A little education for our Maga/Alt-Right friends.

[Matt Dillon]

Aww, did I hurt your widdle feelings, gumby? Try to hold down the tantrums ... perhaps you shouldn't insert yourself into other's debates with a less than stellar intellectual skills? Whatever, you're fun to play with up to a point of boredom. Carry on.

If anyone lacks intellectual skills, it's you. After all, this IS your retarded no-content OP, bitch!
And you need one of these.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I agree. Those guys are loan sharks. Even Jesus Christ taught against such usury.

Jesus would whip them.

 

[Into the Night]

Jesus would whip them.

Jesus doesn't bother with a whip. He doesn't need one.

These loan sharks will have to face their own misery they caused. They cannot escape their fate.
Imagine the eternities knowing you so willingly caused so much pain and misery.
Imagine all those people you screwed hating you throughout their lives and beyond.

Nah. Jesus doesn't need a whip.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Jesus doesn't bother with a whip. He doesn't need one.

These loan sharks will have to face their own misery they caused. They cannot escape their fate.
Imagine the eternities knowing you so willingly caused so much pain and misery.
Imagine all those people you screwed hating you throughout their lives and beyond.

Nah. Jesus doesn't need a whip.

Or a millstone, He's God.

 

[Into the Night]

Or a millstone, He's God.

We provide our own millstones. Christ helps us to remove them. We can't remove them by ourselves. Imagine the awful weight these loan sharks carry.

Mathew 25:42 " For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment..."

Do you think a loan shark cares about the stranger in need? No.

 

[Matt Dillon]

We provide our own millstones. Christ helps us to remove them. We can't remove them by ourselves. Imagine the awful weight these loan sharks carry.

Mathew 25:42 " For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment..."

Do you think a loan shark cares about the stranger in need? No.

I get the feeling you're putting a negative on something that isn't, there.
No, it is like that. Well, that's what God says.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - King James Version

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Into the Night]

I get the feeling you're putting a negative on something that isn't, there.
No, it is like that. Well, that's what God says.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - King James Version

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their...

www.biblegateway.com

This passage describes those who care for the stranger in need, and their fate; and also describes those who refuse to care for the stranger in need, and their fate.

This is after the parable of the Ten Virgins.

 

[Matt Dillon]

This passage describes those who care for the stranger in need, and their fate; and also describes those who refuse to care for the stranger in need, and their fate.

This is after the parable of the Ten Virgins.

With the oil. I get it.
I was blessed and the woman that raised me taught all us kids about that.
Hell, she spent a day on it. Just to make sure.
Oh yeah, this summer day we're eating sliced watermelon out of a laundry tub filled with Ice, and it's the 10 virgins with the oil story.
Now THAT was education.
And that's how I grew up. And so did my cousins and friends.
One adult was in charge of all the kids around on some days, you know?
Sometimes it was just one older sister. That's how it was.
Not how it is now.

 

[WCM]

Someone explain to gumby here

Stop dodging the question.

I already proved that your OP was BS - your TikTok "evidence" didn't pass muster and I showed you exactly how and why "redline" maps were implemented, and showed that blacks were not discriminated against at all (receiving mtg help at 95% the rate of whites) - now I'm just proving how much of an idiot you are in general.

So I asked you a very basic question, that any reasonable adult could answer quite easily, and you ran like a child.

Why did you run away like a child, TaiChi? Your OP was thoroughly debunked, so now I'm just dealing with your pretty, childish accusations by proving how much of a lying weasel you are.

 

[QP!]

Along with reparations, what would you like to see done today regarding housing, zoning etc.?

While i am not for direct reparations, the idea DOES have merit based on the long US history of DIRECT gov't intervention to enrich and support white people as a group at the expense of black people with the goal of providing the opportunity to build generational wealth to the white group, while preventing the black group from doing same.

It simply is fact and history that is what was done starting with paying reparations to slave owners but not slaves, as if the owners were the victims, to Red lining and Voting power issues that continue today, and empowered by this current Supreme Court in a last ditch attempt to maintain the power balance.

The indirect reparations that i DO THINK are owed and should be paid, are significant investments in identifiable minority communities in both the public schools, State Colleges/Universities, and support programs for such.

This would be a recognition by the gov't that past transgressions, STILL IN PLAY TODAY, around generation wealth are largely unable to be made whole (as per the very nature of generational wealth), but current and future investments can help close that gap, the gov't helped create.

