***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[wavycrocket]

That part

 

[RustyShackleford]

There are many reasons to not trust the Minister. One of them was his dabbling in dianetics, which I found comical. Also, there is a lacking of spiritual depth to the teachings that he espouses, as it has no connection to aspire toward, outside of Elijah Muhammad. I also understand why people may find him to be a bigot, but his bigotry is indeed justified, just as is the distrust of white people for many Black generations before him.

The man has seen things, experienced things, in other countries in regard to the battle for world domination through white supremacy. In what he says about what he has witnessed, and then how the wheel moves?

I consider his honesty above many with his world view.

I am sorry but there is no way I am going to believe that telling people that homosexuality is result of chemical reactions that it being spread by government scientist as a way to chemically castrate African American is justified.

Mistrust in the government maybe justified, the bigotry adding onto it is not. How should a gay black person take his words? They feel they are living as their true self and this black leader is telling them their sexuality is just a result of a secret government biological attack, or some "evil Jews" tricking them with media.

My issue with dude is that he uses valid points about racism as an entry point to spew other nonsense. I can't respect that, I can't excuse that, dude needs to do better.

Even if someone wanted to put aside the hypocrisy, conspiracy theories, and other nonsense directed at non black people, dude still indirectly ****s on a ton of innocent black people too.

 

[niketalker23]

LETS GET IT

 

[KHUFU]

I am sorry but there is no way I am going to believe that telling people that homosexuality is result of chemical reactions that it being spread by government scientist as a way to chemically castrate African American is justified.

Mistrust in the government maybe justified, the bigotry adding onto it is not.

My issue with dude is that he takes uses valid points about racism as an entry point to spew other nonsense. I can't respect that, I can't excuse that, dude needs to do better.

Even if someone wanted to excuse the hypocrisy, conspiracy theories, and other nonsense directed at non black people, dude still indirectly ****s on a ton of innocent black people too.

I hear you, because I am across the street from him in many of his views. I do understand that spiritually, there are Gods and Goddesses that do not adhere to the physical laws being held here on this particular plane. The Daroga also used to use Gay men to mediate when there was beef between men and women, as it is thought that gay men encompass the energy of both male and female, so every one has a role in that society. This is why I stated that the Nation has no spiritual connection to aspire to, outside of Elijah.

With his comments toward the castration of Black males, he isn't lying. We can look at the syphilis experiments, and also the usage of Salt Peter against young Black men in the south, also in the military. Black men in the military during segregation did not eat the same cuisine as their white counterparts, as salt peter lowers your sex drive, which will control birth rates. His idea of homosexuality comes from the thought that a gay man cannot grow a nation, build one, because he does not want women. He views Lesbians the same way.

Why don't you get you a REAL man?!

His criticism of Black people truly comes from the Abrahamic/ Christian tradition of all people being born of sin, which is guilt link to bootstrap theology, of which the NOI espouses to the fullest.

I hear you though! I simply have a bit more patience with people like the Minister. Because they really, truly, do not know any other way to be. He does come off as a relic, but in seeing how the world has NOT changed? That relic does know a lot of secrets.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

this guy

 

[junglejim]

this guy

This sounds.......kinda familiar minus the whole believing in god thing

 

[IATT]

 

[Armada]

this guy

Reading the entirety of that article actually pained me...the foolishness of this man is next level

 

[IATT]

 

[whywesteppin]

geez. wow.







Obummer really ****** up this country.

Glad Trump is fixing it all.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[yobyellav]

at him learning less than 2 weeks ago. That isn’t Intel you sit on. He been knew that ****.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[IATT]

 

[Mark Antony]

this guy

I am willing to bet his children are vaccinated.

 

[Methodical Management]

You are actually the one creating a false dilemma. I am not saying to get rid of public funding for food to fund education. I am actually saying that we can do both, better.

What is this, the "I know you are but what am I" defense? Is that what your clients can expect?

You are literally suggesting that we reduce SNAP benefits by introducing term limits.

You then suggested we could use the "savings," (again, implying that you intend to REDUCE public spending on food assistance programs) to better fund education.

The funding saved with the term limits could be redirected to education to further help empower families in need.

Did I misquote you?


Somehow, you seem to think that refusing to guarantee SNAP benefits for those who need it will be "better" for everyone - but you fail to even explain the reasoning for this other than "people sometimes donate to charity."

