Random Politics & Religion #14

I...am afraid to ask, but that's all there was to it?

No specifics? No "his promise to deregulate resource extraction to create jobs will cause more pollution?"

Just "more jobs = more pollution?"

Witness the full power of this liberal indoctrination station...

THIS is prejudice.

Yeah. Simply put, the caller was not the brightest crayon in the box. She sounded like a teenager, but I'm not sure.

You're really, really good at the things you make fun of liberal whiners for doing.

Oi.

Precisely because it isn't equal for all.

It never will be with a victim culture that enjoys the benefits.

Based on affluence yeah. But being born to a rich black family shouldn't get more perks in life than being born in a poor white family. They're basing it off of your gender or skin color instead of the actual opportunity of monetary family wealth. The minority, gender thing is *** meaningless vs. whether a family is dirt poor or rich.

The additional insults are unnecessary and beneath you.

Reality is that you can't force equality in all ways and in trying too hard we sometimes overcompensate in this country.

It is not "playing the victim" to take advantage of the legal/legislative landscape and then get upset when the landscape changes.

If it were every billionaire in this country plays the victim every time a tax regulation changes that previously benefitted them.

I'm not familiar with whatever piece of legislation was voted down but these programs normally take income into account. I've seen plenty of grant opportunities for minorities that I wouldn't qualify for because of this.

It wasn't an insult. It's a reality. I never specified an exact culture (it isn't just the ones that you immediately assumed I was referring to), and it's basic sociology. If the benefits outweigh the perceived inequality, those receiving said benefits are incentivized to ensure that the perception never changes.

I want to clarify on this a bit more because it's actually kind of bothering me.

You claim that I am displaying prejudice saying there is no non-religious basis for denying homosexual couples all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples, but I would like to know your reasoning.

Am I being prejudice against religion? Am I forcing them into same-sex marriages, to perform them, or to acknowledge them religiously?

Am I making them accept homosexuality as part of their own lives in any way?

Inversely, there is no non-religious argument that validates denying homosexual couples full equivalence under the law. To do so is to violate their rights because you do not like them. That is prejudice.

The only conceivable argument (heh, conceivable) is that they cannot produce natural offspring, but in that case you're arguing that my own heterosexual marriage isn't valid because neither can my wife and I. Soooo.

Let me have it if you can, but I really don't see any viable solution you have to establishing the one man/one woman marriage standard without evoking religious tradition/doctrine.

Fair enough, but in my defense given he's going on about laws regarding a few very specific groups, it wasn't the most inconceivable assumption.

Either way, my mistake.

Not gonna lie, depending on how much I'm multitasking I don't always respond based on the specifics of the conversation and sometimes take it back to a more macro level with a generalized comment. It wasn't a terrible assumption on your part.

I'm not sure either. We now have a racist nominated for AG. Awesome. Hopefully the Senate takes him to task.

Perhaps someone hasn't been following the conversation today. Do you have anything to base this off of besides a bad joke from decades ago, or can I safely assume this this is another yawnworthy buzzword?

/laughs until tears form

thanks for that

Reading these last few pages feels like a chore and you know how I feel about chores !

Visual form of FFXIAH:

Our we still outraged what's next price of turkey sky rocket do to Trump !

Due *

Word is Trump is settling with the plaintiffs of the Trump U case.

According to Trump he never settles (though court records indicate otherwise).

This is why liberals lost the election, instant reality warping effect.

Trump never proposed to ban Muslims or to require all Muslims be on a "registry". Those were words put into his mouth be a media wanting to project him as evil. Specifically Trump proposed additional screening for non-US citizens (aka immigrants) coming in from countries who have governments or are predisposed to being unfriendly to the USA. Those countries just happen to be primary Muslim and that is where everyone grabbed on. They would want to track those individuals to ensure they aren't spreading Islamic extremeism or causing problems in the USA. MOST LIBERAL EUROPEAN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES ALREADY DO THIS.

But because this is the USA, somehow we're expected to not protect our borders and instead allow unrestricted access to all those future-democrat voters umm "people". Most American see and understand this, those living inside the liberal reality warping bubble don't and only see what they are told to see. Just like the "Hillary will easily win this election" line.

The whole gay marriage blah blah thing is just the "Religious Democrats" continuing to do what they've done for over a century. Hell just a few decades ago they were the Southern Democrats pushing for all sorts of bat ***crazy stuff, ended up defecting because they didn't like the civil rights movement.

- Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union

Who here is advocating against immigration law?

Don't you advocate against voter ID?

Why do you think we advocate for it? Specifically so we can't make sure people who aren't suppose to vote (like Il-legals) don't vote.

I don't recall making any such accusation. Guilty conscience?

Wrong.

It was a press release during his campaign during the primaries.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration



That's a call for a ban.

In November that year he said he would certainly implement a Muslim Registry if elected to the White House.

Those were his words, people took issue when those words fell on their ears. It has nothing to do with the media projecting an image.

Though what could be said about the people defending his words and attacking people who took offense?