http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/03/pro-abortion-protesters-outside-supreme-court-are-asked-when-does-life-begin-and-they-give-brutally-honest-answers/
I have no idea if he specific people in this video are Christian, christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
What does matter is that there are thousands of people who identify as Christian, many of them in ordained pastoral leadership positions or in positions of leadership of Mainline Christian denominations who support this kind of thing. They support it with their lips, with their votes, and with their dollars. They use their positions of authority to advocate for it.
So, let's talk about Christians who support this horrific practice which targets those who are in the most literal sense, "the least of these", and which has resulted in disproportionate numbers of children of color being aborted.
If you've even seen a sonogram of an abortion, you'd see terror of the most horrific kind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Dan,
I know your knee jerk reaction will be to dismiss this out of hand simply because of the source. But you have to consider the possibility that sources you don't like are not automatically objectively wrong all the time.
Dan,
One other note. It's interesting to me that this support for abortion with fewer restrictions and safeguards comes from groups with which you identify.
1. The Progressive christian movement (you have certainly proudly called your self a progressive christian and associated your self with issues where progressive christians are engaged)
2. The progressive or liberal side of the political aisle.
In much the same way your affiliations connect you to groups and states that owned slaves and oppressed blacks, you also choose to associate yourself with those who advocate for abortion.
Interesting.
Bullshit, Craig. My side is not the side that defends slavery and racism. That would be the conservatives of the day. My side (the Anabaptists, the Quakers) were the leaders in fighting against slavery.
When you wallow in shit, Craig, you only get it on yourself.
I say that without malice, only to correct a false claim made by you. And you and I agree that lying is wrong, so perhaps you'll want to retract the nutty claim.
Interesting.
Bullshit. The KKK was a founded by Democrats. The Democrats elected (over and over) a KKK member. What political party was the segregation party, the Democrats. Who lives in a state that was a slave state, you.
I don't think that you can deny that you are a southern Democrat. I certainly don't think you can deny the post civil war history of segregation, and terror that stems from the Democrat political party. History is a bitch, isn't it.
"When you wallow in shit, Craig, you only get it on yourself."
Thank god I'm not the one with all the problematic associations then.
Yes, by conservative democrats. But who became the party of racism and opposition to civil rights? The Republicans.
Again, the facts are, "my people" were/are the Quakers and Anabaptists, the leaders in the fight against racism and slavery. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
You mean the republicans party that was the deciding block in passing all of the civil rights legislation in the 60's, those.
While you may claim that your people are Quakers and Anabaptist (despite all you disagree on), the fact remains the the party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of institutionalized segregation, of the KKK, and of fighting against civil rights legislation is the party you choose to associate with. Once again, history is a bitch.
Once again, your understanding is lacking, Craig. Parties change. Citing what the group known as Democrats 150 years ago did and suggesting that this is the same as the Dems of today is just irrational and not supported by reality.
The facts are this:
By and large, historically speaking, it was conservative and religious traditionalist peoples supported slavery, supported racism, supported denying the vote to women and black folk, supported oppression of gay folk. Still support the oppression of women and gay folk at least in some circles (Donald Trump rallies, for instance?). Despite your nutty innuendo, those are NOT liberals at Trump rallies, pushing black women around and calling them N*****s and C****s.
Let's try this, Craig: 500 years ago, the group you identify with (Protestants) were killing and torturing other Christians, therefore, that is what Protestants are about - killing and torturing those with whom they disagree.
By your graceless measure, that is what protestants - and by extension, YOU - are about.
OR, you could recognize that groups evolve and times change.
Your call.
Ordinarily I might agree with you, but since you are so fond of broad brushing and blaming individuals for what others who you consider associated with that person thinks, i am simply using the same measure you do.
The problem you have is that the history is the history. You can't escape the fact that the party you chose to associate yourself with was they party that harbored a leader of the KKK and continued to elect him to public office. You can't escape the fact that Bill Clinton cited William Fullbright and Orville Fabus as his "mentors". You can't escape the fact that a Democrat raised the Confederate flag over the South Carolina capitol and a Republican took it down. You cast votes for and are prepared to vote for both someone who was "mentored" by segregationists, as well as someone who married the man mentored by segregationists.
This isn't ancient history, It's within the last 20 years.
Look, repeat the talking points all you want, but the history is the history and as long as you deny it you'll just look foolish.
Once again, you have to go back hundreds of years ago (as well as to a group you also identify with), to counter something that is happening much more recently.
I do recognize that times evolve, I also recognize that denying the reality of the past (especially the recent past) saps ones credibility.
Funny.
You do realize the the Huguenots were both Protestant and Calvinist don't you?
"Funny."
