Quiz Of The Day!

[PoliticalChic]

The winner receives a round trip to Haiti, with an included guided tour to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded after Haiti won its independence!

At the risk of "I don't know what, but I'll likely find out," would the deed have been any less heinous or deplorable had you described it as, "....to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded....?"

I'm sorry, but "white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares? There is no redemption to be had no matter the race of the perpetrators. Either way, a human being has been vilely mistreated. That's what matters, not their race. The victim's race may have mattered to his assailants, but as a society, our disgust needs to rise above that.

Lest some nitwit think so, I'm not calling for political correctness. I'm imploring moral objectivity in the telling and considering of the tale.

Lastly, as goes things like socio-politically motivated massacres and revolts, it's always first and foremost a uprising of the oppressed against their oppressors. In the case of "sympathetic whites" -- which in 1807 Hati, I'm not too sure just what that really meant -- being destroyed by black revolutionaries, it's (1) difficult to conceive there having been many non-white oppressors, and (2) just as ill informed zealots here jump to conclusions and act on them by penning their baseless claim, downtrodden Haitians having little training in the rules of rigorous reasoning surely had similar notions and modes of thought when they saw sympathetic whites. Familiarity breeds contempt, but more so does unfamiliarity.

"white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares?"

I care.

And....closing your eyes to the provenance, the motivations, makes you far worse than simply a dunce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Churches must register with the federal government as 501(c)3s. Not that for-profit entities are exempt from registering. Registration with government for whatever reason - tax-exemption, the importation of privileges, etc. - is liberal policy. Our income-tax amendment is a Progressive-era amendment, and the collection agency acts as a regulatory agency, perfectly pleasing to progressive powermongers.

Even more pleasing to them is that registration can translate to criminalization when the government deregisters a church, as was the case with the Jehovah's Witnesses and some other sect (that escapes me) when Singapore passed its Society Act.

The OldSchool has a brain like an atom: it's about the same size, and it makes up stuff.

They toss around terms like Nazi and Fascist, yet vote for the entity that prevents church leaders from using the freedom of speech guaranteed to all of us.

The bribery with which the federal government can harass churches since the IRS "passed" that 1954 ruling pleases the snowflakes. It's a step toward silencing the faithful. When a Christian shares his faith, he forces it down their throats, dontcha know.

I regularly ask this question....and no Democrat voter will respond:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

No such thing happened.

 

[norwegen]

Churches must register with the federal government as 501(c)3s. Not that for-profit entities are exempt from registering. Registration with government for whatever reason - tax-exemption, the importation of privileges, etc. - is liberal policy. Our income-tax amendment is a Progressive-era amendment, and the collection agency acts as a regulatory agency, perfectly pleasing to progressive powermongers.

Even more pleasing to them is that registration can translate to criminalization when the government deregisters a church, as was the case with the Jehovah's Witnesses and some other sect (that escapes me) when Singapore passed its Society Act.

The OldSchool has a brain like an atom: it's about the same size, and it makes up stuff.

They toss around terms like Nazi and Fascist, yet vote for the entity that prevents church leaders from using the freedom of speech guaranteed to all of us.

The bribery with which the federal government can harass churches since the IRS "passed" that 1954 ruling pleases the snowflakes. It's a step toward silencing the faithful. When a Christian shares his faith, he forces it down their throats, dontcha know.

I regularly ask this question....and no Democrat voter will respond:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

Oh, yea, I guess it was a congressional act, wasn't it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The winner receives a round trip to Haiti, with an included guided tour to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded after Haiti won its independence!

At the risk of "I don't know what, but I'll likely find out," would the deed have been any less heinous or deplorable had you described it as, "....to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded....?"

I'm sorry, but "white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares? There is no redemption to be had no matter the race of the perpetrators. Either way, a human being has been vilely mistreated. That's what matters, not their race. The victim's race may have mattered to his assailants, but as a society, our disgust needs to rise above that.

Lest some nitwit think so, I'm not calling for political correctness. I'm imploring moral objectivity in the telling and considering of the tale.

Lastly, as goes things like socio-politically motivated massacres and revolts, it's always first and foremost a uprising of the oppressed against their oppressors. In the case of "sympathetic whites" -- which in 1807 Hati, I'm not too sure just what that really meant -- being destroyed by black revolutionaries, it's (1) difficult to conceive there having been many non-white oppressors, and (2) just as ill informed zealots here jump to conclusions and act on them by penning their baseless claim, downtrodden Haitians having little training in the rules of rigorous reasoning surely had similar notions and modes of thought when they saw sympathetic whites. Familiarity breeds contempt, but more so does unfamiliarity.

