I just have to take a moment to seek understanding. I'm told that I've been conned by Trump, though I'm not exactly certain how. Now, those supporting BLM are now faced with the curious revelation that its marxist founder has purchased four properties totally over $3 million? Who knew marxism could be so profitable? In the meantime, how many have been lifted out of poverty and despair by the millions of dollars taken in by the organization?
Seems their donors have been taken in!
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
Conned!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
101 comments:
In the past, the only way Marxists/Communists could get multiple mansions was through using the power of the state to seize them from people. Now they just buy them.
Buy Large Mansions!
So that's what "BLM" stands for!! Who knew?
Apparently Patrisse has given some interviews where she admits that the only black lif she really cares about is her own.
Real social justice!
What's kind of funny is that I can respect someone who's honest about an amoral quest to do what's best for themselves and their family, and who actually lives that ethos out. But to see someone who hides behind trying to help others (and fails to do so) while enriching themselves and their family is pretty despicable.
I think that's why Coumo's situation bothers me so much. The fact that he lied in his public capacity, did the opposite of what he claimed, accepted the plaudits of the media, then further enriched himself with a book about how great he was.
Once again, those who see this person as a "warrior" for social justice has been conned, while asserting those of us were who supported a second term for Trump. Still waiting to hear how we were. Now I'm more interested in hearing a defense of the woman's behavior, which I can't see being reflective of the marxism she espouses.
Dan's comment with editing:
I'm sorry. Are the capitalists who are fine with Trump's repugnant abuse of the system to make himself wealthier than his Daddy made him complaining about a black woman purchasing homes with NO apparent cheating or abuse? [Dan embraces grace here] racist hypocrisy. How many employees did she cheat out of money? How many students did she rip off? How much charity money did she steal? We see. Repent, boys.
Dan,
Reserve your profanities and obscenities for your own blog where that hypocritical level of grace embracing can run free.
Actually, Dan raises some good points. How many people donated how many millions to BLM thinking that it was going to do more than simply enrich the founders. How much of that money has gone to help the victims?
Craig... "How many people donated how many millions to BLM thinking that it was going to do more than simply enrich the founders. How much of that money has gone to help the victims?"
1. I fully support non-profit organizations being transparent and I think it would be good for BLM to do so, as well.
2. That you are VERY concerned about BLM but never raised a single concern about white rich oppressive racist jack-asses like the white evangelicals savior (Trump) says a lot.
We see.
3. So far as I've seen, there's NO EVIDENCE that any money was misused by BLM. Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that I've seen that says BLM money was misused.
4. That is, for all we know, this leader paid for her purchases with her own money. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
4a. IF not, you both are rank hypocrites of the most foul sort... the sort of useful idiots that racists and conmen love. You're doing the work of racists. Have some shame. You've NEVER written a single blog (am I right?) about Trump's abuse of his wealth to cheat and steal (perhaps legally, but still cheating and stealing) but let a black woman from a group that you view in a hostile manner - a group working for justice for an historically oppressed group of people! - spend HER OWN DAMN money on HER OWN DAMN stuff and you join the racists in attacking her.
We SEE.
4b. If you DO have the evidence, present it. You almost certainly don't. Making vague and unsupported claims is the new MO for today's racist Trump conservatives and his white evangelical dupes.
5. How much of that money has gone to help the victims? As far as I know, ALL of BLM's income (minus overhead) has gone to fight for justice for historically oppressed black folks. That you may not approve of their work for justice does not mean it's meaningless.
The thing is, conservatives have long preferred to opt for charity ("let's give money to victims...") over justice ("let's change the system that oppresses the poor in the first place...").
Start reading some King, Gandhi. Jesus.
In the meantime, we see what you choose to bitch about and the color of those you choose to bitch about.
We see.
Marshal sided with the racists and terrorists, joining with them in attacking this black woman fighting for justice. Marshal did this by saying, along with the racists...
"those who see this person as a "warrior" for social justice has been conned"
Marshal says this with ZERO EVIDENCE to support this bullshit spewing from his filthy white mouth.
According to BLM...
“Patrisse Cullors is the Executive Director of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF),” the statement read. “She serves in this role in a volunteer capacity and
does not receive a salary or benefits.
Patrisse has received a total of $120,000
since the organization’s inception in 2013,
for duties such as serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education work.
Patrisse did not receive any compensation after 2019.”
The statement continues. “To be abundantly clear, as a registered 501c3,
BLMGNF cannot and did not commit any organizational resources
toward the purchase of personal property by any employee or volunteer.
Any insinuation or assertion to the contrary is categorically false.”
“Patrisse’s work for Black people over the years
has made her and others who align with the fight for Black liberation
targets of racist violence.
The narratives being spread about Patrisse have been
generated by right-wing forces intent on
reducing the support and influence of a movement that is larger than any one organization.
This right-wing offensive not only puts
Patrisse, her child and her loved ones in harm’s way,
it also continues a tradition of terror by white supremacists
against Black activists.
All Black activists know the fear these
malicious and serious actions are meant to instill:
the fear of being silenced, the trauma of being targeted,
the torture of feeling one’s family is exposed to danger
just for speaking out against unjust systems.
We have seen this tactic of terror time and again,
but our movement will not be silenced.”
Now, IF - IF IF IF IF - evidence emerges that Cullors and/or BLM cheated or stole or misused money, I will join with all others calling for them to be held accountable for any crimes OR EVEN misuse of money. I will do this JUST AS I DID with Trump, because I'm opposed to cheating charities.
But we see that Marshal and the racists have no such consistency. They are quiet with Trump's abuse of the system to enrich himself but jump on conspiracies with no support when it's a black woman.