Yes, your hypocrisy and lack of consistency are usually pretty amusing, this thread is no different.
You also realized that the Huguenots apparently thought kidnapping was an appropriate way to get what they wanted.
It's interesting, so far, as I have been doing some research to refresh my knowledge of this period in history I haven't been able to find any instances of other protestants persecuting the French Calvinist Huguenots. I found instance of Calvin himself helping them, but no mention of the Calvinist Huguenots being persecuted by other Calvinists.
Is it possible that you could be mistaken? Speaking about some other "persecution'? Could provide some more detail as to what specifically you are talking about.
So far all I can find is that Catholic France (The civil government not directly the RCC) went back and forth on the issue of granting and rescinding religious freedom for non Catholics, which had the result of persecution for all protestants not just the Calvinists (although Calvinists were the majority of protestants in France).
There may be something specific to Geneva where there was an unholy alliance between the church and the civil government, but I just am not seeing what you are suggesting.
You do realize the the Huguenots were both Protestant and Calvinist don't you?
Of course. What does that have to do with anything?
What is funny is your hypocrisy in wanting to allow that YOUR groups have evolved, but suggest that somehow, the GOP (which manages to get about 1-10% of the black vote in the US) is somehow the "true" party of those poor black folks who would vote for you if they just knew better. When you make those sorts of suggestions, you come across as patronizing, ignorant and, yes, racist. Just ask your black friends (and not the tiny minority that happen to agree with you).
Is it possible that you could be mistaken? Speaking about some other "persecution'? Could provide some more detail as to what specifically you are talking about.
Yes, by all means, read your history to refresh your memory. No, of course the Huguenots were not persecuted by Protestants. But the anabaptist were. As I have been saying repeatedly. You are aware of this persecution, are you not? You are aware of John Calvin himself advocating for violence and torture of anabaptists?
So, to directly answer your question, NO, I am not mistaken. Perhaps you are misunderstanding, but I am not mistaken and hopefully you now see where you error lies.
Well when you get all worked up abut the Protestants oppressing the Huguenots, I have to wonder if you had made some sort of error as the Huguenots were also protestants.
As an aside, I seem to recall an instance where you indicated that Calvinist thought was heresy, is that correct?
"What is funny is your hypocrisy in wanting to allow that YOUR groups have evolved, but suggest that somehow, the GOP (which manages to get about 1-10% of the black vote in the US) is somehow the "true" party of those poor black folks who would vote for you if they just knew better. When you make those sorts of suggestions, you come across as patronizing, ignorant and, yes, racist. Just ask your black friends (and not the tiny minority that happen to agree with you)."
Look, the recent history of the two parties on civil rights issues is the history. If you want to deny history, go right ahead. As to why the black population votes overwhelmingly Democrat, if your honest you'll admit that that is a complex and multifaceted subject. One which I don't have the time to detour into here.
But for the record. If the Democrats have been so wonderful to black Americans, explain why black unemployment has gotten worse over the last 7 years? Explain why black students in a a major metropolitan area (controlled by Democrats), in a school district (controlled by Democrats), in a State (controlled by Democrats) are doing so poorly (sub 60% graduation rate, Roughly 1/2 reading below grade level) do so poorly in the public schools? Oh, the public school district has one of the highest dollar per student ratios, and there are several private schools who take kids from the exact same neighborhoods (same demographic groups) and send 90% of their students to college?
The question is not why don't American blacks vote Republican, it's why do they vote Democrat given how their lot in life doesn't seem to get much better when Democrats run things.
Another aside. I think that what we are going to see over the next 5-7 years is that the (black) immigrant families will start to outperform the non immigrant black families both educationally and economically which seems like it will lead to tension between the two groups. Same caveat, too complex to discuss here.
"You are aware of this persecution, are you not? You are aware of John Calvin himself advocating for violence and torture of Anabaptists?"
"you now see where you error lies."
And this is why I asked for clarification. When you lumped the two groups together I was unable to find anything. Thank you for clarifying, I'll take a look. Perhaps if you were not so quick to look for errors, especially when I admitted that I wasn't sure what yo were specifically were referring to, it might make for a "nicer" conversation. I was confused, I asked for clarification, you adopted a less than helpful attitude.
Of course it still doesn't help you that every time you need an example you have to go further back into history.
Sorry, one more aside. Isn't it interesting that from the period before the Crusades through at least the renaissance (roughly) the Muslim nations were in many ways much more advanced and even "civilized' than Christian Europe. So, while Europe (and by extension the western world) got more civilized we see a decrease in religious persecution in the west along with an increasing standard of living and political freedom. The Muslim world (in many ways) was on an opposite trajectory, especially in the sense of increasing religious wars and persecution as well as significant drops in standard of living and personal freedom. Obviously it's a broad simplified overgenerization, but there is a fair degree of truth to it.
