Quote:

---

Maybe I should have stipulated I meant WS and good old boys were a PART of conservative base. Would that have made a difference in your understanding?

---

It would have changed your meaning, and so would have changed my understanding.

Quote:

---

I have seen no violent activity initiated or engaged by them and peaceful protests seem to be all they have ever done. You got something different than peaceful protests, march's and demonstrations, please share that.

---

If the quote from Wiki I posted above is not enough for you, then you have a mind that cannot be changed by any amount of truth. That BLM stokes violence is plainly true. Here's your link. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...ring-violence/

Quote:

---

Race based maybe, but you will have to show where they promote black superiority and black nationalism to even start equating them with the WS movement with a history of violence death and hate.

---

OK. Let's see. They call themselves "The NATION of Islam", and their stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans in the United States. So you really don't think that's a nationalist movement and race based? Additionally, the NAACP exists for the "Advancement of Colored People", so do you think they are race based?

I'm not saying these organizations are entirely bad or that they are filled with violent people, but they are all race-based and much, much larger than the WS groups of which you are critical.

Let me ask a question. Would you be opposed to the WS or WN groups if they were completely non-violent?

Oh No! Say it ain't true! You actually, or at least the writer of the article, conflates the actions of a sick loony opportunist with the BLM march in Dallas? We watched it on TV and it went without any violence until the loon showed up and even the opposition protesters with guns ran to get out of the way of cops doing their job, least they be mistaken for a shooter. Fact of the matter is from me and the local reporting the Dallas police did an EXCELLENT job of not just performing in a crisis, but handling the aftermath by going directly to the communities as they have been known to do and with good results.

So for those reasons I must reject the narrative of your article as non fact based, and a deceptive piece of crap to tie BLM to events which they have nothing to do with and in this particular case there are enough pictures of friendly interactions with the cops and marchers to debunk any animosity associated with the events of that day. Further JL, I have no doubt police are afraid now a days and it should be noted that the root cause of that fear is the backlash associated with cops shooting a black unarmed citizen, which happens all to often today, so if cops are scared imagine if you will, how scared a black citizen would be with any interactions of the cops. It should surprise no. one that race based movements have risen and grown at a time when many oppressed people are still oppressed. Should they suffer in silence and turn the other cheek?

WS has every right to express their views and we all have a right to oppose them, but I think we all should oppose the violence that some prefer. I have to thank you at this point for being willing to discuss this rather than dismiss it and sweep the facts under a rug, and we may not agree, but it's always a good sign that we can talk about it. My very sincere thanks my friend.

Tal, if you honestly believe that BLM had nothing to do with the violence in Ferguson, and if you can convince one other person of that, then two people on the earth will have that belief.

Yes, I'm glad we can have these discussions. I think we would be much better off in this country without both the WS and WN groups, and also without groups like BLM, NAACP, and SCLC. They are all, in the end, divisive and engender bitterness which leads to violence.

Given the size and rate of growth of BLM then I won't be that lonely at all, and the movement has expanded to a few other cultures and races to acheive a consideration of international status. Wonder if the groups you oppose would be so venerable and popular if minorities and others didn't think they were needed. I fail to see how a fight for equality, and civil rights is divisive in the first place. Or engender bitterness, or lead to violence.

What and who could be against equality and civil rights?

Quote:

---

What and who could be against equality and civil rights?

---

Now that is a good question, tell me have you stopped beating your wife yet or flogging your donkey?

Quote:

---

What and who could be against equality and civil rights?

---

That was true of civil rights groups fifty years ago. It is no longer the case. The battle has been won, so these groups have changed to trying to convince minorities that they are victims and should search for those who will feel sorry for them. As I've said before, I generally don't feel sorry for any person, sound in mind and body, who has been blessed of God to live in this land of enormous opportunity. The message should be, "Get a good education, get married and raise children (in that order), and learn how to handle money." But I don't expect to hear that since it would entail the listeners learning how to exercise self-discipline, and that is a much less popular message than the victim message. It's always easier and more fun to blame someone else. That's why so many people despise Dr. Ben Carson. He puts the lie to this victim approach.