WE SEE.
BLM is right: rightwing zealots and racists have used these slander attacks as part of their terrorism against strong black folks (and their allies) working for justice. That is the history of racism in this nation. They did it with King, they've done it towards others and almost certainly, they are doing it now.
Now, IF you have data supporting your damnable lie, present it and I'll join your side on this point.
But IF YOU DON'T (and you don't, you lying POS), have the decency to withdraw your false charges until there IS support.
These sorts of Trump cons and lies and attacks and racism WILL NOT STAND.
We see.
God sees, too.
Repent.
"We see."
Is this some sort of threat? Are y'all going to come after me? Maybe doxx me?
"God sees, too."
Why yes, I believe He does. The question is whether of not He exists and whether He's able to do anything.
Craig's edited comment:
1. That's good to know, given your past silence on the matter.
2. There are two interesting facets to your claim.
A. The suggestion that my concern about BLM and it's problematic elements is somehow wrong or misplaced.
B. I've regularly criticized Trump and others for various things. I don't criticize everyone for everything because I don't have the time or interest to do so.
C. Not only have you been silent on the concerning aspects of BLM, you have actively praised them and extolled how wonderful the organization is. That is also very telling.
3. This is one of those statements that is technically correct, but misleading nonetheless. In essence it's a straw man, because no one here has claimed that they "misused funds". The claims that have been made is that they have provided absolutely zero accounting of what's been done with the 10's of millions of dollars they've raised. That they've done nothing to help the families of those who's stories they've used to raise 10's of millions of dollars. That they've done nothing to help the communities devastated by the rioting last summer. That they've done nothing at all to help improve the communities where black people live their lives. Yet none of that seems to concern you. Oh, and the fact that Patrisse just dropped 1.4 million on her 4th high dollar home just looks terrible given the lack of any tangible sign of the organization making any other black lives better.
4. If the organization was as transparent financially as they should be, we'd know how much she was getting paid. One of the ways people judge the effectiveness of non profit organizations is by their overhead and by executive pay. Pray tell what has BLM done that would pay Patrisse enough to afford multiple homes? The reason there's no evidence is that BLM is incredibly opaque when it comes to their finances and what they've done with the 10's of millions of dollars they've raised.
4a. Yes, I've written about Trump's financial practices. Let's start with the obvious apples/oranges problem. For profit v. non profit. The notion that Trump's behavior somehow means that BLM is off limits is an absurd straw man. Yes, I join with all the black voices who are ceiling for transparency from BLM.
4b. Unfortunately BLM has gone to great lengths to conceal virtually everything about their finances and where the 10's of millions of dollars have gone. That's what's being asked for here is transparency. Further, the only claim I've made about Patrisse is that she's a hypocrite. The evidence of that is fairly clear.
5. The reality is that you have absolutely zero [expletive far more typical of a grace embracing progressive "Christian" deleted] clue about what happened to the 10's of millions BLM has raised. We know where it HASN'T gone (to the victims who's tragic stories have fueled the massive cash infusion or the black communities), we don't know what their overhead is because they are not transparent. I'm sorry you're so committed to the narrative that the facts don't bother you.
Does a "non profit" organization that is opaque about their finances, not concern you at all?
You keep talking about "these sorts of lies", please be specific, what specific lies are you talking about?
Apr 22, 2021 9:53 am
If it isn't realized by readers, Craig's last two comments are chronologically reversed. Don't know if it matters, but I thought I should point it out.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/how-much-of-her-money-is-actually-going-to-charitable-causes-head-of-nyc-blm-chapter-calls-for-probe-into-organizations-co-founder.4517175/
In addition to the info in the various articles presented in the above link, I came across something that mentioned Cullors earning $20K/mo which ended sometime in 2019. But even at that fine, very capitalist wage, it would take over four years at the gross earnings amount to amass $1 million. And that's without spending any of it. So, after taxes...
While it is mentioned in the various articles, she is shopping for a property in an exclusive island development where several celebs have properties, I saw one article stating the prices of the properties where she's shopping are about ten times the amount of the purchase which brought about all this attention. Her net worth for one recent year is only $1 million (and by "only" I mean in relation to her land baron holdings). I've been unable in my short research to find just how she's been able to amass enough to make all these purchases. Regardless, it seems clear she's working hard to get hers before she destroys our capitalist system like a good marxist.
More later...
Craig... "This is one of those statements that is technically correct, but misleading nonetheless. In essence it's a straw man"
You acknowledge that you have JACK SHIT and yet you continue to attack, malign, belittle and insinuate wrongdoing.
WE SEE what you're doing. WE SEE you siding with the racists and the perverts and the corrupt.
May you open your eyes and one day see, then have the courage to repent.
Good God, you ADMIT you have NOTHING and you double down on your deviancy.
Have you no shame? No decency?
Craig's lies, one after the other...
"he claims that have been made is that they have provided absolutely zero accounting of what's been done with the 10's of millions of dollars they've raised."
SUPPORT THIS bullshit claim or admit you've misstated.
"That they've done nothing to help the families of those who's stories they've used to raise 10's of millions of dollars."
SUPPORT THIS bullshit claim or admit you've misstated. You're assuming the work for change that BLM does "does nothing to help the families" who've been oppressed only shows your white candy-assed privilege.
"That they've done nothing to help the communities devastated by the rioting last summer."
SUPPORT THIS bullshit claim or admit you've misstated. You're assuming the work for change that BLM does "does nothing to help the families" who've been oppressed only shows your white candy-assed privilege.
"That they've done nothing at all to help improve the communities where black people live their lives."
SUPPORT THIS bullshit claim or admit you've misstated. You're assuming the work for change that BLM does "does nothing to help the families" who've been oppressed only shows your white candy-assed privilege.