Like the other asides, we're not going to get involved with this in this thread. If you want to pursue any of them we can, just not here. There's too much going on already.
when you get all worked up abut the Protestants oppressing the Huguenots, I have to wonder if you had made some sort of error as the Huguenots were also protestants.
Of course, this didn't happen. You apparently have misunderstood something I said, because I never said that.
Do you understand now?
I seem to recall an instance where you indicated that Calvinist thought was heresy, is that correct?
Possibly, but if so, to make a point. I do not believe in heresy, at least not the way you guys do. But, by the measure your side tends to hold for heresy, I could see where some of Calvin's words/ideas certainly fit the bill... again, by the measure of fundamentalists.
I don't believe in heresy, not like that. Thanks for asking.
The question is not why don't American blacks vote Republican, it's why do they vote Democrat given how their lot in life doesn't seem to get much better when Democrats run things.
Why don't you ask some of your black Democrat friends and see what they tell you, rather than let me tell you what I've heard. Repeatedly. Over and over.
As to how black folk and the urban poor are doing, as you say, complex question, many reasons. Off topic here. Certainly nothing so simplistic as "they voted for Democrats," though.
"In need scarcely be said, that Roman Catholicism had always taken an attitude of intolerance and persecution toward all dissenters from its creed. On the contrary, the principal leaders in the Reformation movement, Luther and Zwingli, in the first period of their reformatory labors, condemned Romish intolerance. They were in the earlier period, defenders of the principle of liberty of conscience. Later they agreed to a thorough-going union of the church with the state, which meant the abandonment of the principle of religious liberty. Furthermore, the natural and inevitable consequence, was the persecution of the Anabaptists by the established Protestant state churches."
Just a quick point, if you notice the above, it reaffirms what I said earlier that much of this persecution was done by the authority of the state and not by church authorities. This does not excuse persecution on religious grounds, but points out the problems inherent when the church becomes too enmeshed with the state.
The other point I would make is that this was not solely a Protestant problem.
In short, it should be obvious that I find religious persecution wrong and do not endorse it. My sole point here is that the only way you can get any kind of persecution by christians is to go back hundreds of years. I've said this before, had you made this kind of thing your analogy (when given the opportunity) you would have had a much more apt analogy, not perfect, but better. Your problem is you chose poorly and doubled down on a bad analogy and forced yourself into more and more gyrations to defend it.
Ultimately where these both fail is that this sort of sectarian violence stopped in Christian civilization hundreds of years ago(I'd argue that the Ireland situation was less a religious issue and more a civil issue despite the labels of the sides), yet in the Muslim world it's just gotten worse over the last 1400 years. In the final analysis, that is the crux of the issue why have the "christian" nations moved in the direction they have while the Muslim nations moved in a different (almost opposite) direction.
My opinion is (in part) that Christianity has a mostly healthy strain of textural criticism and (post printing press/reformation)a pretty robust tradition of being able to interpret and critique the Bible that just doesn't exist in Islam. Christianity has adapted (for better and worse) to changing culture, Islam (for better or worse) has not.
Honestly, there is much I admire about the devotion the Muslim families I know have for their faith, their family, and their traditions. There is much about their faith and tradition I don't agree with, but I admire their commitment. The problem is that Islam is a religion based out of a 7th century (about) nomadic culture which has not adapted well to a more modern world. If Islam manages to peacefully make that transition, great. If not, who knows.
I'll close with this.
Which is a more attractive situation. To be a Christian living in a Muslim country or to be a Muslim living is a western secular (Christian) country.
Which would you choose?
"Do you understand now?"
As I pointed out previously in the part you must have missed, when you lumped together Huguenots and Anabaptists as your background then were not specific when you asked the follow up question, (" the group you identify with (Protestants) were killing and torturing other Christians,") Since you didn't specify which christians, I asked you to help me by clarifying which you meant which you (ungraciously) did. Had you exhibited a tiny bit of patience, you would have then read my follow up written after you clarified. I apologize that I was unable to comment, research and comment again before your snarky reply. Please forgive my slowness.
I'm curious why you would call a group of people heretics if you don't believe in heresy?
"Why don't you ask some of your black Democrat friends..."
Most of my black friends at this point are 1st generation immigrants and I doubt their response would have much value on this topic. Of my friends who are black and vote DFL,most of them are upper middle class/middle class suburban dwellers. Again, I'm not sure if their reasons help the discussion along.
"Certainly nothing so simplistic as "they voted for Democrats," though."
Then I'm fortunate I never suggested that or any other simplistic reason. In fact I said it was complex and too much for here.