Effectively, the "Civil Rights" bunch, today, has become and industry. Their main goal is to see who they can set up and who they can sue....remember the charlatan the Rev. Al Sharpton? Ooh! What a POS! A bunch of them are mere thugs. Its not only Caucasians that are spiked with slime balls...all races have them.

LOL, the dufus won barely by convincing the right that someone else was taking your stuff, and how it was the liberal left. You bought it and now we are all screwed, because he held the door open for him and his buddies to take the money and run, leaving you sitting there waiting for the crumbs to trickle down. All we will have to show from this administration is the bill for the party they had. That's why the civil rights movement is still growing and expanding, despite the right wing noise machines disinformation and conspiracy theories. In blocking the liberal cause you block your own protection against oppression and the exploitation of the oligarchs, who manipulate the money and strangle the circulation of wealth.

As the trend toward conservative power increases and bring the nationalistic protectionism with it, the chances for real solutions that work for everybody shrinks too. What do you conservatives care as long as you THINK it's working for you!

Quote:

---

As the trend toward conservative power increases and bring the nationalistic protectionism with it, the chances for real solutions that work for everybody shrinks too. What do you conservatives care as long as you THINK it's working for you!

---

Yeah. You are so right. I mean, this record setting low unemployment, constant economic growth, growth in manufacturing jobs that makes Obama look silly, energy independence, growth in wages, and profitable trade deals with China is all so bad that I don't see how we will survive. Oh for the wonderful days of tepid, timid economic growth with Obama, and all of those wonderful "real solutions" that made us so much more...ordinary.

Your comment was so strange that I can only assume you were joking.

Yup low unemployment with slow wage growth certainly helps consumers the real driver of the economy, a barely break even China deal, and the farmer bailout that rivals the bank bailout except without the ROI, has you pretty giddy doesn't it? Fascinating you have to exaggerate the dufus accomplishments and ignore his wrong doings, even while you admit to his big mouth. Consistent though with elevating anything the minorities do to further there struggle for equality, as a race based menace equal to WS and WN.

You aren't joking either are you?

Only someone deeply infected with TDS would view this economy as a negative. The really hilarious thing is that you brag about Obama's economy despite the fact that it did not measure up in any way to what we have now, and yet you refuse to give Trump credit for what we have now. TDS pure and simple. You should get some help for that. Maybe there's a pill you can take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Only someone deeply infected with TDS would view this economy as a negative. The really hilarious thing is that you brag about Obama's economy despite the fact that it did not measure up in any way to what we have now, and yet you refuse to give Trump credit for what we have now. TDS pure and simple. You should get some help for that. Maybe there's a pill you can take.

---

How long have you suffered from liberal derangement disorder? It may be to late for a cure sad to say. You may have to live forever with holding your nose. At least we liberals have a remedy for our disorder, get rid of the dufus and his sycophants. Works better than a pill and easier to swallow.

If you don't like this economy, you must have been in terrible depression with Obama. His economy, by any measure, was weaker than what we have now. To have a dynamic, booming economy like we have now coupled with low inflation is amazing. Only a TDS infected person would complain. If Obama was still pres, you would be singing his praises.

Let's face it: Trump is the PRESIDENT OF ECONOMY! He is the boldest President and the President with the deepest understanding of economy that we have ever had in these United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Let's face it: Trump is the PRESIDENT OF ECONOMY! He is the boldest President and the President with the deepest understanding of economy that we have ever had in these United States.

---

Get real! Obama started in a deep hole (thanks to the great recession caused under the George W. Bush presidency) while tRump had a booming economy to start with (thanks Obama).

Obama left a "booming economy"? I think you don't understand what a booming economy is. Obama had the least robust economic recovery from a recession in a hundred years. Reagan faced more difficult economic circumstances than Obama, but he really did end up with a booming economy. Obama doubled the national debt and still only had moderate economic growth at best.

https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/...dp-780x439.jpg

LOL, your source doesn't support your booming economy because it stops in 2016. Got anything more recent by which we can compare and verify what your premise is? Like this?