That they are not working for change and improvement in a manner that makes your privileged little white ass happy DON'T MEAN SHIT. They're not trying to please racists and their supporters. They are working for change.
Open your privileged eyes to see the oppression that has been happening for hundreds of years by people just like you.
Craig... " We know where it HASN'T gone (to the victims who's tragic stories have fueled the massive cash infusion or the black communities), we don't know what their overhead is because they are not transparent."
Justice and NVDA CHANGE organizations are not charity operations. Their purpose is not to send money to impoverished areas. I mean, hell, do you criticize hospitals for not giving their money to poor areas of town? No, because that's not their charge, their mission.
Do you even understand WHAT justice organizations have as their mission statement/raison d'etre?
From BLM, their MISSION:
"whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and
build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities
by the state and vigilantes.
By combating and countering acts of violence,
creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and
centering Black joy,
we are winning immediate improvements in our lives."
Where in that mission statement do you see, "We will raise money for poor neighborhoods and victims of police violence..."?
It's NOT THERE. That's NOT THEIR MISSION.
Do you understand this?
Good Lord in heaven, have mercy. Save us from your white evangelical followers!
Marshal... "In addition to the info in the various articles presented in the above link, I came across something that mentioned Cullors earning $20K/mo which ended sometime in 2019."
Oh? Marshal, that fine and upstanding investigator of people's wealth ...
(well, except for Trump... Marshal turns a completely blind eye to that pervert's cheating and stealing - about which the Apostle James would say, "the wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.")
Marshal joins the racists and haters of decency by saying, "I don't know where her money is coming from, therefore, she must be cheating. After all, SHE's BLACK! and uppity, to boot..."
That YOU DON'T KNOW about this woman and her income does not mean jack shit.
Do you understand that? Say that out loud, to yourself, as many times as it takes.
That YOU don't know about this woman and her income does not mean JACK SHIT.
Just keep repeating it. Write it on a 2x4 and beat yourself over the head with it until it sinks in.
You are not this woman's accountant of financial advisor so shut the hell up. If you must, go over to the KKK rally and commiserate with them. They'll be glad to listen to you.
Of ALL Marshal's words, I can find one true statement from him.
"I've been unable in my short research to
find just how she's been able to amass enough
to make all these purchases."
You want to do the world some good? Spend some time in figuring out how your pervert, Trump, amassed all his purchases? Start chastising him for his many KNOWN abuses of his wealth and do that for ten years and THEN, IF you can find information about this woman you're attacking based on you own IMPOTENCY to "find" dirt that you so want... THEN, you can accuse her with some credibility.
But given the complete pass you've given to your pervert conman, you have zero credibilty until you've done that.
Craig... "Does a "non profit" organization that is opaque about their finances, not concern you at all?"
Yes, you can tell by the way I've been critical of Trump's abuse of his charity (and college) organizations. I care when charities cheat.
And I want transparency.
I can find no information on the transparency (or lack thereof) of BLM, or where their money goes. Read this slowly so you can understand (since I've already and always been clear):
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT BLM is accountable for the money they've received.
At this point, I have NO CREDIBLE data to suggest that they are misusing their money in ANY way, but I also have no Watchdog type report to affirm they're doing right by their donors. I would like the latter, but have no reason (nor does Craig) to suspect foul play.
Now, where is your concern for Trump's KNOWN abuses? If you want to worry about cheaters and takers, START with the people we KNOW are corrupt.
Until then, you're just a tool of the racists.
Craig... " Not only have you been silent on the concerning aspects of BLM, you have actively praised them and extolled how wonderful the organization is. That is also very telling."
Yes, it says that I side with ~86-90+% of black folks. That I listen to them and their concerns and believe their concerns are legitimate and historical and that change needs to come. I, BLM and ~90% of black folks are agreed on that.
That's what it says.
And Craig, with his "concerning aspects of BLM" implies - without support or really ANYTHING - that there ARE concerning aspects of BLM. Having seen and supported and worked with BLM supporters, I don't know what concerns there are? That they're TOO committed to justice? That they recognize, along with Dr King, that rioting can be expected when justice is denied over and over?
No, I'm quite comfortable being seen with BLM and nearly all black people and Dr King.
Are you comfortable being seen as antagonistic towards BLM, nearly all black folk and Dr King?
Craig, is it fair to say that your complaint with BLM (or at least one of them) is that YOU THINK that if they're concerned about the plight of those impacted by police violence, they should be giving money to victims of black violence and their communities... EVEN IF that's not part of their mission? Is it fair to say that you disagree with their mission of working to effect change in policing procedures, instead of just giving money to those harmed?
If so, can you find it within yourself to admit that giving money to victims is NOT part of their mission statement and mission? And so, from a purely missional point of view, it's reasonable - not nefarious - that they aren't giving money to the victims of police abuse?
Regarding your comment of April 22, 2021 at 5:28 PM:
How does one provide evidence that nothing was done? I would say the evidence is in Dan's inability or unwillingness to provide evidence that BLM has done any of the things Craig suggests hasn't been done. "Working for change" is a pathetic claim and one who finds this a compelling assertion should have the integrity of being more specific, as well as demonstrating how whatever passes for "working for change" has brought about anything beneficial for those whom BLM claims to be working.
From your comment of April 22, 2021 at 5:33 PM
"Where in that mission statement do you see..."
...anything tangible, measurable....anything that has made a substantive difference any black person has actually felt or can see in their or their friends' lives?
"whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy..."
What "white supremacy"?
...and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities
by the state and vigilantes."