If gov't also wants to target impoverished white, mostly rural areas, fine, but that is a separate issue from this.

And from a purely pragmatic perspective i recognize that 'targeted programs to mostly black areas' would be far more difficult than instead focusing on 'just impoverished regardless of race' which would largely help a lot of black communities, which is why i would advise taking the pragmatic path, but that DOES NOT change what is true, what is actually deserved, and what would be right, which was contained in my first points.

 

[cawacko]

While i am not for direct reparations, the idea DOES have merit based on the long US history of DIRECT gov't intervention to enrich and support white people as a group at the expense of black people with the goal of providing the opportunity to build generational wealth to the white group, while preventing the black group from doing same.

It simply is fact and history that is what was done starting with paying reparations to slave owners but not slaves, as if the owners were the victims, to Red lining and Voting power issues that continue today, and empowered by this current Supreme Court in a last ditch attempt to maintain the power balance.

The indirect reparations that i DO THINK are owed and should be paid, are significant investments in identifiable minority communities in both the public schools, State Colleges/Universities, and support programs for such.

This would be a recognition by the gov't that past transgressions, STILL IN PLAY TODAY, around generation wealth are largely unable to be made whole (as per the very nature of generational wealth), but current and future investments can help close that gap, the gov't helped create.

If gov't also wants to target impoverished white, mostly rural areas, fine, but that is a separate issue from this.

And from a purely pragmatic perspective i recognize that 'targeted programs to mostly black areas' would be far more difficult than instead focusing on 'just impoverished regardless of race' which would largely help a lot of black communities, which is why i would advise taking the pragmatic path, but that DOES NOT change what is true, what is actually deserved, and what would be right, which was contained in my first points.

I appreciate you responding.

I'm free flowing here so please pardon me if I get off track. I grew up in Oakland, Ca. When we moved there it peaked at 47% black. Today it is around 20% black, close to 30% Latino, close to 30% white and around 15% Asian. You can definitely argue that's a pretty diverse city. How would you treat it? There are several neighborhoods that were heavily black that today are majority Latino. Would you target simply the neighborhoods today with the largest black population?

Being a real estate guy I guess my question was really about zoning, land use and housing. We know about the history, my question is what we should do today.

 

[QP!]

I appreciate you responding.

I'm free flowing here so please pardon me if I get off track. I grew up in Oakland, Ca. When we moved there it peaked at 47% black. Today it is around 20% black, close to 30% Latino, close to 30% white and around 15% Asian. You can definitely argue that's a pretty diverse city. How would you treat it? There are several neighborhoods that were heavily black that today are majority Latino. Would you target simply the neighborhoods today with the largest black population?

Being a real estate guy I guess my question was really about zoning, land use and housing. We know about the history, my question is what we should do today.

I am ultimately a pragmatist first. Put a practical workable solution over what is more 'pure' and 'right'.

If i had the power i would simply target 'poorer' districts knowing that blacks will get a good share of that investment and tell people to be fine with others, who are not deserving for the same reasons, also getting that benefits.

Basically a Democratic Socialism program shifting a lot of the tax base benefits and costs from helping the top rich people to instead focusing on the working poor.

 

[cawacko]

I am ultimately a pragmatist first. Put a practical workable solution over what is more 'pure' and 'right'.

If i had the power i would simply target 'poorer' districts knowing that blacks will get a good share of that investment and tell people to be fine with others, who are not deserving for the same reasons, also getting that benefits.

Basically a Democratic Socialism program shifting a lot of the tax base benefits and costs from helping the top rich people to instead focusing on the working poor.

I'm spitballing here. We'll stay with Oakland but it can really be a proxy for a number of cities.

Putting more money into Oakland would be a good thing. One of the tradeoffs is when certain areas get investment they become more desirable. In those situations property values tend to increase which can lead to gentrification and the people in the neighborhood being priced out. So it becomes somewhat of a double edged sword.

And if we're going to invest in poorer neighborhoods/cities, should wealthier neighborhoods/cities be able to maintain their single family zoning status which makes them more exclusionary? Or should duplexes, triplexes and (smaller) multi-family be allowed which opens up opportunity for a broader spectrum of people?

 

[QP!]

I'm spitballing here. We'll stay with Oakland but it can really be a proxy for a number of cities.

Putting more money into Oakland would be a good thing. One of the tradeoffs is when certain areas get investment they become more desirable. In those situations property values tend to increase which can lead to gentrification and the people in the neighborhood being priced out. So it becomes somewhat of a double edged sword.