Soaring rhetoric and spin mean nothing when you crunch the actual data, which reflects the dufus juicing the economy with tax cuts which have already made their way through this BOOMING economy, but stepped all over it with sanctions and trade wars which Americans bore the brunt of and that's with the bailouts to farmers which were as much as the banks got at a decent interest no less, which returned as a profit. The dufus bailouts are but a temporary bailout with no hope of an ROI even approaching the ones the banks had, and even the Phase I agreement with China is but a start to regaining already LOST revenue. If you're counting on future agreements making up for those revenues lost and losing now, nice idea but isn't that like counting your chickens before they hatch, in the face of SLOW wage growth, and rising prices?

Even record unemployment figures don't make up for real spending by consumers which are juiced by the Nov/Dec holiday seasons, peak earning time for retailers and manufacturers traditionally, but as consumer pay those holiday debts we always see a slowdown and adjustments to those great numbers. Obama's economy was slow, steady, and very healthy for business and consumers as states raised their wage minimums over a period of 3 or so years which would normally bode well for consumer spending if indeed every state had followed suit forcing businesses to follow nation wide, but even that won't address the challenges of those states and regions hit hardest by the recession and who have not had the benefit of the BOOMING economy and well may not in the future.

The dufus economy BOOMS for some and not others and he and the congress cannot escape that fact no matter how much spin the put on it and no matter how much the denigrate the previous presidents efforts. The congress still must act in real time and it's ticking away as we speak. You want a REAL boom? Circulate more money that has a return on interest. Private sector/Government investment is the best long term investment that theirs is and a nickel on every dollar over a million is just the vehicle for starting that investment.

Sound like an infrastructure bill to you?

Quote:

---

LOL, your source doesn't support your booming economy because it stops in 2016. Got anything more recent by which we can compare and verify what your premise is? Like this?

---

OK. Let's see. Trump has had four quarters of GDP growth above 3%. How many did your hero have?

As to rest of your rant, I will just repeat the obvious. Record low unemployment, energy independence, economic growth much better than under Obama, growth in manufacturing jobs which puts Obama's numbers to shame, and an outstanding trade deal with China. Yeah. Sure makes a fella long for the good ole days of the "limping along" Obama economy.

This is to easy!

Quote:

---

Verdict: True

Gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in the U.S., never rose 3 percent annually under Obama, although there were eight separate quarters where GDP grew by more than 3 percent.

---

Record low unemployment, One point better than Obama's

energy independence, Policies started before the dufus.

economic growth much better than under Obama, those pesky facts again.

growth in manufacturing jobs which puts Obama's numbers to shame, Your best case so far and not by much as another good trend the dufus inherited.

and an outstanding trade deal with China The ink is still wet but already it's NOT close to where we started.

Quote:

---

Record low unemployment, One point better than Obama's

---

What part of the word "record" do you not understand?

Quote:

---

energy independence, Policies started before the dufus.

---

Do you remember the Keystone pipeline that Obama REFUSED to build that have gotten us here much faster?

Quote:

---

economic growth much better than under Obama, those pesky facts again.

---

So you link to the Wash Post which requires a sub to view. Really?

Quote:

---

growth in manufacturing jobs which puts Obama's numbers to shame, Your best case so far and not by much as another good trend the dufus inherited.

---

You are stubborn to facts. Remember? The first 21 months of the Trump admin was TEN TIMES better than last 21 months of Obama. Remember? And that's what you call a good trend???

Quote:

---

and an outstanding trade deal with China The ink is still wet but already it's NOT close to where we started.

---

Correct. It is ahead of where we started. Obama chose to sit on his arse rather than try and confront the Chinese. Coward.

Quote:

---

Correct. It is

ahead

of where we started. Obama chose to sit on his arse rather than try and confront the Chinese. Coward.

---

No, one communist to another, business as usual

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What part of the word "record" do you not understand?

---

What part of inheriting a good economy is it you don't understand. Try starting at 10 and bring it down over years and you may be in line to celebrate an accomplishment. Of course anyone following Obama would have had the record too, even HC!