What about the violence inflicted on the black communities by black people living within them...which is the violence suffered far more routinely and directly than any alleged violence by alleged white supremacist forces any BLMer can identify specifically.
"By combating and countering acts of violence (except from blacks within black communities) ,
creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and
centering Black joy (??) ,
we are winning immediate improvements in our lives."
Certainly Cullors has experienced vast improvement in her life! Not recognizable manifestations for anyone else to whom you can legitimately point. This mission statement doesn't say anything about raising "money for poor neighborhoods and victims of police violence..."?" Indeed, it doesn't really say anything of substance whatsoever.
From your comment of April 22, 2021 at 5:39 PM
"Oh? Marshal, that fine and upstanding investigator of people's wealth ...
(well, except for Trump... Marshal turns a completely blind eye to that pervert's cheating and stealing..."
...legitimate examples of such Dan has yet to provide. Lots of accusations, though. Dan gives us tons of those!
"You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter."
Cullors is certainly doing this, it seems!
"Marshal joins the racists and haters of decency..."
What are you talking about?! I haven't joined BLM!
"I don't know where her money is coming from, therefore, she must be cheating."
Haven't said she's been cheating. Just wondering how she can afford all the properties which appears to be more than her activism can provide. Now, it seems Hawk Newsome wonders as well.
"After all, SHE's BLACK! and uppity, to boot..."
Is she? Why does it matter to you that she's black. As to uppity, why do you put it that way? No one is more racist than a leftist.
For my part, it doesn't matter what color or sex she is if it appears she is profiting off of a non-profit organization that you can't provide evidence of having improved anyone's lot in life but her own. Since you know so much, do tell how she's able to acquire so much with so little. Maybe she has the resources. I don't know. I just haven't found anything.
In the meantime, you apparently don't know jack about her or what she's done that has any true value that can be measured. You just let your white-guilt flow!
"That YOU don't know about this woman and her income does not mean JACK SHIT."
That YOU know even less about this woman and don't care to find out demonstrates what a good sheep you are for the marxist cause. Good little sheep!
"You are not this woman's accountant of financial advisor so shut the hell up."
More grace embracing! You're confusing this blog with your own. This is the blog where one is free to speak without deletion (aside from your grace embracing profanities). That's how you can tell it's not your blog. You can't delete anyone here.
"If you must, go over to the KKK rally and commiserate with them. They'll be glad to listen to you."
Here's the thing, Sally: Unlike you, I don't support ANY racist groups, regardless if they're white racists like the KKK, or black racists like BLM.
From Dan's comment on April 22, 2021 at 5:42 PM:
"You want to do the world some good? Spend some time in figuring out how your pervert, Trump, amassed all his purchases?"
I love when LGBT enablers refer to others as perverts!
I already know how Trump amassed all his purchases. He was bequeathed a sum of money from his father and invested, built and created businesses and properties which employed thousands. These total in the neighborhood of around 500 businesses and properties around the world of which he either owns outright or in partnership or to which he lends his name.
"Start chastising him for his many KNOWN abuses of his wealth..."
Such as...
You don't "know" anything of the kind. You simply parrot what other Trump-haters (who've also produced no solid evidence) have said. All that matters to you is your vile, grace-embracing hatred for the man.
You brought up these "KNOWN abuses" earlier and I've some details that prove you're without any solid evidence for your allegations. I'll be posting them here a little later on.
"IF you can find information about this woman you're attacking based on you own IMPOTENCY to "find" dirt that you so want... THEN, you can accuse her with some credibility."
This info's out there, Sparky. Her exploitation of the self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin as some kind of "murder" isn't really the beginning. Her organization has ties to various domestic terrorists and if you actually gave a flying rat's ass about truth, you'd have nothing to do with her...except that you support her brand of "social justice" terrorism. The fact is, it is you who lacks credibility given your purposeful disregard for investigating just who it is you support like a good little sheep.
"But given the complete pass you've given to your pervert conman, you have zero credibilty until you've done that."
As I don't support any perverts (such as the LGBT activists) or conmen (such as Joe Biden), you demonstrate your lack of credibility in insisting I do. What's more, that lack of credibility is solidified by your inability to provide any specific acts of Trump for which you can supply evidence. All you do is assert. Every weak-sauce attempts to prove evil on his part you've thus far offered I've shredded with detail you should've already discovered. I have more coming a bit later regarding your allegations in comments above.
Marshal demonstrated his delusion by asking... "What "white supremacy"?"
The white supremacy that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies identify as the greatest threat facing US citizens. The idiots who tried to overthrow the Capitol and interfere with our liberty and election process on the word of their leader, Trump, ACCORDING TO THEM. The ones who say THEMSELVES that Trump has emboldened them. The ones who have been responsible for deadly attack after deadly attack after attempted deadly attack, as well as their supporters/enablers. McVeigh, Randolph, Holzer, Crusius, Joseph Franklin, Page, Cross, Fields, Bowers, Roof, Hole...
Are you seriously not aware of the long list of white supremacist killings and mass killings? And attempted killings?
Or are you denying that reality in an effort to defend the racists?
Silence is enabling the white supremacists. Find a spine, open your mind, repent.
Dan,
I’ll take Breonna Taylor’s mother’s word for how BLM has supported her, over yours any day.
I love how you aren’t providing proof or examples of the wonderful good works BLM has done, your just attacking me for pointing out their utter lack of transparency about what they spend the 10’s of millions of dollars they’ve raise on.
The problem is that you can’t actually show anything specific, so you just attack others and try to paint with the “racism” brush because you’ve got nothing.
I’ve been posting what black voices have been saying about BLM for months, but you must think I should accept your vague generalities, instead of the specifics I hear from black voices.