The problem though still is, why has the lot of the urban non-immigrant black steadily gotten worse when Democrats have so much control of our large urban cities and counties? As far as I can see the Democrats have over promised and under delivered for the black constituency. It seems like there will probably come a point when black community leaders start to ask why things suck so bad, and why the Democrats haven't kept their promises. One last thought before I head to the airport.
There has been lots of uproar here about white cop/black suspect shootings. What I find interesting is that the BTL types blame "the system" or "systematic racism" for this kind of thing. But we live in a place where the Mayor, the City Council, the County government, the state legislature are all historically controlled by the DFL. For example the liberal lesbian female police chief (I'd say affirmative action at work, but she's been with the department for years), was appointed by the liberal female mayor and has been in office for long enough to have made systematic changes had she wanted. Anyway, when these folks blame "the system" or "systematic racism", the system they are blaming is and has been controlled by the DFL for years. So, why would a group blame "the system", then turn out in high numbers and vote to perpetuate the system they claim oppresses them.
I can't explain it, it many would accuse me of being a racist for even bringing it up, but seriously why would you continue to vote for the same people that control the "system" that you claim is racist? Or more simply. Why would urban blacks continue to vote for the same people/party that has repeatedly failed them? Whoever comes up with an answer for that is doing something right.
The reason I hear is because the GOP is the party that tolerates racists, that has many people who view black folk as lazy, stupid, dangerous, villains, thugs, etc. The party that has opposed civil rights, the party that is against them as a people. Not that they think every Republican is a racist, but that it tolerates it and too many are. Because it supports people like the white men at the Trump rally who were pushing a young black lady around and calling her sexist and racist epithets.
In my state of Kentucky, I can tell you first hand that they aren't mistaken.
I'm curious why you would call a group of people heretics if you don't believe in heresy?
Because they believed the anabaptists (and others) were heretics.
Also, many black folk I hear from/know personally vote Democrat because they believe in the values of the Democrat party, overall (recognizing the Dems as terribly flawed at the same time) and it's not all about what benefits them, but the values involved.
"The reason I hear is because the GOP is the party that tolerates racists, that has many people who view black folk as lazy, stupid, dangerous, villains, thugs, etc. The party that has opposed civil rights, the party that is against them as a people."
So apparently the people you hear from aren't really concerned about the reality of the situation, but about whatever they've been told by Democrats.
Sorry, that's just a "crap log" of talking points.
Facts, none of the civil rights legislation passed in the 60's would have passed without Republicans.
Democrats also tolerate racists. I've pointed out a few instances already.
Of course if one takes your explanation seriously one is led to conclude that even though there is current, active, oppression and failure to improve the conditions of urban black voters under "systems" historically and currently controlled by white democrats, blacks prefer that oppressive "system" filled with "systemic racism" run by Democrats to even a tiny possibility that things might be different under Republicans, Libertarians, or Independents.
You can think that all you want, but you realize how insane it sounds, don't you.
Now, you response might sound less insane if you had ignored my specific real world example and decided to make something else up instead.
"In my state of Kentucky, I can tell you first hand that they aren't mistaken."
So, are you stating the above as factual based on your knowledge of the state of Kentucky?
"Because it supports people like the white men at the Trump rally who were pushing a young black lady around and calling her sexist and racist epithets."
By all means, let's take the rational approach of blaming an entire political party for something based on one single incident involving a small number (less that 10?) of unidentified people about whom nobody knows anything. Do you realize how superficial, shallow and irrational that sounds?
Who were those people?
What happened to them after the incident?
Were they thrown out of the rally?
Were they arrested?
Were they Republicans?
Were they Libertarians?
Were they Democrats?
Were they affiliated with any political party?
Has it been proven that their motivation was racism?
When you say that black people do not care about reality, you are saying either that they are immoral, stupid or both... Do you see now why that sort of comment, you come across as racist?
About your question about kentucky, I am saying factually speaking I know first hand about racists in kentucky. Racists who belong to the GOP.
Regarding your estimate that over 65% of the GOP is opposed to the sort of racist, misogynistic policies and campaign of Trump, that still leaves you with a sizeable minority of people who support those sorts of words and that kind of policy.
Are there racists within the Democratic Party? I'm sure, but they are a tiny minority, they are not propped up or supported or courted or encouraged, and when they do raise their heads we are clear that this is not part about the Democratic Party will stand for. We're not saying they can't vote, just that we don't want their votes.
When the GOP starts doing that, they may begin to make some headway with minorities, but as long as there's a sizable majority - 10, 20 30% - the GOP will be suspect.
At some point, you need to begin to question what is it about our policies that attract racists and the crazies?
"When you say that black people do not care about reality, you are saying either that they are immoral, stupid or both... Do you see now why that sort of comment, you come across as racist?"