Quote:

---

Do you remember the Keystone pipeline that Obama REFUSED to build that have gotten us here much faster?

---

Now how did that happen since it hasn't been completed yet? Maybe in the future but NOW? I don't think so!

Quote:

---

So you link to the Wash Post which requires a sub to view. Really?

---

Sorry 'bout that but here is the GDP chart

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...OVY.jpg&w=1440

Quote:

---

You are stubborn to facts. Remember? The first 21 months of the Trump admin was TEN TIMES better than last 21 months of Obama. Remember? And that's what you call a good trend???

---

YUP, a good trend, and here's the proof

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...VBU.png&w=1440

Quote:

---

Correct. It is ahead of where we started. Obama chose to sit on his arse rather than try and confront the Chinese. Coward.

---

Prove it, your turn!

Quote:

---

Prove it, your turn!

---

Started at 104. Now at 108. Hello? Obama had 4 years out of 8 with growth under 2%. So far, Trump has ZERO years under 2%. In addition to 10 TIMES faster growth in manufacturing jobs, what else do you want to know? Unemployment at record low levels? Energy independent? What else would you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Started at 104. Now at 108. Hello? Obama had 4 years out of 8 with growth under 2%. So far, Trump has ZERO years under 2%. In addition to 10 TIMES faster growth in manufacturing jobs, what else do you want to know? Unemployment at record low levels? Energy independent? What else would you need?

---

While interesting, this has nothing to do with the OP, so did a conservative win in the UK precipitate the break up of the royal family who had younger members opt for the socialist safe haven of Canada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Started at 104. Now at 108. Hello? Obama had 4 years out of 8 with growth under 2%. So far, Trump has ZERO years under 2%. In addition to 10 TIMES faster growth in manufacturing jobs, what else do you want to know? Unemployment at record low levels? Energy independent? What else would you need?

---

I need everybody to get some of that good economy and not just the ones who were already getting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

While interesting, this has nothing to do with the OP, so did a conservative win in the UK precipitate the break up of the royal family who had younger members opt for the socialist safe haven of Canada?

---

I think the pomp and ceremony is much different than the actual governing Clete, and the Parliament has work to do while the royal kids are doing their own thing.

Quote:

---

I need everybody to get some of that good economy and not just the ones who were already getting it.

---

Are you one of these, "The glass is 1/10 empty" kind of guys?

Equal justice and equal opportunity for ALL! That's the kind of guy I am. You can ignore and dismiss those who have neither, but I will not. We are talking people not glasses of water.

Quote:

---

Equal justice and equal opportunity for ALL! That's the kind of guy I am. You can ignore and dismiss those who have neither, but I will not. We are talking people not glasses of water.

---

If you really believed that, then you would be raising your voice against abortion. It is the ultimate equal justice cause for which you care not one ounce. You would also be raising your voice loudly against the epidemic of sexual promiscuity which results in out of wedlock births, one of the great robbers of equal opportunity. I guess it's just a lot easier to call names and blame it on someone else. It's what seems to me to be the typical liberal mentality of "I want to sit in the comfort of my living room and think of myself as a SJW." Well, it doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you really believed that, then you would be raising your voice against abortion.

---

No. All males upon reaching puberty must have a vasectomy. That will take care of the problem.

Have no clue what an SJW is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I need everybody to get some of that good economy and not just the ones who were already getting it.

I think the pomp and ceremony is much different than the actual governing Clete, and the Parliament has work to do while the royal kids are doing their own thing.

---

Yes there could be nothing more boring than being nice to people all the time

Quote:

---

No. All males upon reaching puberty must have a vasectomy. That will take care of the problem.

---

True. Then we could all sit around for several more decades enjoying the rotting fruit of the sexual revolution while we wait on our species to become extinct. A much easier solution is for women to keep their pants on until they have a ring on. Worked for thousands of years. Only the recent feminist liberal philosophy, which you seem to have embraced with enthusiasm, has brought about that change. It has not been for the good at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

True. Then we could all sit around for several more decades enjoying the rotting fruit of the sexual revolution while we wait on our species to become extinct. A much easier solution is for women to keep their pants on until they have a ring on. Worked for thousands of years. Only the recent feminist liberal philosophy, which you seem to have embraced with enthusiasm, has brought about that change. It has not been for the good at all.