And if we're going to invest in poorer neighborhoods/cities, should wealthier neighborhoods/cities be able to maintain their single family zoning status which makes them more exclusionary? Or should duplexes, triplexes and (smaller) multi-family be allowed which opens up opportunity for a broader spectrum of people?

Those are huge questions which we will not be able to fully address here.

In general though my answer is 'yes".

Do you point to other issues sure to arise, yes. Are they ones that could not be overcome with a general re-emphasis of yes Social Contract societies owe to each other. No.

 

[Into the Night]

With the oil. I get it.
I was blessed and the woman that raised me taught all us kids about that.
Hell, she spent a day on it. Just to make sure.
Oh yeah, this summer day we're eating sliced watermelon out of a laundry tub filled with Ice, and it's the 10 virgins with the oil story.
Now THAT was education.
And that's how I grew up. And so did my cousins and friends.
One adult was in charge of all the kids around on some days, you know?
Sometimes it was just one older sister. That's how it was.

The good old days, that Democrats despise. It's because they despise family values and the family unit.

Not how it is now.

Only to Democrats.

I regularly travel across the country. What you remember is still there.

People teach their kids the gospel of Jesus Christ, raise their kids, support their communities, and hold pride in this great nation, its history, its flag, and its people.

It's still there. Don't despair. After all, neither God nor Jesus Christ can be stopped or thwarted.

 

[Into the Night]

While i am not for direct reparations, the idea DOES have merit based on the long US history of DIRECT gov't intervention to enrich and support white people as a group at the expense of black people with the goal of providing the opportunity to build generational wealth to the white group, while preventing the black group from doing same.

It simply is fact and history that is what was done starting with paying reparations to slave owners but not slaves, as if the owners were the victims, to Red lining and Voting power issues that continue today, and empowered by this current Supreme Court in a last ditch attempt to maintain the power balance.

The indirect reparations that i DO THINK are owed and should be paid, are significant investments in identifiable minority communities in both the public schools, State Colleges/Universities, and support programs for such.

This would be a recognition by the gov't that past transgressions, STILL IN PLAY TODAY, around generation wealth are largely unable to be made whole (as per the very nature of generational wealth), but current and future investments can help close that gap, the gov't helped create.

If gov't also wants to target impoverished white, mostly rural areas, fine, but that is a separate issue from this.

And from a purely pragmatic perspective i recognize that 'targeted programs to mostly black areas' would be far more difficult than instead focusing on 'just impoverished regardless of race' which would largely help a lot of black communities, which is why i would advise taking the pragmatic path, but that DOES NOT change what is true, what is actually deserved, and what would be right, which was contained in my first points.

Racism.

 

[Into the Night]

I am ultimately a pragmatist first. Put a practical workable solution over what is more 'pure' and 'right'.

If i had the power i would simply target 'poorer' districts knowing that blacks will get a good share of that investment and tell people to be fine with others, who are not deserving for the same reasons, also getting that benefits.

Basically a Democratic Socialism program shifting a lot of the tax base benefits and costs from helping the top rich people to instead focusing on the working poor.

Racism.
Socialism is not practical. It has never worked.

 

[Matt Dillon]

How did it segue to "Reparations" in this thread?
You gonna pull money from black slaveowners' offspring and tribes of Indians?
That shit's a no-go. A non-starter, 100%.
Slavery has been over for more than 150 years. Fuck off with any grievances and expecting you a check about that, seriously.
The percentage of slaveowners in America was very small. By and large, the general populace had no slaves.
Indians and wealthy black slaveowners and Plantation owners did, before it was outlawed.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Stop dodging the question.

I already proved that your OP was BS - your TikTok "evidence" didn't pass muster and I showed you exactly how and why "redline" maps were implemented, and showed that blacks were not discriminated against at all (receiving mtg help at 95% the rate of whites) - now I'm just proving how much of an idiot you are in general.

So I asked you a very basic question, that any reasonable adult could answer quite easily, and you ran like a child.

Why did you run away like a child, TaiChi? Your OP was thoroughly debunked, so now I'm just dealing with your pretty, childish accusations by proving how much of a lying weasel you are.

