Frothers Unite! UK

GA isn't racist.
He loves blacks and other minorities, in just the same way he loves his dogs.

Grampa Apathy was probably beaten and molested and psychologically abused by his father, so now he thinks that is just a normal part of child raising and family dynamics.

Guest wrote:GA isn't racist.
He loves blacks and other minorities, in just the same way he loves his dogs.

No, Grampa Piggy wouldn't be caught dead having sexual relations with an African American. There're injunctions about that in the Bible, doncha know. Ask him and he'll send you eight links telling you all about it.

Happily for Gramps, the Old Testament is mum on the subject of bestiality.

I gotta give Grandpa props for the old school racism, however. It takes a certain kind of balls-out obliviousness to froth about Danny Moynihan's theory, three decades after it was shown to be a steaming pile of racist and sexist presumptions.

Yeah, it certainly is better for a child to grow up in a family with two parents, rather than one. And given how much western culture emphasizes fatherhood, it's almost certainly a good thing for a boy to have a male role model -- better still if he has several!

But there is no compelling evidence that "patriarchal authority" makes for a better family. Futhermore, where black mothers started off five times more likely than white mothers to give birth while unwed, that distinction has dropped to twice as likely over the last fifty years.

What're the real factors impacting on children when it comes to families? Poverty, mother's level of education, and family stability. Note: "family stability" does not necessarily mean a heterosexual, mommy-and-daddy family unit. Plenty of cultures get along just fine with uncles and extended families taking the co-parenting role. And LGBT families show no signs of being weaker than heterosexual families, even though there're no clear "masculine authority figures" in these families.

LBJ didn't "destroy the black family". ALL American ethnic groups and classes started seeing a sharp upturn in single parenting and unwed mother status in the 1970s: the curves are almost identical over the long haul.

Here's an excellent article on the subject: http://educationnext.org/was-moynihan-right/

What's hilarious is that paleoconservatives who love citing Moynihan conveniently foget the old fuckhead's main recommendation: an INCREASED social safety net for the poor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... rt/360701/

Oh, and by the way, shitbird? As any reasonably bright college freshman can tell you, "coincide" does not mean "causes". But as long as we're on the topic, where these trends REALLY take off, coincidentally, is with the Reagan-Bush attack on the social safety net. Look for them to jump again in the Trump years.

"Coincidently."

General Apathy wrote:There is a very large difference between what you quoted me as posting and what the Moron claimed. If you can't understand the difference, you are as thick as he is.

Do you know the difference between coinciding and causing? Apparently not.

There are many factors which have contributed to the economic plight of minorities particularly in large urban areas.

Do you know the difference between minorities and Blacks? Apparently not.

Do you know that what I've described has been noted by folks on the LW side of the aisle? Apparently not.

Go and say what you said here at a black church, Go on!


"Part of the problem is the collapse of the Black family (Thanks LBJ!)"

"The breakdown of the Black family unit coincided with government becoming the provider, replacing the Black male from that role"


They will tell you why you are a cracker in better terms than I ever can.

Macunaima wrote:

Guest wrote:GA isn't racist.
He loves blacks and other minorities, in just the same way he loves his dogs.

No, Grampa Piggy wouldn't be caught dead having sexual relations with an African American. There're injunctions about that in the Bible, doncha know. Ask him and he'll send you eight links telling you all about it.

Happily for Gramps, the Old Testament is mum on the subject of bestiality.

I gotta give Grandpa props for the old school racism, however. It takes a certain kind of balls-out obliviousness to froth about Danny Moynihan's theory, three decades after it was shown to be a steaming pile of racist and sexist presumptions.

Curious, St Mac.
Exactly where in the Bible does it forbid marriage with African American women? I'm not talking about race specific injunctions against fornication. Fornication is just wrong, period. As is adultery.
Now, of course there are lots of prohibitions against sex with the filthy heathen Moabites, but that's just because they are.... filthy heathens. NOT African Americans. Moabites aren't even close to being African Americans.
By the way, Solomon took the Queen of Sheba as a wife or concubine or something, and the Bible is kind of ok with that. So are Aethiopians for that matter.
Anyway. Can you cite exact chapter and verse where The Bible prohibits sex with African Americans?
Save JJ the trouble. I can't recall any myself.