We've already established that private donations too often shrink at times when the need for public food assistance programs swell. You have no counter for this, only glib, Ivanka-esque platitudes about "empowerment."

What leads you to believe that replacing guaranteed federal tax dollars with voluntary and vacillating private donations would better aid those who rely upon public food assistance programs to meet basic subsistence needs? Because Christian Children's Fund did such a great job ending world hunger? Because donors will be "more motivated" to give if we monstrously threaten to terminate food assistance for hungry children if they don't meet your arbitrary deadline? Because we, like Icarus, can't know for sure until we try? Because treating the plight of America's most vulnerable citizens as a fundraising appeal for the affluent to mull over between bites of salmon at a charity gala is more "empowering" than regarding it as our most basic obligation to fellow human beings in a society known throughout the world for its abundance?


You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that the private sector will not only pick up the slack without fail, but improve upon the program without any obligation.
You are armed purely with a "belief" that this is so.

That is not policy, it is a prayer.

 

[Upptempo]

To be fair, anytime she calls someone it's a robo call

 

[rexanglorum]

Term limits for public assistance are based on the premise that poor people are poor because of bad habits and by limiting lifetime benefits, poor people will be motivated to change their habits and become well off as a result.

It’s a sick joke when we realize that our political and economic system keeps people poor and that that system needs poor people and needs people in extreme poverty in order to function.

 

[IATT]

 

[aepps20]

This ad was Beautiful. Obummer and Joey were destroyed in this ad. That old guy at 1:01 clearly provoked those officers. BLUE LIVES MATTER

 

[whywesteppin]

I don't know why Bernie has to preface everything with a disclaimer. "While @JoeBiden and I, and our supporters, have strong disagreements about some of the most important issues facing our country" and "Though the end result isn't what I or my supporters would've written alone." I guess Deion can't help but dance.

We already know Prime Time is a far-left socialist, even an idiot like Trump knows that. You don't have to remind us of it every time you do something that's not extreme enough for your Bernie bros.

Anyway, I'm happy they're working together. This is great for the country and it's amazing that Biden is building a coalition that spans the far left all the way to the center right. He obviously can't do everything that everybody wants but I think we'll see that getting 50% of the way there is a big improvement for this country that could have an impact for generations to come. That's the optimistic view. Pessimistic view is he gets Trump out of office but doesn't do much, which is still a huge plus.

 

[hipstermike]

 

[dwalk31]

What is this, the "I know you are but what am I" defense? Is that what your clients can expect?

You are literally suggesting that we reduce SNAP benefits by introducing term limits.

You then suggested we could use the "savings," (again, implying that you intend to REDUCE public spending on food assistance programs) to better fund education.


Did I misquote you?


Somehow, you seem to think that refusing to guarantee SNAP benefits for those who need it will be "better" for everyone - but you fail to even explain the reasoning for this other than "people sometimes donate to charity."

We've already established that private donations too often shrink at times when the need for public food assistance programs swell. You have no counter for this, only glib, Ivanka-esque platitudes about "empowerment."

What leads you to believe that replacing guaranteed federal tax dollars with voluntary and vacillating private donations would better aid those who rely upon public food assistance programs to meet basic subsistence needs? Because Christian Children's Fund did such a great job ending world hunger? Because donors will be "more motivated" to give if we monstrously threaten to terminate food assistance for hungry children if they don't meet your arbitrary deadline? Because we, like Icarus, can't know for sure until we try? Because treating the plight of America's most vulnerable citizens as a fundraising appeal for the affluent to mull over between bites of salmon at a charity gala is more "empowering" than regarding it as our most basic obligation to fellow human beings in a society known throughout the world for its abundance?


You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that the private sector will not only pick up the slack without fail, but improve upon the program without any obligation.
You are armed purely with a "belief" that this is so.

That is not policy, it is a prayer.

You are right, aside from anecdotal evidence I can't prove or demonstrate how my belief will work.

I will assume, based on the way they were couched, that the questions in the large paragraph are rhetorical.

And as I conceded earlier, there is no real point in arguing personal beliefs.

But again, I am not arguing for a reduction to the recipients because I don't believe there will be a reduction in what the recipients receive--just a shift in the funding source.