Here's the complete text our intellectually dishonest Canadian maga edited out:

Someone explain to gumby here that TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION TO AVOID HIS INABILITY TO DISPROVE MY DECONSTRUCION OF HIS PREVIOUS EVIDENCE AND SCREEDS FOOLS NO ONE BUT THE CLOWN HE SEES IN THE MIRROR .... and his equally intellectually impotent brethren.

The OP stands, as does my explanations and rebuttals. For the objective reader, here's the chronology of the posts that puts this Canadian clown in his place:

Posts #254 (where he picks up the gauntlet for Cawacko), #258, 267, 276 and 285.

This Canadian clown (if he is indeed Canadian) is a carbon copy of our resident maga mooks and alt-right reprehensible. He just to all critical analysis and basic historical facts that contradict his beliefs. Add to that his insipid stubbornness that blinds him to his preposterous self congratulatory stance is pretty much par for the course. I said before that this clown would do as I predicted, and he hasn't let me down. Good times.


So you haven't logically or factually "proved" anything, gumby. You just reject any fact-based analysis that counteracts your beliefs and supportive evidence. The chronology of the posts shows that, your denial irrelevant.

As I stated earlier, since you cannot win the ORIGINAL topic of the debate, you throw in the kitchen sink and try to literally change the subject, thinking you'll find a "got'cha" moment that somehow validates your original points on another topic.

Sorry gumby, but that BS only plays to the grinning clown you see in the mirror and other failed right wing racist and clowns on this site.

All you've got is repetition, denial, blowing smoke with self-aggrandizing BS the posts just don't support to the objective reader. You're done and I'm done slapping you around.

 

[WCM]

Here's the complete text our intellectually dishonest Canadian maga edited out:

Someone explain to gumby here that TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION TO AVOID HIS INABILITY TO DISPROVE MY DECONSTRUCION OF HIS PREVIOUS EVIDENCE AND SCREEDS FOOLS NO ONE BUT THE CLOWN HE SEES IN THE MIRROR .... and his equally intellectually impotent brethren.

The OP stands, as does my explanations and rebuttals. For the objective reader, here's the chronology of the posts that puts this Canadian clown in his place:

Posts #254 (where he picks up the gauntlet for Cawacko), #258, 267, 276 and 285.

This Canadian clown (if he is indeed Canadian) is a carbon copy of our resident maga mooks and alt-right reprehensible. He just to all critical analysis and basic historical facts that contradict his beliefs. Add to that his insipid stubbornness that blinds him to his preposterous self congratulatory stance is pretty much par for the course. I said before that this clown would do as I predicted, and he hasn't let me down. Good times.


So you haven't logically or factually "proved" anything, gumby. You just reject any fact-based analysis that counteracts your beliefs and supportive evidence. The chronology of the posts shows that, your denial irrelevant.

As I stated earlier, since you cannot win the ORIGINAL topic of the debate, you throw in the kitchen sink and try to literally change the subject, thinking you'll find a "got'cha" moment that somehow validates your original points on another topic.

Sorry gumby, but that BS only plays to the grinning clown you see in the mirror and other failed right wing racist and clowns on this site.

All you've got is repetition, denial, blowing smoke with self-aggrandizing BS the posts just don't support to the objective reader. You're done and I'm done slapping you around.

Where we're at right now is just... you're an ugly person TaiChi, so all you see is ugliness in everything, and you refuse to see anything else.

What happened is that you and uglies like you saw a system that was designed to help people keep their homes, which was a good thing, and as with everything else, you just had to find a way to wrap your ugly narrative around it.

Then you watched a TikTok video that tickled your confirmation bias and here you are, running your ugly mouth at full blast.

The FACT is that the redline policy helped black people out just fine, the ratio of blacks getting help seemed almost disproportionately high TBH, and it started out quite sensibly, because at that time there really was no way for central banks to have a credit rating system... The type of information that those companies gather and share to come up with a credit score wasn't shareable to the extent that it is today, on account of the fact that there was no internet and there were no computers. There were also no car loans or CC's to build a rating. No phone bills or cell phone bills, no cable bill, etc. So the best they could do was make a hasty generalization based on the type of housing people lived in. It wasn't the best system that could ever be developed, but at the end of a mtg crisis, it was all they could do.

Let's be honest, TaiChi: I know that you call Trump a rapist, based on zero evidence, because that is the type of person you are, and this redlining issue is the exact same type of thing.... There's just enough evidence to tickle your confirmation bias, and to you, that's a verdict. And it's a verdict to you because you're so deeply ugly inside that you assume that everything else is going to be ugly as well.