Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness. What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?>> ^quantumushroom:

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:
Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.

>>> It's fair to say that when a White non-liberal even mentions race, no matter the context, s/he's a racist. That's just the way it is. FOX be damned, liberals still run the mainstream media and that's their M.O.

On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate.
>>> How much money has "the oligarchy" spent on the war on poverty? 5 trillion. What percentage of that money has gone to directly aid Blacks, who make up only 13%-14% of the American population?
But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.
Facts is facts, however unpleasant. You would think those that are trying to fix the problems would be grateful for accurate data. They might even see the fall of the Black family unit coinciding 'somehow' with the rise of the welfare state.
Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those.
http://videosift.com/video/Exterminate-White-People-Off-of-th
e-Face-of-the-Planet
>>> Yeah, he's likely a lone kook, but why aren't people walking out?

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:
Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.


>>> It's fair to say that when a White non-liberal even mentions race, no matter the context, s/he's a racist. That's just the way it is. FOX be damned, liberals still run the mainstream media and that's their M.O.


On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate.

>>> How much money has "the oligarchy" spent on the war on poverty? 5 trillion. What percentage of that money has gone to directly aid Blacks, who make up only 13%-14% of the American population?

But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.

Facts is facts, however unpleasant. You would think those that are trying to fix the problems would be grateful for accurate data. They might even see the fall of the Black family unit coinciding 'somehow' with the rise of the welfare state.

Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those.

http://videosift.com/video/Exterminate-White-People-Off-of-the-Face-of-the-Planet

>>> Yeah, he's likely a lone kook, but why aren't people walking out?

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:

Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.

On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate. But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.

Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those. Is it the Louis Theroux one?

>> ^quantumushroom:

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.
Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people?
In his speech to the NAACP, Wright speculated that, "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style. They have a different way of learning." The comments were labeled as racist,[85] and likened to eugenics. This initiated a revival of the controversy, which had been slowly waning. --wikipedia
Obama stated that he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign. Obama was specifically asked by Bill O'Reilly if Reverend Wright had said white people were bad, to which Obama replied "no." In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama had quoted Reverend Wright as saying in a sermon "It's this world, where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where White folks' greed runs a world in need."
To me it's just another ridiculous Obama fable that in 20 years he heard "nothing unusual".
When running for President, I don't think you'd want to be associated with a church where a d1psh1t shouts "God damn America!" from the pulpit, and "Reverend" Wright went on a vitriolic tour calculated to destroy Obama when the latter left his church.
Also, we've got more than one sift of Blacks demanding White people be exterminated and liberalsifters couldn't care less, because only Whites and non-liberals are truly racist.

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.

Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people?

In his speech to the NAACP, Wright speculated that, "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style. They have a different way of learning." The comments were labeled as racist,[85] and likened to eugenics. This initiated a revival of the controversy, which had been slowly waning. --wikipedia

Obama stated that he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign. Obama was specifically asked by Bill O'Reilly if Reverend Wright had said white people were bad, to which Obama replied "no." In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama had quoted Reverend Wright as saying in a sermon "It's this world, where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where White folks' greed runs a world in need."

To me it's just another ridiculous Obama fable that in 20 years he heard "nothing unusual".

When running for President, I don't think you'd want to be associated with a church where a d1psh1t shouts "God damn America!" from the pulpit, and "Reverend" Wright went on a vitriolic tour calculated to destroy Obama when the latter left his church.

Also, we've got more than one sift of Blacks demanding White people be exterminated and liberalsifters couldn't care less, because only Whites and non-liberals are truly racist.

@Drachen_Jager, that's quite a straw man you've bludgeoned there, not me. Extremism is relative. Free speech in the Middle Ages could be dismissed as extremist too.

I'm sorry for talking about freedom of speech yet again, but bear with me.

The reason I often make the analogy between freedom of speech and freedom of economy is that neither of them are supposed to be extreme, they both require minimal government participation, but the more the government gets in on them past this minimum threshold, the freedom itself is threatened.

None of us in the US would ever put up with government censorship like they have in China, because we know it hinders freedom of speech in general and establishes a bad precedent. If we have people using free speech to say terribly stupid things and deceiving millions with bad ideologies, it would suck, we could do something about it, raise awareness, expose and argue incessantly against those lies, etc. but we'd never blame freedom of speech itself for it, because, even though it's the freedom that allows such lies, we know that freedom of speech can take care of it. Censoring opinions would be the worst thing to do. We all believe that an environment where people have free speech is healthy, no matter what people say, because we are optimistic about freedom of speech in that, hopefully and eventually, society's opinions will evolve and lead most people closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be. That is why people debate all the time, they are seeking the truth, and it's in a free speech environment where people have the most access to information.

Truth isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to the truth", and have government control the media, TV, newspapers, and the internet, to provide truth to society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with providing the truth, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, we know that no one has authority over truth, it would be too presumptuous for anyone to say they do!

Now what happens if we apply the same thinking to another kind of freedom?