“ Craig, is it fair to say that your complaint with BLM (or at least one of them) is that YOU THINK that if they're concerned about the plight of those impacted by police violence, they should be giving money to victims of black violence and their communities... EVEN IF that's not part of their mission?”
No. I think that if BLM is going to use the corpses of Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and others to raise 10’s of millions of dollars, that common decency would suggest that they provide direct assistance to the families. The fact that this is a position shared by some of the family members, seems to make it a reasonable one. The notion that they can’t put some of the 10’s of millions of dollars toward things beside their stated “mission”, is simply a straw man.
“ Is it fair to say that you disagree with their mission of working to effect change in policing procedures, instead of just giving money to those harmed?””
No.
Can you point to one or two specific things they’ve done that have “changed policing procedures “?
Can you point to how providing financial support to the families and communities harmed has or would prevent them from accomplishing anything?
Art,
Do you find it interesting that the way to “open your mind”, is to believe what Dan says you should believe?
Craig... "been posting what black voices have been saying about BLM for months"
You've been posting what a TINY minority of black people have said about BLM. Ignoring 9 out of 10 black people. That is, you are literally ignoring the vast majority of black people. Does it make you feel good to cite the tiny minority that agrees with you? It shouldn't. Again, that is a tool commonly used by racists. Can you at least acknowledge that you are on the same side as racists on this matter?
Let the record show, you have no reason to suggest wrongdoing by blm. You have no data on which to base a claim that they've abused their money.
Craig... "The problem is that you can’t actually show anything specific,"
The problem is, you turn a blind eye to the vast specifics. Indeed, you look at the specifics and call them bad, rather than good.
According to Wikipedia...
"An estimated 15 million to 26 million people participated in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, making it one of the largest movements in the country's history."
According to another source, 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful.
Now I know a lot of white conservatives don't understand this, but that kind of protest power does not happen by accident. It takes organizing. BLM has been that organizer.
Whun of the largest movements in the history of this nation. How do you think that happens?
Regarding Dan's comment of April 22, 2021 at 9:12 PM, before I address earlier comments I haven't had the time to cover before he added more ludicrous crap:
"Marshal demonstrated his delusion by asking... "What "white supremacy"?""
You then go on to do nothing to answer the question.
"The white supremacy that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies identify as the greatest threat facing US citizens."
And you can support this claim with hard data? I can't. What I find is lefties like yourself and others referring to a report from June 4, 2019 entitled "Confronting White Supremacy" in which no reference to "White Supremacy" is mentioned therein. Instead, we're informed of FBI efforts to discover and combat "domestic terrorism" and "hate crimes" without any reference to specific groups or persons. Interestingly, we are given this definition:
Domestic terrorism is defined by statute as any act dangerous to human life that violates U.S. criminal laws and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Why, that sounds curiously like what we saw all last summer from various riots enabled, supported and instigated by BLM or inspired by their rhetoric!
Or perhaps lefties like yourself and others are referring to a report from September 17, 2020 entitled, "Worldwide Threats to the Homeland", which also doesn't mention "White Supremacy". Indeed, neither of these make the claim it's "the greatest threat facing US citizens." Maybe you have some source that isn't just some lefty media schmuck doing some journalistic race-hustling.
Maybe you have some actual data or stats. The stats I found, unfortunately no more recent than 2019, tell a story lefties don't want to hear...or rather let the general population hear. Of the 3299 white people murdered, 566 black people did the murdering, or a little over 17% were murdered by black people. Conversely, of the 2906 black people murdered, white people murdered 246 of them, or 8.5%. Does that really sound to you that "white supremacy" is "the greatest threat facing US citizens"? That's a rhetorical question. You're not honest enough to give an honest answer.
"The idiots who tried to overthrow the Capitol and interfere with our liberty and election process on the word of their leader, Trump, ACCORDING TO THEM. The ones who say THEMSELVES that Trump has emboldened them."
That's a vile, stupidly Trabue lie. That is, morons (as if there are more than a handful) falsely claim to have been encouraged by Trump and Trabues pretend it's true.
"The ones who have been responsible for deadly attack after deadly attack after attempted deadly attack, as well as their supporters/enablers."
You mean the 566 black people who murdered whites, as well as the 2,574 black people who murdered blacks...not to mention the both white and black people who managed not to die from attacks by black people.
"Are you seriously not aware of the long list of white supremacist killings and mass killings? And attempted killings?"
I'm aware such things have happened, will likely continue to happen and will most certainly be framed by lying lefties like you as having been more prevalent than they are. I'm also aware of how they include attacks on and murders of white supremacists by white supremacists to inflate the numbers in order to make the false case of white supremacy being the greatest threat ever, as I've pointed out in past discussions.
"Or are you denying that reality in an effort to defend the racists?"
I don't defend racists. YOU do. Honest people know them as "BLM". Your silence enables them, and you don't have the spine to admit reality not matter how many stores are looted or burned down because of your white-guilt.
Craig,
"Do you find it interesting that the way to “open your mind”, is to believe what Dan says you should believe?"
I don't know that "interesting" is the right word, but it is the only way according to Dan in his closed, feeble mind.
"Whun(sic) of the largest movements in the history of this nation. How do you think that happens?"
Clearly by the proliferation of a proven false narrative and the gullibility of those who do no research of their own to verify or debunk it. That's how.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exclusive-black-lives-matter-opens-up-about-its-finances
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/as-black-lives-matter-donations-surge-some-want-to-know-where-the-money-goes
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474143254
https://lehsoracle.com/27359/uncategorized/blm-donations-where-does-the-money-go/
https://nypost.com/2021/04/17/breonna-taylors-mom-slams-blm-louisville-as-a-fraud/
"Where in that mission statement do you see, "We will raise money for poor neighborhoods and victims of police violence..."?"