Neither, but thanks so much for trying to put words in my mouth and imply that I am racist.
I can't believe that you would disagree with the proposition that for anyone to ignore reality and to act on something contrary to reality is not a healthy way to act. Although you do it, so maybe you won't.
As always, you are mistaken in your understanding of my positions. Please, though, explain: what are you saying about nearly all black folk when they refuse to vote GOP?
And, seeing as how you are deleting my comments, I will assume you are not interested in me commenting here, so I'm done.
"About your question about kentucky, I am saying factually speaking I know first hand about racists in kentucky. Racists who belong to the GOP."
OK, lets talk facts, since you claim to know them.
1, How many racists exist in Kentucky?
2. How many of those racists are conservative?
3. How many of those racists are registered Republican?
4. How many of those racists vote Republican?
5. How many of those racists are registered Democrats?
6. How many of those racists vote Democrat?
Until, you can provide the above answers, I fail to see how you can assert factual claims about every racist or Republican in Kentucky.
It's interesting that you chose to capitalize "racist", yet chose not to capitalize either "Republican" or "Kentucky".
"Regarding your estimate that over 65% of the GOP is opposed to the sort of racist, misogynistic policies and campaign of Trump, that still leaves you with a sizeable minority of people who support those sorts of words and that kind of policy."
1. Do you understand what an estimate is?
2. Can you provide any sort of proof that the 35% of people voting for Trump are:
a) All republicans?
b) Not Democrats in open primaries?
c) All explicitly support the things he says that offend you?
It's interesting that you are willing to excuse anything Hilary has done (including racist statements and misogyny) by blithely suggesting she's a "flawed human being", yet insist on attacking Trump and his supporters with such vitriol. Clearly these are also just flawed human beings. Don't they deserve to be treated with just a smidgen of this grace you often talk about but rarely exhibit?
"Are there racists within the Democratic Party? I'm sure, but they are a tiny minority, they are not propped up or supported or courted or encouraged, and when they do raise their heads we are clear that this is not part about the Democratic Party will stand for."
Please provide the facts to support this claim. The fact that racists have represented the Democratic party for years, mentored the Clintons, and are sought for endorsement even today would suggest otherwise.
"At some point, you need to begin to question what is it about our policies that attract racists and the crazies?"
I've always wondered that about Democrat policies.
As for the GOP, in the case of Trump he has virtually zero serious policy proposals to be supported. Unless of course you count the millions of dollars he's donated to support Democrat candidates, causes, and policies. But, as the longer you can ignore that reality, the longer you can spew self righteous vitriol.
"And, seeing as how you are deleting my comments, I will assume you are not interested in me commenting here, so I'm done."
If I've deleted any of your comments, the only ones I've deleted are duplicates. But please feel free to, once again, over react to your mistake.
If I ever delete one of your comments, you will have plenty of warnings and I will let you know specifically what it is that will cause you comments to be deleted.
So, if you are really so interested in every single duplicate comment being left, I can. I was just trying to help.
But, again, go right ahead and overreact and use your mistake as an excuse to run off. If I didn't want you to comment, I wouldn't continue to answer your questions, respond to your points, and ask you questions for you to ignore.
Show grace much?
"As always, you are mistaken in your understanding of my positions. Please, though, explain: what are you saying about nearly all black folk when they refuse to vote GOP?"
And as always, you refuse to answer the questions I ask so that I can better understand your positions. Of course given the second part of the above, I am forced to conclude that either you don't understand my positions, or you just decide to make up what you'd like my position to be.
To be explicit and clear. I did not say anything about nearly all black folk. It simply did not happen.
I did say that anyone (regardless of skin color) who chooses to make decisions that are not based on reality, but based on perception, are not choosing the best decision making methodology.
So, as usual, stay or run, I don't care that much. Eventually you will make up some excuse that you think gives you the moral superiority to stalk away in high dudgeon leaving (as usual) a significant amount of things responded to and questions unanswered in your wake. If you want to have your excuse be something totally made up, it wouldn't be the first time.
Sorry about that, I thought you were deleting actual comments. My apologies.