If we had a free market, not everyone would be well behaved, not at all, and whenever someone would cross the line and commit fraud, break contracts or disrespect private property, we'd need government to step in. Other than that, well, it would suck, but we'd just have to let the free market take the hit, let people learn the lesson and evolve. As harsh as that seems, people would use their economic freedom to handle the problem, they would *have* to watch their own backs if they know they can't cry to government to "censor" every bad economic behavior. It wouldn't make any sense for them to blame this bad behavior on the free market itself, even though that's what liberals do in a heartbeat, and they want laws banning everything they perceive as abuses they portray as unsolvable by the economy, not understanding that these laws end up screwing over a healthy environment, making people complacent and irresponsible. These restrictions have hard to predict and usually counterproductive consequences that distort the market and lead it to misbehave even more. I am optimistic about freedom of economy in that, whatever people do, hopefully and eventually, society's business practices will evolve and lead most people to prosperity. That's why people trade all the time, they are seeking prosperity, and it's in a free market environment where people, poor or rich, have the most access to resources.

Education, healthcare, affordable houses, things an economy provides, isn't something one can just magically make everyone have access to by stating, "Every citizen has a right to free education, free healthcare and affordable houses", and have government control the economy to provide these things for society. I mean, it could work for a while, or on the surface, but I wouldn't trust government with that, they'd either be too incompetent or dishonest for the job. Besides, politicians and bureaucrats might consider themselves authorities over how to employ society's resources, but it's the same kind of presumptuouness of thinking one owns the truth: that they have better judgement than a whole lot of people coordinating their own resources in a complex economy.

People can always argue some contrived examples where socialism apparently worked, but to me it's like someone arguing in favor of censorship. Does it have any use in society? Well, it can be helpful to maintain a dictator in power. You can weed out bad ideologies or criticisms. Propaganda to help exterminate the jews. That sort of thing. I personally think it's something a supposedly evolved society like ours can do without.

*beep* fleshy pink pieces inferior to brightly colored blocks *beep*
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

Chilaxe, sometimes you scare me. Sometimes I think you would favor a "final solution". Maybe I'm not creative enough to envision how you solve these problems you outline with useless eaters without extermination.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

As to the video itself, I think Penn may have poorly stated the part about the unification of Christians, but he's still on to something. The different sects used to be less cooperative than they are now. Just look at the mistrust of JFK during his election. Now, clearly it wasn't too strong or he'd have lost, but you don't see that sort of thing as much now. It's still there; just look at the statements about Mormons by other Christians during the last and current election cycles; but most of the churches stand more or less together now.

The thing I really disagree with in this video is the Hitchens quote; the part about this being the death throes of religion. If anything, I see a power surge in religion since 9/11. Yes, the critics are louder now than ever and they are growing in "power", if you will, but I think religion is growing in power just as much. The balance is not shifting, we just have lots of previously neutral people picking sides.

If anything, I feel we're well on our way to a new Crusade with a not-insignificant portion of US Christians calling for the extermination of Muslims and a small but not-insignificant portion of Muslims calling for the extermination of Americans.

Depending on how things pan out, I would not rule out a major religious war in the next 50-100 years. Depending on how that goes, it could destroy or embolden religion in the US. If it's a long, hard-fought war, I could see people becoming disillusioned. If, as I suspect, the United States of Christianity simply blot out the "heathen uprisings", then I could see this being taken as an affirmation of the faith.

In response to Ghark's intelligent breakdown, of course it is infeasible and impractical to expect a complete evacuation of Americans from the continent and I'm sure you do not condone such action.

I believe in your last option, that Western society as a whole is more developed morally and philosophically today than hundreds of years ago. Structures to prevent such decimation such as the United Nations and hundreds of NGOs that exist today would act against such extermination today. Granted, the UN is not perfect, but it is better than what previously existed and it certainly would've changed the course of US history if globalization and world pressure existed as it does today.

To address another point you made, I'm sure the Native Americans would've done the same to us had they not been Native Americans and had been another group of settlers landing in America with advanced weaponry and systems of government. Of course, they wouldn't be Native Americans anymore would they? They would have a completely different way of life because they would've developed in a different environment.

Historically, Native American tribes did war with each other, but they hardly ever wiped each other out. Almost all Native American wars were small spats, some of which were over ritualistic and others were over things such as honor and rights.

Sorry for rambling, but it's a complicated issue and you've brought up some complicated questions.

>> ^Sarzy:

If I saw more than one of those things in my house, I'd be like "NOPE. NOT TODAY" and I'd immediately be in my car on the way to a hotel, calling an exterminator.


Where you will be promptly devoured by bedbugs.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Sarzy:
If I saw more than one of those things in my house, I'd be like "NOPE. NOT TODAY" and I'd immediately be in my car on the way to a hotel, calling an exterminator.

They could in your car and the hotel too!

You accidentally that comment


Haha!

>> ^ant:

>> ^Sarzy:
If I saw more than one of those things in my house, I'd be like "NOPE. NOT TODAY" and I'd immediately be in my car on the way to a hotel, calling an exterminator.

They could in your car and the hotel too!


You accidentally that comment

If I saw more than one of those things in my house, I'd be like "NOPE. NOT TODAY" and I'd immediately be in my car on the way to a hotel, calling an exterminator.