavery. 

[Jazzhead]

Your statement is concentrated common sense.    Allowing people to vote without putting skin into the game is immoral.  Indeed,  it is in fact a form of slavery.

That skin in the game is citizenship.  Unfortunately,  liberals don't even want to require proof of citizenship as an prerequisite for voting.   

[Emjay]

I have read the Bible entirely through, multiple times, so your political superimposition over God's Word does not sway me.

You are free to ignore God's commands in the New Testament to your heart's delight.

But don't speak for the entire word of God when you only believe parts of it............ and not the words and acts of Jesus Himself.

Not to be contrary, but we do know that Jesus himself was racist when he refused to help a woman because of her race, saying that she didn't deserve to be helped.

[Cyber Liberty]

That skin in the game is citizenship.  Unfortunately,  liberals don't even want to require proof of citizenship as an prerequisite for voting.

I think you give a lot of our fellow citizens more credit for being altruistic than they deserve.  I don't think a welfare recipient would, for example, hesitate for one second to give his/her vote to whomever promised to bump up the remittances the most.  They would be more than happy to take from their fellow citizens, as long as they can keep their hands clean by using the government as the instrument of the robbery.

[DiogenesLamp]

That skin in the game is citizenship. 

"Citizenship"  does not connote "Skin in the game".   "Skin in the game" is some sort of sacrifice;   Some cost or shared risk for the person wanting into the game.   

To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred monetary risk by being invested in achieving a goal. In the phrase, "skin" is a synecdoche for the person involved, and "game" is the metaphor for the actions on whatever field of play is at reference. The aphorism is particularly common in business, finance, and gambling, and is also used in politics.

Unfortunately,  liberals don't even want to require proof of citizenship as an prerequisite for voting.

They want to be able to cheat.   They also know that most of the idiots and incompetents vote on their side.

[txradioguy]

I think you give a lot of our fellow citizens more credit for being altruistic than they deserve.  I don't think a welfare recipient would, for example, hesitate for one second to give his/her vote to whomever promised to bump up the remittances the most.  They would be more than happy to take from their fellow citizens, as long as they can keep their hands clean by using the government as the instrument of the robbery.

That's quite a broad brush.  And where does the line of who gets to vote and who doesn't stop?  Who gets to be the arbiter and why?

If we're going to talk about people not getting to vote because they live off of "the government"...well then what's to stop Liberals from deciding that includes military and government civilian employees whose retirement check is straight from the Federal Government?

70% of the military and about the same percentage of military retirees vote Republican.  What better way to exclude a large voting block than to suddenly include those drawing a government retirement check as someone who is a free loader and thus undeserving of a vote?

Once you start down this exclusionary rabbit hole there's no stopping and the people here supporting such a thing will all too suddenly find themselves the victim of their own idea.

[truth_seeker]

I think you give a lot of our fellow citizens more credit for being altruistic than they deserve. I don't think a welfare recipient would, for example, hesitate for one second to give his/her vote to whomever promised to bump up the remittances the most.  They would be more than happy to take from their fellow citizens, as long as they can keep their hands clean by using the government as the instrument of the robbery.

Bolded scenario is already well established. Exit polls reveal 110% plus of certain subcategories vote for the takers.

[musiclady]

You only assumed I knew nothing about holy scripture.   I have proved you wrong.

Now you resort to personal insults.

You have proved absolutely nothing.

You know enough about the Bible to cut and paste (from whatever website you hail from) to masquerade as a conservative Christian and present a false stereotype about who we are.

That's it.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's quite a broad brush.  And where does the line of who gets to vote and who doesn't stop?

Duh,  at line going to the post office to pay their taxes?   

Who gets to be the arbiter and why?

Why every individual gets to be the arbiter.   If he/she wants to vote,  all they have to do is pay taxes into the treasury.   

I think that is a fair and equitable system which allows for individual choice and freedom for everyone else as well. 

