Newt Gingrich: Kamala Harris is an anti-Catholic bigot

No. Sex should be saved for marriage.

In fact, one of my heroes, Thomas Sowell, said, and I paraphrase, if you don't want to be poor in America, there are two things you need to do; graduate high school, and don't have children out of wedlock.

 

Because it is DESTRUCTIVE and one of the leading causes of poverty.

 

And you blame Hollywood and music industry for people CHOOSING to commit adultery?

 

You should check with Baron about this. I'm sure he has Googled Stormy Daniels porn pictures.

 

wow...and the left keeps getting lower.....

Aren't pics of Baron or at least kids his age, on the Obama/Biden server? or did they just keep classified material on convicted child sex offenders laptops?

 

Harris hates Catholics? Trying to threaten their funding? There's a reason why there's a separation of church and state clause.

But, you have to admit that Catholic doctrine is an antithesis of lefty politics.

 

I think you made that one up.

 

If society glorifies something and makes it a means to happiness, then yes, they're part of the problem. It's messaging. And their messaging has been progressively more and more permissive.

Now, people are responsible for their own actions, despite what liberals tell them. So ultimately, people have to think about the consequences of their actions, whether that's getting pregnant outside of marriage, resisting arrest, or burning down a building that has no moral agency whatsoever.

Grownups no longer run this country. If they did, and if the black community leaders would stop making excuses for bad behavior and subpar performance, a lot of this would be resolved.


Promoting promiscuity cheapens sex and turns the other person into an object of pleasure, and something less than a human being. Thus rap songs refer to easy women as "whores", movies glorify sex scenes, etc. It turns people - mostly women - into something to be conquered as a quest and something less than human.

But people are responsible for their own actions in the end. And Democrats are running around claiming black people are NOT responsible for their own actions, and the rest of society needs to bail them out or accept lower standards of behavior.

THAT is racist. It assumes, as a basic premise to the left's argument, that black people are not capable of being responsible for their own actions. That can ONLY be an assumption if your core belief is that black people are less than everyone else.

Ergo, the Democrat message to blacks is largely racist.

 

Nope...https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ocs-found-anthony-weiners-computer/990912001/

and maybe you weren't aware....https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/nyregion/anthony-weiner-prison-release.html

Maybe, get off the ignoring reality is strong with you

 

Biden... Weiner?

 

Do you also blame gun violence on Hollywood and music industry?
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. You put blame on Hollywood and music industry but in another breath you say people are responsible for their own actions. Well, which is it?
Not sure how you get that Dems are running around saying blacks aren’t responsible at all? I haven’t heard anyone say that.

 

Sure, to some extent. When a video game lets you ransack towns, hire hookers, shoot innocent people, etc., then yes. It's a negative influence.

My position from the previous post is crystal clear. People are responsible for their own actions. But societal messaging makes some of those moral decisions less clear.

The whole premise of affirmative action is that black people are less than other people and deserve special treatment.
If affirmative action was structured in a non-racial way - say - based on income, then it would not be assuming such horrible things.

 

Sorry, can’t have it both ways.

And no. The whole premise for affirmative action was because of racist attitudes towards minorities. That being said, two wrongs don’t make a right therefore affirmative action should be done away with.

 

It's not. That you insist I'm having it both ways just shows an unwillingness to address basic facts.

Society can send the wrong message. And for that, we should condemn those destructive messages.
Yet people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. You can tell me all day long that stealing cars is okay, but I know better. That doesn't mean the societal message of "it's okay to steal cars" doesn't deserve condemnation. It still does.

Make sense now?

And no. The entire premise of affirmative action was that black people are less capable than whites. It doesn't matter what defenses were given for it. Otherwise, it would be based on demographics other than skin color. Simple logic dictates that. We could easily come up with a formula that says kids from single parent households below the poverty level get a seat at Harvard, right?

This isn't rocket science.

 

Adultery and violence has been in movies for decades so to put any blame on that is weak.

I agree, it’s not rocket science and yet you seem to struggle with it. The fact that you deny the reason for affirmative action is mind boggling.

Something I’ve learned is people believe want they want to believe...so I let them. Carry on in ignorance. Cheers.

 

Anyone who's watched movies, old and new, knows that they've become more permissive. This isn't really debatable.

The ONLY reason you could base affirmative action on skin color is if you believe skin color correlates with academic achievement.
If it were otherwise, you'd base affirmative action programs on the factors that TRULY CAUSE disparities in achievement, lol. You can't have it both ways.

I suppose, as one more possibility, you could infer that the people who designed affirmative action programs were SO LAZY as to not understand what causes blacks to under perform. That, could be a logical explanation as well.

One more alternative is that liberal politicians were buying votes with such programs. That would also be a valid explanation.

I've proven the logic.

 

Relying on the opinion of Newt ****ing Gingrich?

The guy who put the "polar" in political polarization?

The guy who impeached Bill Clinton over an affair while himself having an affair with a woman 23 years his junior?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

 

Back when Affirmative Action was put in place the causes of blacks not "achieving" and "under performing" was racism. You DO realize there was a time when minorities, especially blacks, were discriminated against, right? Seriously, it was a real thing. Not sure how you missed it. But again, wallow in ignorance...it's fun to watch

 

When you look at the underlying causes, culture has had a much larger impact on attainment than racism. I'm not denying there was racism, and your little screed here doesn't change the underlying logic.

IF we believe that skin color does not, by itself, does not convey any specific advantage or disadvantage, then you have to look at other causes. Thomas Sowell has said it numerous times that affirmative action has failed to achieve any real measure of success, and actually has harmed blacks in many circumstances. Further, he said that affirmative action, where it did benefit blacks, really only helped those blacks who were already ahead of the curve.

And the biggest point he raises is that affirmative action, with respect to college admissions, is addressing the problem WAY too late in a child's life. The problems start at birth and affirmative action does nothing to help a black household that simply places no value on education. Affirmative action won't help those families at all. School integration was a great first step in addressing the formative years of black youth in a positive way.

I don't deny systemic racism did exist at one time. But the logic of affirmative action is still the same.

I'd urge you to check out Thomas Sowell for a more sober and less emotional discussion of affirmative action.