As to the GOP/conservative problem with Trump, the data shows:
1. As indicated in exit polls in the GOP primary in S. Carolina, Trump supporters were moderate to very conservative - not liberals - and evangelicals, not progressives;
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/20/us/south-carolina-primary-exit-poll.html
2. He is NOT running as a Democrat, nor is he promoting Democrat-supported planks. He is offering very conservative ideals that very conservative people are rallying behind - building a fence, "making Mexico pay," not allowing in refugees, not allowing in Muslims, defunding planned parenthood, abortions must stop, cut the EPA and Dept of Education, wishy washy on gay rights, pro-death penalty, "climate change is a hoax" (in 2015, he appears wishy washy on this topic, too), drill baby drill, "no limits on guns," etc, etc - these are not progressive or Democrat ideals. Those who suggest Trump is just a liberal or Democrat or just peddling false claims;
3. Evangelical, conservative Christians have been very excited by and supportive of Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-evangelicals-poll-218210
http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article64402837.html
This man is not running as a progressive, nor is he getting the votes of progressives. He is not a Democrat. Now, I feel sorry for the more reasonable sects of the GOP, clearly they do not want this man to be their nominee. BUT, a significant portion of the GOP's conservative, evangelical base - give or take 30-35% - DOES support him.\
Those are the facts, according to the data. Any attempt to suggestion that Trump is a progressive or a Democrat or has the support of progressive Democrats is just wishful thinking, at best, and an outright false claim at worse. You've got to own your candidates and those conservatives who, in significant numbers, support him.
The GOP has a problem with its base and that's not a liberal Democrat problem. Agreed?
In case you are not clear, the above is to address your questions here...
OK, lets talk facts, since you claim to know them.
1, How many racists exist in Kentucky?
2. How many of those racists are conservative?
3. How many of those racists are registered Republican?
4. How many of those racists vote Republican?
5. How many of those racists are registered Democrats?
6. How many of those racists vote Democrat?
It's not a direct answer, because your questions all have nothing to do with what I actually said. You will note that I never said I know how many racists exist in Kentucky. I don't know that nor does anyone. So, there is no need to answer that other than the self-evident "no one knows..." but that is so blindingly obvious that I wouldn't answer it for fear of insulting your intelligence.
The same is true for all the other questions. No one knows the answers to those questions IS the answer to those questions. And the questions are rather irrelevant since the answer is self-evident to all reasonable people and because I made no such claims to somehow know what is unknown and unknowable.
What I said is that I and my black friends here in Kentucky know that conservative racists are a reality because we know them personally, first hand. Not ALL of them, but some of them.
you can provide the above answers, I fail to see how you can assert factual claims about every racist or Republican in Kentucky.
You DO understand (at least now, I hope) that I made no assertions about knowing facts about every racist in Kentucky, don't you? Do you recognize that the question is insulting in its false claim? Not insulting to me, personally, but insulting to the intelligence of your readers, as clearly, I made no such claims.
"Sorry about that, I thought you were deleting actual comments. My apologies."
For what?
For not demonstrating grace and self control?
For jumping to a conclusion and reacting to an assumption that does not reflect the reality of the situation?
For making this a habit?
Or for getting caught doing something where you were so unquestionably wrong that you had no possible way to spin it as a "typo" or some other excuse.
As you have pointed out, since you don't read everything, you tend to over react.
"He is NOT running as a Democrat, nor is he promoting Democrat-supported planks."
He does support funding for Planned Parenthood and for abortion.
He does support the nomination of liberal SCOTUS justices.
He has been a Democrat and supported Democrat candidates for much longer than he has been a Republican.
Look, I get that he's chosen to be GOP this time out, but you can't continue to deny the reality of who this guy is.
I have to admit that it's fascinating to watch you try to smear ever single Republican with this broad brush, guilt by association, while jumping through hoop after hoop to avoid admitting the racist history of the Democrat party. It's amusing.
The facts are.
1. Trump has not ever gotten a majority in any primary or caucus.
2. 2/3 of the votes cast in Republican primaries/caucuses have been against Trump.
3. Trump has no where near enough delegates to secure the nomination.
4. In closed primaries Trump does much worse than in open primaries.
5. Voters who make up their mind in the week before the primary/caucus are much more likely to vote against Trump.
So, keep up the broad brush, guilt by association, smear tactics. Just stop whining when people use your tactics against you.
"The GOP has a problem with its base and that's not a liberal Democrat problem. Agreed?"
Not at all. The liberal democrats have enough of their own problems.
"In case you are not clear, the above is to address your questions here..."
In case you are not clear, it's not a direct answer because it is not in response to a question. You did not ask a question, you made a statement. In fact, you insisted that you were "factually speaking". So, just so you know, there is no answer required when no question is asked, do you understand that simple remedial grammar lesson?
So, when you claimed that you were "speaking factually", you were claiming that what you were saying was :
" 1.of or relating to facts; concerning facts:
factual accuracy.
2.based on or restricted to facts:
a factual report."
So given your explicit and repeated claims of "speaking factually", it seems quite reasonable for me to explore what the exact facts your claim is "relating to" or is "concerning", or what facts your claim is "based on" or "restricted to".
Do you understand that when you repeatedly make a claim as "speaking factually", that you might be asked to produce the facts you claim to have?