If we're going to talk about people not getting to vote because they live off of "the government"...well then what's to stop Liberals from deciding that includes military and government civilian employees whose retirement check is straight from the Federal Government?

There may be an argument to be made on behalf of those people who served our country in the Military.   

70% of the military and about the same percentage of military retirees vote Republican.  What better way to exclude a large voting block than to suddenly include those drawing a government retirement check as someone who is a free loader and thus undeserving of a vote?

Do they pay taxes on that retirement income?   

Once you start down this exclusionary rabbit hole there's no stopping and the people here supporting such a thing will all too suddenly find themselves the victim of their own idea.

You keep talking at this thing like you have no idea that it was the norm for most of our nation's history,  and it was the norm in the colonies for hundreds of years prior to 1776.   


It is a normal idea.   What we have now is abnormal. 


What we have now is financially self destructive and cannot last.   

[musiclady]

Not to be contrary, but we do know that Jesus himself was racist when he refused to help a woman because of her race, saying that she didn't deserve to be helped.

I assume you're referring to the passage where Jesus compares a Gentile woman to a "dog."  It's commonly misinterpreted to mean he was being derogatory, but if we know who Jesus is, all loving, we know that a surface interpretation can't be correct.

Jesus, in that passage, was talking about His mission to the Jews first (the Gentiles would come later).  The normal pejorative about them was to call them dogs........ wild, mangy scavengers.  The word Jesus used was the term for a pet.... a puppy dog, if you will.

And if you remember, he DID heal the woman's daughter.

The argument that He......... the Creator of every race and people........... was racist doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[KingsX]

You have proved absolutely nothing.

You know enough about the Bible to cut and paste (from whatever website you hail from) to masquerade as a conservative Christian and present a false stereotype about who we are.

That's it.

You have resorted to personal insults because you lost the Bible debate.

[musiclady]

You have resorted to personal insults because you lost the Bible debate.

Yeah............... right.


If that makes you feel better about yourself, you go ahead and think that.

But in the mean time, I would recommend that you read the New Testament, and learn about Jesus, and how He treated others, and how He commanded us to treat others.

We are living under Grace........... God's great Grace............. through Jesus Christ.

I would recommend learning that others will know we are Christians by our love............ not by our sinful racism; that we are living as new creations, that the old has passed away.  And that the difference between Jew and Greek (and Swede) has been erased.

We are not to live in what is "natural," (in the warped sense in which you perceive it), but in our Spirit-led lives where hatred for other human beings because they have a different color skin is condemned.

And again, I recommend that you go beyond your cut and paste Bible world, and read the real thing.

Read.

And try to understand what you are so deeply confused about.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's quite a broad brush.  And where does the line of who gets to vote and who doesn't stop?  Who gets to be the arbiter and why?

If we're going to talk about people not getting to vote because they live off of "the government"...well then what's to stop Liberals from deciding that includes military and government civilian employees whose retirement check is straight from the Federal Government?

70% of the military and about the same percentage of military retirees vote Republican.  What better way to exclude a large voting block than to suddenly include those drawing a government retirement check as someone who is a free loader and thus undeserving of a vote?

Once you start down this exclusionary rabbit hole there's no stopping and the people here supporting such a thing will all too suddenly find themselves the victim of their own idea.

I've been reading your arguments on this thread as well.  I would not be so simpleminded to say "Anybody collecting money from the government can't vote."  Not all money remitted by the government is equal. I would never claim somebody who receives a Pension (that they earned), nor a service member (Active or Retired) should be prevented from voting.  They all earned it.  They are not in any way the same as somebody who collects Welfare.

This is what I meant by "I don't want to be drawn into a grand argument over this."  Not because I'm "chicken," but because I don't have the time to properly concentrate on what I need to say (I'm working) to flesh it out as well as it deserves.  Suffice it to say, you would more or less agree with me by the end of my five pages...I've thought of every person you mentioned in your post quoted.

[Cyber Liberty]

You have resorted to personal insults because you lost the Bible debate.