Your points were false, colored by a false narrative too deep to even begin to cover on a forum like this, springing from a worldview that is Marxist. What I said is very relevant. Marx sought to create conflict by division. His was by classes, but Marxism always uses the same tactic. You don't care if you divide by skin color, social standing, sexual orientation, financial status... Just so long as you can create a crisis that you can use. Stalin did it. Castro did it. Hitler did it. Mao did it. Mussolini did it. You and those like you are doing it.
If that were even a little bit true, you would be able to refute those points. You didn't even try, but rather turned to name-calling - and you're doing it again now.
Marx did not create class division. He proposed a solution to it. That solution didn't work at all, but that's beside the point. Class division was most certainly already there, as was race division for that matter.
So now recognizing that those divisions exist = "creating" them? No, that's not how this works.
I don't know that I have ever seen you be historically accurate. At best you cherry pick things that are true, but wildly out of context.
Clinical language does not include 'created by god'. Try to slow down on the stupidity.
No he didn't make an ass of himself, nor did he make stupid comments. I watched the entire speech. I disagree strongly with his theology. Yet what he said theologically isn't what is under fire. What he said on social issues is in the mainstream of a Biblical Christian, and a Catholic worldview. Just because you disagree with that worldview doesn't mean the statements were stupid. Funny, his wife agrees with him about marriage and they have a great one. My mom agrees with him about marriage, and my parents are rolling up on 50 years married and faithful to each other. They might know a thing or few.
It's very true, but to undo all you intellectual dishonesty would take an essay of thousands of words. I know you do bumper sticker think, but real truth doesn't fit that quickly and neatly.
What Marx did was exploit a division for personal political ends. Look at that man's life and ethics and tell me he was proposing a solution for anything except for his using others goods to get free stuff for himself.
The division you exploit now doesn't exist until your side shows up and creates it. People generally get along until y'all come along telling them why they shouldn't, until you come along, lie to people, then stand back and watch the fireworks. Then you, the source of the conflict, step in and offer a "solution". A very bad one. The one you had in mind all along. But, hey, as one of your Marxist heros said, never let a good crisis go to waste.
That's rich coming from someone whose version of History sounds like it came out of Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States.
Accountable for what stupid comments? Strong family values, the importance of women being a homemaker and a mother as a career move? You’re the one making an ass of yourself. You’re a globalist, a promoter of DEI over meritocracy, which by the way, has produced a Cult like following camouflaged as the protector of democracy but is anything but, nothing more than a full court press of the progressive Marxist anti American movement. Most of middle America doesn’t buy your bullshit, your ideology and never will. You are a card carrying member of that condescending elitist group who consider themselves intellectually superior over God fearing citizens. It’s your choice to rail against people of faith. That fact that you believe you have the right, the authority to hold someone accountable for their religious beliefs is proof positive of the fascist underpinnings of your Godless movement.
Actually, until the modernist thought introduced humanism as the central religion of belief and philosophy, "created by God" and such language was rather common, even in clinical and scientific speech. And I note you couldn't respond to anything else I said.
People are waking up to your hash browns. Ding!
As I said - I disagree with multiple policy decisions AND he's an asshole. You can take out the second part and still have the first. I also don't agree with policy positions of people with bullhorns on campus.
The left is creating the board crisis. By the way, very few Republicans have been much help either. The Dems want the illegal immigrants coming in droves, then they want amnesty. It's how they get a new Socialist voting block. The Pubs want the issue to run on, but they don't want a solution, otherwise the issue is solved and they have to do the work of governing. That's one reason some of us appreciate Trump's policies. At least he started solving problems.
I've never known that to stop you before.
Oh my heavens, the irony is thick with this one!
WOW. Even for you this is remarkably ignorant. I don't even know very much about Marx, but I do know his radical views prevented him from pursuing a career in academia. So his proposals came at a tremendous personal cost.
I'm pretty sure Rosa Parks didn't need any white liberals to tell her not to move to the back of the bus, Jay.
So now the Civil Rights Act was a very bad solution?
Never read that one, and I have a degree in history.
That's not really what he said, and you know it. Or to be more precise, it's not the totality of what he said. And I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your comment with a response.
The posts you have placed on this thread have only shown that you are incapable of moral integrity or intellectual honesty. Or at least that you choose not to accept its accountability.
Sorry that you don't like actual definitions of words because they don't align with your worldview. Continuing to prove that isn't refuting my statement
So they are teaching humanism because they aren't teaching christianity? What?
Your arguments always come back to your religion and your view that people persecute you for it, don't they? Your original point was that Democrats shut things down. The truth is that 45 initiated that. That's the only point I was arguing, but you keep steering back to jesus because you think religion is getting shit on.
The whole thing was bollocks, quoted from the Book of Cult.
The Senate bill, supported by Democrats and Republicans, did not give amnesty to immigrants.
What, he shut down the bill to help solve… wow. Whatever drugs you are taking either take a ton more or stop completely.
It stops me when the argument has become so pathetic and rooted in so many lies that it would take a college course to unravel and fix them.
Ummm... You just said I use long form, not bumper sticker speak. Make up your mind.
The man had a terrible marriage, had several illegitimate children, was dirt poor, would not get a real job, died miserable, and his children, who learned from him, lived and died miserably too. Yeah. It was his VIEWS that cost him. Let's go with that.
Nope. Because it was the white libs who were TELLING her to get to the back of the bus.
It was the Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act. The Dems opposed it almost to a man.
Oh, you have read it, or at least ingested it's contents indirectly. If you have a degree in history, I can almost bet my next paycheck that it is from the liberal brainwashing centers posing as a place of higher learning after having tossed out its Conservative Christian roots.
Watch the speech, or read the text in its entirety. He said what he said. You just don't like it. Doesn't make him wrong.
Read the fine print in the bill. It wasn't clean, and it undercut its own claimed offers.
Americas in general want a remedy to our border crisis. Those politicians that want this to be a political football will lose their jobs. IMHO
That language left the world of clinical and scientific speech as soon as science was invented. It is now the language of Cult and I have no regard for your superstitions at all as far as you think they should influence my life.
The bill was shut down because of all the fine print that was counter to the claimed "help" the bill offered. Democrats are great at doing that. Another version of virtue signaling.
It was a bill that address a large number of border issues which was supported by both parties. Issues with the legislation can be amended by Congress at any time or changed in future bills.