Where did I say that it was? Is this the new edited version, or the original version? Are you suggesting that BLM helping the victims is prohibited by their "mission statement"?
"Do you understand this?"
Yes. Since you've established that they aren't interested in directly helping the victims, let's see the list of what they have done? Explain where the 90+ million they've raised has gone?
"I can find no information on the transparency (or lack thereof) of BLM, or where their money goes."
What I hear you saying here is that you can't find out one single bit of information regarding what BLM has done with their 90+ million dollars they've raised, and that that lack of that information doesn't concern you in the least?
You say you want "transparency", yet admit that BLM is is so opaque that you literally can find zero information on them.
"You've been posting what a TINY minority of black people have said about BLM."
So what, I've literally been pointing out what a fraction of the black voices I listen to are saying, that is literally the undeniable Truth. The fact that choose to ignore the black voices I listen to means nothing. Are you suggeting that their concerns aren't valid? That the information they are communicating is wrong? That they should be ignored?
"Ignoring 9 out of 10 black people. That is, you are literally ignoring the vast majority of black people."
That's quite a claim of fact, prove it.
"Does it make you feel good to cite the tiny minority that agrees with you?"
No. But I do find it valuable to give voice to those who are ignored or minimized by folks like you.
"It shouldn't. Again, that is a tool commonly used by racists. Can you at least acknowledge that you are on the same side as racists on this matter?"
No, I'm not so why would I affirm something I know to be false? Why would you demand that I affirm a falsehood?
"Let the record show, you have no reason to suggest wrongdoing by blm. You have no data on which to base a claim that they've abused their money.
I've never claimed they've "abused their money".
I (and others) have ASKED to see what they've done with the 90+ million dollars they've raised. We pretty much know what they haven't done, so let's see what they have done?
"Whun of the largest movements in the history of this nation. How do you think that happens?
Yeah, but those 7% have caused billions of dollars in damage, caused direct harm to thousands of POC, and continue to harm people. So there's that.
Absolutely none of the "two" things you've copy/pasted demonstrates one specific, concrete things that BLm has done to move their "mission" forward and a tangible way, nor explain what's happened to the 90+ million dollars they've banked.
Nice try. It's certainly easier to bash others than to actually make a positive case for BLM's accomplishments>
Regarding Dan's comment on April 21, 2021 at 4:21 AM
"How many employees did she cheat out of money? How many students did she rip off? How much charity money did she steal?"
How many employees did Trump cheat out of money and what hard data do you have to support the contention? Does it include anything more than the accusation by some employee? Is it weighed against the opinions of other employees who may have a positive opinion of Trump as an employer?
There's evidence that suggests the vast majority of students of Trump University were pleased with the education they received. There's evidence that lawsuits against Trump were dismissed except for the charge of using the word "University" in the name of his business because it's against the law in New York to do so without actually being an accredited (by the state of New York) school.
Here's what that hard core conservative Snopes site said about Trump "stealing" money from his charity:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fine-stealing-veterans/
This notion that Trump's past actions (or alleged past actions) are justification for virtually any similar actions on the part of virtually any left winger or left wing group is simply insane. Especially when some of the actions used were perfectly legal at the time.
https://twitter.com/glennbeck/status/1385715103077605378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3ABlazeTV%7Ctwgr%5EeyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fchristianconservativedaily.com%2Fwhy-we-wont-and-cant-go-back-to-pre-covid-normal-steve-deace-show%2F
The above...if it actually leads where I hope it will...speaks to the manner in which so much considered "right-wing violence" has no relation to right-wing anything. It also makes a point I meant to mention in my 2 comments from April 23, 2021 at 2:41 PM, which is that hispanics are included in the category of "white" by even law enforcement such as the FBI (unless otherwise separated). Distortions of this kind confound any real understanding which is not formed by a far deeper analysis, and lefties don't go more than ankle deep when the superficial is enough to perpetuate the narrative. What this means is that...just like adding incidents of white racists killing other white racists...the numbers of cases said to be proofs of "white supremacy" are indeed inflated. In the meantime, the lefty will ignore or diminish in some way cases of black on white/asian/Jewish crime in order to deflect attention which puts their "concern" for "the oppressed" in question.
While all this partisan crap goes on, the typical conservative sees all crime by one person or group against another person or group as simply crimes we cannot and must not tolerate...as crimes of people against other people only and who the hell cares what race either perp or victim is. It must stop and those who continue to force a wedge of any kind between us all based on the superficial are among the worst people in the world. These would include Dan and his kind.
Craig,
"This notion that Trump's past actions (or alleged past actions) are justification for virtually any similar actions on the part of virtually any left winger or left wing group is simply insane. Especially when some of the actions used were perfectly legal at the time."
This isn't what Dan's doing. He's deflecting to his unproven and largely false allegations against Trump while insisting those he defends are as pure as the driven snow...if a white-guilt progressive can get away with comparing the character of black racists with a white substance.
I think you'd agree with me that there's no issue with Cullors amassing a real estate portfolio. The problem is merely in a marxist doing so, which is hypocritical and is far more of a con job than what Dan wants to believe resulted in support for Trump. Indeed, other than the support itself, I am completely unaware of any personal benefit...particularly financial...Trump has accrued from the political support he's gotten. Again, I see it as personal gain on my own behalf to have a president who has shown himself concerned with ALL Americans over and above that for any single group or for those of other countries...not to mention his fiscal/tax policies and the benefits all have enjoyed. What does someone like Dan think we should have received from Trump that we didn't, and how has anyone benefited by the efforts of the marxist leaders of BLM in any of its iterations? The answers to these questions suggest who...if anyone...has been conned and who...if anyone...is the real con artist.