Do you understand that a statement does not require an answer?
"The same is true for all the other questions. No one knows the answers to those questions IS the answer to those questions."
Of course, you are correct. The problem you have is that in order to make a claim where you are "speaking factually" you would have to know the answers to those questions in order to make the claim you made. But since you don;t know the answers, that means that your claim (repeated more than once), cannot in any way shape of form be literally "speaking factually". For you to be "speaking factually", you would actually need to:
1. Have facts.
2. Be able to provide those facts.
3. Be able to demonstrate that the facts you have and can provide are accurate.
Since you can do none of the above, it seems you are up the unsanitary tributary without the proverbial means of motivation.
I suspect that you can, and might want to delete the above comment so as to hide the colossal stupidity that you've demonstrated. That's fine with me, but I'm going to leave it right there.
Clearly then you are not understanding my words. what is it exactly that you THINK I said?
"About your question about kentucky, I am saying factually speaking I know first hand about racists in kentucky. Racists who belong to the GOP."
That's what I think you said, I think so because you said it.
So, where are the facts your assumption is based on?
FYI< I talked to some people is not going to cut it.
What I said, Craig, is that there ARE RACISTS in KENTUCKY. I know this as a point of fact, because I have first hand knowledge.
Further, I know that these racists are conservatives and evangelical/fundamentalists.
I do NOT need to know the number of racists in Kentucky to know that racists exist.
What are you failing to understand?
Re: "I talked to some people" not "cutting it." Well, first hand knowledge is one way of knowing something as a fact. That I talk with, know/have known, have relatives and loved ones, neighbors, co-workers, etc who are racist and conservative is not in dispute in the real world, even if I can't link to a website to demonstrate it.
Just yesterday, I was speaking with a neighbor who freely admitted/called himself a racist after making a disparaging remark about Mexicans. This is a conservative man. It's a fact.
Are you seriously suggesting that you somehow know that there are no racists in Kentucky who are conservative? Because you would truly have no credibility if you were to make that claim.
You know that the KKK is alive and growing, right? You know that they tend to be right wing/conservative Christians, right?
Today the White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan use quotes from the Bible as well as examples from world history to support their beliefs. As this group attempts to define Christian identity they give reasons why white Christians are a superior people. They state that “it is the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian people that has created great nations and civilizations. Through our laws and technology we have helped raise the standard of living for all the people on earth. Through our great knowledge in farming and agriculture we have helped feed the world and have taught others how to feed themselves.“ This belief provides for the Klansman his sense of racial superiority.
The Camelia Knights state that they look to Christ’s own words to defend their opinions. They quote Jesus as saying to the Jews in John 10:24-27: “ye are not of my sheep…My sheep here my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” The Knights add that there is only one group of people that has always followed Christ and they are White Anglo-Saxon Christians.
http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm
I have no idea what it is you think you are objecting to, but your words are not making sense in connection with what I've said.
"What are you failing to understand?"
Not a thing.
"Well, first hand knowledge is one way of knowing something as a fact."
In the abstract you may be right. However there are problems with you citing "I talked to some anonymous people and here is what they said", and then trying to extrapolate that beyond the scope of the people you've contacted. For example, you have been trying t extrapolate "I know some racists in KY" out to broad brush those who support Trump even though you cannot prove that the 5 (or whatever) racists you know are representative.
Here are the problems you have in citing "I talked to some people" as a fact.
1. The statement cannot be verified by any reasonable means in this context.
2. You have no way to know if you are being told the truth when people say things to you. No aspersions, it's just a fact that it is impossible to empirically verify that someone is telling you the truth.
3. It's anonymous.
4. It's an appeal to numbers (which you claim is a logical fallacy)
5. You cannot logically extrapolate your experience out beyond the people involved. While your experience may be accurate and people might be telling you the truth, that has no meaning beyond the immediate group.
6. We have no way of objectively knowing of you are accurately representing what people told you. Again, no aspersions.
While it is theoretically possible for me to come there and interview people, it's not practical and there is no way to know if the people being interviewed are the same ones you are talking about now. As I've said many times before anecdote has it's place, but the limits must be understood.
So, I'm not making claims about anyone's honesty, I'm just saying that offering hearsay as "proof" in this context is stupid and a waste of time.
"Are you seriously suggesting that you somehow know that there are no racists in Kentucky who are conservative?"
You're the one making claims about racists in KY, not me. I don't know or care. You made it an issue, and I'm simply trying to ascertain how much objective knowledge you actually posses about racists in KY.
"You know that the KKK is alive and growing, right? You know that they tend to be right wing/conservative Christians, right?"
Really, Robert Byrd a "right wing conservative"?
I know that you've offered an out of context quote from something I haven't examined yet so I'll reserve judgement.