"white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares?"

I care.

And....closing your eyes to the provenance, the motivations, makes you far worse than simply a dunce.

It's funny that you don't object to black men being dragged to their deaths behind pickup trucks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Churches must register with the federal government as 501(c)3s. Not that for-profit entities are exempt from registering. Registration with government for whatever reason - tax-exemption, the importation of privileges, etc. - is liberal policy. Our income-tax amendment is a Progressive-era amendment, and the collection agency acts as a regulatory agency, perfectly pleasing to progressive powermongers.

Even more pleasing to them is that registration can translate to criminalization when the government deregisters a church, as was the case with the Jehovah's Witnesses and some other sect (that escapes me) when Singapore passed its Society Act.

The OldSchool has a brain like an atom: it's about the same size, and it makes up stuff.

They toss around terms like Nazi and Fascist, yet vote for the entity that prevents church leaders from using the freedom of speech guaranteed to all of us.

The bribery with which the federal government can harass churches since the IRS "passed" that 1954 ruling pleases the snowflakes. It's a step toward silencing the faithful. When a Christian shares his faith, he forces it down their throats, dontcha know.

I regularly ask this question....and no Democrat voter will respond:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

Oh, yea, I guess it was a congressional act, wasn't it.

Help us out. Cite the law.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The winner receives a round trip to Haiti, with an included guided tour to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded after Haiti won its independence!

At the risk of "I don't know what, but I'll likely find out," would the deed have been any less heinous or deplorable had you described it as, "....to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded....?"

I'm sorry, but "white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares? There is no redemption to be had no matter the race of the perpetrators. Either way, a human being has been vilely mistreated. That's what matters, not their race. The victim's race may have mattered to his assailants, but as a society, our disgust needs to rise above that.

Lest some nitwit think so, I'm not calling for political correctness. I'm imploring moral objectivity in the telling and considering of the tale.

Lastly, as goes things like socio-politically motivated massacres and revolts, it's always first and foremost a uprising of the oppressed against their oppressors. In the case of "sympathetic whites" -- which in 1807 Hati, I'm not too sure just what that really meant -- being destroyed by black revolutionaries, it's (1) difficult to conceive there having been many non-white oppressors, and (2) just as ill informed zealots here jump to conclusions and act on them by penning their baseless claim, downtrodden Haitians having little training in the rules of rigorous reasoning surely had similar notions and modes of thought when they saw sympathetic whites. Familiarity breeds contempt, but more so does unfamiliarity.

"white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares?"

I care.

And....closing your eyes to the provenance, the motivations, makes you far worse than simply a dunce.

You just keep thinkin' that...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The winner receives a round trip to Haiti, with an included guided tour to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded after Haiti won its independence!

At the risk of "I don't know what, but I'll likely find out," would the deed have been any less heinous or deplorable had you described it as, "....to the killing ground where white men, women and children were beheaded....?"

I'm sorry, but "white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares? There is no redemption to be had no matter the race of the perpetrators. Either way, a human being has been vilely mistreated. That's what matters, not their race. The victim's race may have mattered to his assailants, but as a society, our disgust needs to rise above that.

Lest some nitwit think so, I'm not calling for political correctness. I'm imploring moral objectivity in the telling and considering of the tale.

Lastly, as goes things like socio-politically motivated massacres and revolts, it's always first and foremost a uprising of the oppressed against their oppressors. In the case of "sympathetic whites" -- which in 1807 Hati, I'm not too sure just what that really meant -- being destroyed by black revolutionaries, it's (1) difficult to conceive there having been many non-white oppressors, and (2) just as ill informed zealots here jump to conclusions and act on them by penning their baseless claim, downtrodden Haitians having little training in the rules of rigorous reasoning surely had similar notions and modes of thought when they saw sympathetic whites. Familiarity breeds contempt, but more so does unfamiliarity.

"white man gangbanged, beaten and hung upside down in army latrine by black" or vice versa...who cares?"

I care.

And....closing your eyes to the provenance, the motivations, makes you far worse than simply a dunce.

You just keep thinkin' that...

How about you try thinkin'.....

 

[Tom Horn]

Did that upset you, my nudging the topic back were it belongs?

Sorry for the sidetracking I did in your thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did that upset you, my nudging the topic back were it belongs?

Sorry for the sidetracking I did in your thread.

No apology necessary.

mi casa es su casa