Craig... "How many employees did Trump cheat out of money and what hard data do you have to support the contention? Does it include anything more than the accusation by some employee?"
Hundreds.
"a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them....
Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
So, you think that an employee who claims their employer cheated them out of money doesn't mean anything? But what if it's dozens? Hundreds?
At some point, you no longer have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
Remembering St James...
"Now listen, you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages
you failed to pay
the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter."
Do you think that does not describe Trump precisely?
Do you think that "you rich people" didn't respond to Jesus, "They were just disgruntled employees... I'm innocent!"
Count on it.
We see. You should see.
I guess I don;t really see any significant difference between what you quoted and what you said after. It's whether Trump's sins are real, imagined, or embellished, it's simply trying to suggest that pointing out ANY issues with ANYONE on the left is off limits unless Trump has been criticized for everything he's even been accused of doing. The problem is that it's possible to criticize Trump where appropriate AND criticize Waters (or Pelosi,etc) at the same time. It's a childish attempt at deflection, and nothing more.
Of course we agree that Cullors has the "right" to amass a real estate portfolio. She even has the "right" to live in areas where she can avoid black people. The problem I have is the hypocrisy she's shown and the opaqueness of BLM around their finances. She's just one more grifter who's managed to turn her "fighting racism" hustle into personal financial gain, without seeming to bring the victims" along with her. She's just one more in a long line of folks who've managed to make "social justice" personally enriching. I guess pointing out that owning multiple homes, valued at millions of dollars isn't exactly a simple lifestyle, is pointless.
Marshal, I see your Snopes article and raise you the Attorney General of NY's conclusions...
"Additionally, as part of the settlement, Trump was required to agree to 19 admissions, acknowledging his personal misuse of funds at the Trump Foundation..."
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation
From Dan's comment on April 23, 2021 at 6:19 PM
"So, you think that an employee who claims their employer cheated them out of money doesn't mean anything?"
Never said anything remotely like this.
Regarding your USA Today link, I'm not going to get into too much detail because it doesn't provide any. But just a few points:
---Given the amount of people he employs and with whom he does business, it's not surprising he'd run afoul of some of them. The question is, how many had direct issues with Trump as opposed to his organization. Despite him being regarded as very hands on, does that mean he deals with absolutely every issue throughout his "empire"?
---There isn't much in the article as regards Trump's side of the story. Then again, I wouldn't expect it for two major reasons:
1. Just too many allegations over too many years for him to provide much about every one of them.
2. USA Today isn't likely concerned with presenting his side of the story.
...but getting both sides is what a proper, professional and ethical news source is supposed to do.
---We're to assume each allegation is legitimate without being given any reason to believe it's so.
---The article references settlements with many of the complainants. This could mean either the allegation was legit or that Trumpworld simply didn't see it as worth fighting in court. Settlements get the issue out of the way so that parties can move passed it. But if the allegation was legit, then it could also mean Trump is making good on what turned out to be a mistake on his/his company's part.
---It was mentioned that Trump would "stiff" people with the excuse they did crappy work, but then offer future work. This is suggested as evidence that the people did good work after all the excuse was bogus. But it could also mean that a) the crappy contractor is still the best option, or b) the crappy contractor would do better work next time knowing he wouldn't get paid. Trump could just be a forgiving guy.
continuing...
Now, no doubt you'll choose to embrace grace and insist my response means I'm taking sides in support of Trump no matter what. But you'd just be proving yourself to be an asshat. I have no idea if any of these people are telling the truth, and judgements against Trump don't necessarily prove it. They only prove he was judged to be obliged to his accusers. Yet he could be the incredibly nasty jerk the article wants to present him as being. Either way, I don't really care. These allegations were not lost on me during the primaries prior to his election. They were not important to me once it came down to him or Hillary. They were totally irrelevant after his first stellar term as president.
But rather than trying to so hard to portray Trump as having stiffed people, it should at the same time be remembered that he kept most of his businesses in business, paying state and local taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, all while keeping thousands of employees employed, employees who themselves pay taxes. As to those employees, I found that some employees actually like working for his companies. I also found many women liked working for him. And here's a piece from a guy who provides insight into what being on Trump's side of the business can be like.
You want to pretend you have room to bring Scripture in the discussion, but you don't have the Christian charity to be honest about your hatred for the man. What I've done, however, is provide a more complete picture of the situation regarding his business dealings. And being more honest than you, I can both acknowledge the possibility that he's every bit as bad in business as haters like you insist he is, while still acknowledging all the great things he did as president which qualified him for a second term over the buffoons you preferred, with the one now in office who is doing his damnedest to be known as the absolute worst and most destructive president ever.
Regarding Dan's comment on April 23, 2021 at 8:11 PM:
Your response to the Snopes piece doesn't debunk, rebut or mitigate a thing, especially given the settlement was mentioned in it. But like the grace-embracing fraud of a Christian you are, it doesn't demonstrate malicious intent on his part. It only shows he wasn't dead on with the rules. Here's a some more details about that situation:
https://observer.com/2014/02/the-politics-and-power-of-a-g-schneiderman/
https://observer.com/2014/10/time-runs-out-on-attorney-generals-fraud-suit/
https://observer.com/2016/02/the-media-hates-donald-trump-more-than-it-loves-the-truth/
So you see, little Danny-boy, you can hate on Trump to your grace-embracing, hateful heart's content and while the only "truth" that exists is that Trump is no angel, nor is he hell-spawn, none of that has anything to do with the fact that people have supported his Cullors woman as if she's got only the good of others in mind, when obviously that's not the case. By whatever means she's come to be able to afford so many properties, she's done pretty much nothing for the "oppressed" about whom she pretends to care. By your "standards" by which you've chosen to demonize Trump, this broad's a con artist as well.