Winnie wrote:

Macunaima wrote:

Guest wrote:GA isn't racist.
He loves blacks and other minorities, in just the same way he loves his dogs.

No, Grampa Piggy wouldn't be caught dead having sexual relations with an African American. There're injunctions about that in the Bible, doncha know. Ask him and he'll send you eight links telling you all about it.

Happily for Gramps, the Old Testament is mum on the subject of bestiality.

I gotta give Grandpa props for the old school racism, however. It takes a certain kind of balls-out obliviousness to froth about Danny Moynihan's theory, three decades after it was shown to be a steaming pile of racist and sexist presumptions.

Curious, St Mac.
Exactly where in the Bible does it forbid marriage with African American women? I'm not talking about race specific injunctions against fornication. Fornication is just wrong, period. As is adultery.
Now, of course there are lots of prohibitions against sex with the filthy heathen Moabites, but that's just because they are.... filthy heathens. NOT African Americans. Moabites aren't even close to being African Americans.
By the way, Solomon took the Queen of Sheba as a wife or concubine or something, and the Bible is kind of ok with that. So are Aethiopians for that matter.
Anyway. Can you cite exact chapter and verse where The Bible prohibits sex with African Americans?
Save JJ the trouble. I can't recall any myself.

You should probably ask Granny Dogfucker that question, Winnie. The response traditionally given by the sort of Christian Identity conservative Gramps so admires and defends usually draws on Leviticus' injunctions against mixing different seeds, threads and types of animal. Paleoconservatives usually point to Leviticus when they want to say something's sinful -- conveniently ignoring its prohibition of things they love, like Dixie tattoos and pigmeat.

Neither fornication or adultery (at least in anything like the sense you're using those terms) are even mentioned in the Old Testament, which is what most of these dogfuckers get off on.

But if you want to dive down the rabbithole of the theological thought processes of the cheerful lads whom you and Gramps defend as being the moral equivalent of antifascists, you could go over here: http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/mi ... egregation

You'll find plenty of Biblical justifications. Curiously enough, no Leviticus, however. But here's a group of the folks you claim are identical to "Berkely communists" using the "seed" argument from Leviticus: http://kinsmanredeemer.com/RacemixingIsNotChristian.htm.

So you can't find 8 links about sex with African Americans.

Winnie wrote:So you can't find 8 links about sex with African Americans.

I can find far more than eight, but I'm not spending any more time than necessary poking around that particular sewer. I've given you two Christian Identity links. If you want to suck more of that particular cock, google is your friend. 'Sup, Winnie? Need more wanking material now that Stormfront has gone dark?

By the way, Winnie, I wonder if you think paedophiles and those who support ISIS should be allowed to march without harassment in the same manner as these guys? Or is it only black and LGBT lives whom you're willing to sacrifice in the name of absolute free speach?

Why is it that ring wing types try to use the Bible as an authority to have control over people and order them about?
I'm not asking why ring wingers are more religious (there are a good many left wing theists) I'm asking why they try to use the Bible to give them authority.
That kind of gives the game away, eh? They just want to be in control, to have power. As GA proves. He squirms his way around solely so he can take the high ground and thinks the piss poor defence of 'I didn't say that' gets him out of it and gives him power, without realising that most people are capable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions and can see through his allusions.
But he wants control.
Most right wingers do. That desire for power usually comes form chronic insecurity - in both the right and left, to be fair.
Doesn't surprise me that he's religious as well.

Religion - it's just another way of being right wing.

And why is it that those countries that are more religious (like the US) also tend to be more right wing?

What's that, GA - coincidence, correlation, or causation, you impotent dickhead?