---

A man can have sex over 100 days with 100 women and produce 100 babies. A woman can have sex with 100 men over 100 days and produce one baby. Who needs to keep pants on???

Quote:

---

A man can have sex over 100 days with 100 women and produce 100 babies. A woman can have sex with 100 men over 100 days and produce one baby. Who needs to keep pants on???

---

A man could not have sex at all if all of those 100 women insisted on the ring going on first, but you have a fair enough statement. So do we agree that men and women alike need to postpone sex until marriage?

Well here we go with this abortion debate again, but I suppose it's inevitable since some love to blame a woman for being a women and the men are just to stupid to count on. That's the whole illogic part of this is the blame is always one sided if it's a bad thing. Would you be happy if marriage was mandatory or something JL? Or should we return to the secret days of sending pregnant women to boarding schools however it was dealt with before we started keeping track of such things. Yes I suppose your way has worked for a few thousand years but wonder what they did for thousands of years before that. That could be said to have worked also. What was that again?

Lets go back to letting the village raise the children and stop making faults and laying blame. Does it really matter why they are here when they are a blessing either way regardless? When are we going to ACT like it instead of this useless babble into what's good for YOU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A man could not have sex at all if all of those 100 women insisted on the ring going on first

---

None of those women want a ring -- or anything else -- from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A man could not have sex at all if all of those 100 women insisted on the ring going on first, but you have a fair enough statement. So do we agree that men and women alike need to postpone sex until marriage?

---

People have been breeding many thousands of years before somebody came up with the idea of a ring and I predict they will keep doing it for a thousand more years to come, with or without a ring so good luck stopping them.

Quote:

---

None of those women want a ring -- or anything else -- from him.

---

And again, do we agree that men and women alike need to postpone sex until marriage? If not, then what, as a confessing Christian, do you suggest?

Quote:

---

People have been breeding many thousands of years before somebody came up with the idea of a ring and I predict they will keep doing it for a thousand more years to come, with or without a ring so good luck stopping them.

---

Oh please. Are you really going to try and suggest that our present ideas of sexual promiscuity are not primarily limited to the 20th century? If you do, then you don't know squat about history. And the "ring", of course, symbolizes marriage which has been the primary arena for sex for millennia.

Quote:

---

some love to blame a woman for being a women

---

You do that? I didn't know. You really should stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And again, do we agree that men and women alike need to postpone sex until marriage? If not, then what, as a confessing Christian, do you suggest?

---

I was allowed to date only Christian young men. My parents made sure they were. Their Christianity didn't interfere with their lust. I had to be my own gatekeeper.

So, how do you propose to prevent men and women from enjoying sex before marriage? And if no pregnancy results, why can't they indulge? Or is that your only concern, an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?

Plainly you don't wish to answer my question which is, "Do we agree that men and women alike need to postpone sex until marriage?" At any rate, I will answer yours.

Quote:

---

So, how do you propose to prevent men and women from enjoying sex before marriage? And if no pregnancy results, why can't they indulge? Or is that your only concern, an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy?

---

First of all, it's an astonishing question coming from a professing Christian. Still, this issue relates back to the question of out of wedlock pregnancies. It is true that women can take the pill and be largely assured that they will not become pregnant. It is also true that, to the tune of several million a year, single women become pregnant and either have an abortion or give birth to a child which is born, in the great majority of cases, into a disadvantaged situation. My concern is primarily for those children and for the 900,000 a year killed in abortion. They are certainly free, as you so casually describe, to "indulge". As to how to prevent that, perhaps we could start by preaching about it on Sunday mornings, or even start with you and me agreeing together that sex should be reserved for marriage. Sadly, you won't even answer the question. It is a huge task since it is an enormous problem. We have dug ourselves a huge hole.