Back on topic.
Earlier, you bitched about, but didn't explain what would make African American Urban voters continue to vote for the same people who are in charge of the racist and oppressive systems that they protest against, as well as why they voted against their own self interest. Your response was incredibly substantive. You suggested that I appeared racist, and we all know how helpful it is when you throw out veiled hints and accusations about racism instead of offering substance. So, lets look at another instance where liberal Democrats vote for and support things that are not in their own interests.
The MN legislative session just opened and one item on the agenda is extended unemployment benefits for those in the mining industry who have lost their jobs due to various problems in the iron/steel industry. The problem is that these union miners (and that entire region of the state) vote consistently and reliably DFL election. Now our doddering DFL governor is advocating for extended unemployment benefits while preventing new mines from opening up so these miners could actually get jobs.
Maybe, if you'd spend less time making unsupported generalizations about racism (while ignoring racism in your own party, both historically and currently) we wouldn't have gone so far astray. In the future maybe either restrict your comments to things you can demonstrate to be true, or make clear that you are offering opinion when you make declarative statements.
unfortunately, Craig, you appear to be delusional and simply unable to understand my actual words. Good luck.
OK, I read your link.
1. It's 13 years old.
2. All of the reference materials cited date before 1994
3. I saw no indications of any actual numerical data regarding membership.
4. Even if such data was included that could theoretically be made is that the KKK was growing 13-14 years ago.
5. The link to the WCKKK website was a link to a security alert.
So far you have 5 strikes against your claim.
I did find an actual website, and I thin it's safe to say that it's a stretch to call these folks Christian. Specifically, they reject the OT. Honestly their "focus" on interpreting everything through the lens of Jesus, sounds a lot like what you claim are the hermenutics of Anabaptists. It's obviously not an attempt to draw an equivalence, but there is s certain similarity. But I'd think that anyone who reads their beliefs would be hard pressed to call their beliefs Orthodox or honestly even christian. I realize that they claim to be Christians, but so do an increasing number of progressive Christians who deny the existence of God, dismiss most of the words attributed to Christ, deny that Jesus had any sort of special (let alone divine) attributes.
It's also interesting that there doesn't seem to be any political aspect to the website at all. Maybe it's possible that your assumptions about the monolithic nature of this group are unfounded.
I guess that old saying seems appropriate here.
Walking into a church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than walking into a garage makes you a car.
As I've noted elsewhere, which you haven't helped me to understand. It's hard to respond accurately when the term "Christian" means so many different things to so many different people. It's also hard when you have all sorts of people who identify as Christian while not really explaining what that means to them.
For example.
I would suggest that anyone who denies the existence of God, and the Biblical record of Jesus is not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.
So if all you want to do is continue this guilt by association, I guess I can't stop you, but it just seems like a waste of time to invest so much effort into smearing broad groups of people without any real factual data to support it.
I would amend that to say, not delusional, but just so blinded by your cultural biases that you are unable to see clearly.
Peace.
(Suggested reading material: research Dixiecrats, conservatism and kkk... Again, good luck)
Why, because actually doing research, pointing out problems with your "study", and not just accepting what you offer blindly is delusional.
After a brief amount of research, it is clear that to simply accept what you offered would have been delusional.
It also appears that you are suffering from the delusion that you should not have done more research.
It also appears that you are suffering from the delusion that anyone who disagrees with you (no matter what the evidence shows)is delusional as it allows you to ignore the flaws in your arguments and preserve your self image.
As for your suggested reading material, if it's a poorly thought out as your last link and undermines your points, then it might be worth looking at) but since your last one was such a joke...
Look, live in your delusion all you want, I don't care, I'll stick with the facts.
Yes I deleted your comment. Yes the concept of making only one of the same comments seems to be challenging you.
Dan,
Before I pick up on my plan to answer/re answer all of your questions despite what you choose to do.
I have to note that in your very first comment, you immediately took this post off topic and have managed to keep it there ever since.
Well played, nicely dodged.
"My side is not the side that defends slavery and racism."
But it is on the side of defending unrestricted abortion.
'But who became the party of racism and opposition to civil rights?'
Good question. I'd suggest that a party that keeps a KKK member in the Senate for decades and has one of it's recent presidents mentored by segregationists, welcomes Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan isn't the best example.
"Despite your nutty innuendo, those are NOT liberals at Trump rallies, pushing black women around and calling them N*****s and C****s."
Only in your world would you think it's rational to demonize large groups of people by the actions of a tiny group on the fringe. But that's par for the course from the left.
I believe that this concludes my exercise of answering all of your questions in recent threads.
If, at some point, you could find it in yourself to answer one or two of mine I would be grateful. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Post a Comment