"Doesn't demonstrate malicious intent on his part..."
The thousands of words from his vomitous, filthy mouth make that clear to all but the true believers. The man STATES CLEARLY that all of this is a game for him. He's fine with using/abusing the system to cut as many corners as he can to save his greedy soul any pennies he can... even if that means not paying his contractors or employees everything he owes them.
He uses bankruptcy to avoid paying legitimate debts that he himself (or his business) incurred. The self-proclaimed billionaire (we don't KNOW what he's actually worth because of his corruption, dishonesty and deliberate lack of transparency) has used bankruptcy to avoid paying his debt SIX times. It's vile and evil and an abuse of the system for a billionaire to use bankruptcies to avoid paying debts his businesses incur. It may be legal, but it's despicable.
IF I was worth a billion dollars and I had a business that owed $10 million, you can be sure as hell that I wouldn't abuse the bankruptcy system to avoid paying what MY business owed. I'd get my checkbook out and pay my debt.
As would ANY honest, decent person. Would YOU abuse the system to avoid paying debt that you could afford to pay?
Do you not understand the Apostle James' words?
Using one's wealthy to build bigger and bigger barns and towers and avoid paying the field workers what you owe them is diabolical. To HELL with those greedy titans, James warns.
Be forthright, Marshal... if you were a billionaire, would you use bankruptcy to avoid paying debt your business owed? I don't think you're that evil a person, but you tell me. I'm not talking legal, here. I'm talking moral.
Aren't you a more moral person than Trump?
"The thousands of words from his vomitous, filthy mouth make that clear to all but the true believers."
No doubt it does to "vomitous", filthy mouthed grace-embracers like you.
"The man STATES CLEARLY that all of this is a game for him."
That's hardly evidence of a lack of compassion and empathy for his country. Indeed, treating or regarding life as a game isn't an uncommon position in the slightest. But you go ahead and believe it makes him a bad guy. It's what you do.
"He's fine with using/abusing the system to cut as many corners as he can to save his greedy soul any pennies he can..."
So nice to know you take absolutely no deductions on your taxes. As to "abusing" the system, you'll need to be really specific about that...which means doing more than merely copy/pasting an article that doesn't provide the specificity required to make the case, as you did with your USA Today link.
"... even if that means not paying his contractors or employees everything he owes them."
Do you pay for services not rendered or products which did not meet your expectations? What are the chances that those who provided that which did not would insist they did? This is what your USA Today article did. They cited people making complaints we as readers can choose to take at their word or set aside our judgement based on the extremely one-sided tone of the article. As I do with brief cell phone footage of "racist cops attacking helpless innocent black people", I choose to withhold judgement until more evidence is provided.
"He uses bankruptcy to avoid paying legitimate debts that he himself (or his business) incurred."
This is your own vomitous grace-embracing twisting of reality. Bankruptcy is a common practice in business and his corporate entities availed themselves of this debt management tool...as so very many companies have and do...something like four times (some say six, but no matter), which given how many businesses and properties he's developed isn't so much. But you go ahead and continue framing it as some incredible evil, because that's what embracing grace looks like.
.
"It's vile and evil and an abuse of the system for a billionaire to use bankruptcies to avoid paying debts his businesses incur. It may be legal, but it's despicable."
It's done all the time, constantly. It wasn't Trump who filed, but his corporation which filed, and it allows a situation to be rectified to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Debts get paid. That's how it works. From what I've read, it also included him losing controlling interest in each of the businesses where bankruptcy took place and at least some of them are still employing people as a result. There's nothing vile or despicable about filing bankruptcy. You're just a covetous hater of the wealthy, and in your grace-embracing way demonize them without knowing a damned thing about them. Now let's see you focus on all the other businesses of his where he didn't file bankruptcy.
"IF I was worth a billion dollars and I had a business that owed $10 million, you can be sure as hell that I wouldn't abuse the bankruptcy system to avoid paying what MY business owed. I'd get my checkbook out and pay my debt."
Then you'd be a rich moron who doesn't understand the process of the various forms of bankruptcy and how and why they're used to resolve debt issues.
"Be forthright, Marshal... if you were a billionaire, would you use bankruptcy to avoid paying debt your business owed? I don't think you're that evil a person, but you tell me. I'm not talking legal, here. I'm talking moral."
No, you're talking stupidity and ignorance because you don't seem to understand that just because you hear the word "bankruptcy", you think it means he didn't pay his debts. While I don't recall the exact "Chapter" of bankruptcy he filed, I do know that it is just a restructuring of debt, not a way to get out of paying it. Get your head out of your hateful, fake Christian ass and learn something.
"Aren't you a more moral person than Trump?"
Unlike you, evidently, I try not to be like the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14
I asked you a relatively simple question. If you were a billionaire and one of your companies owed 10 million dollars, would you use bankruptcy to avoid paying that debt your company owed... That your company owed?
You ARE aware the companies in their owners use bankruptcy to avoid paying all their debt, right?
Dan and Marshal...
"Aren't you a more moral person than Trump?"
Unlike you, evidently, I try not to be like the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14"
Unlike you, evidently, I strive to be like Jesus when he said,
"Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?"
The point being, there are SOME things so obvious, that most of us poor and imperfect people recognize it. Being a billionaire and refusing to pay your debts to those to whom you owe money is one of them.
Marshal, in his post, said, " In the meantime, how many have been lifted out of poverty and despair by the millions of dollars taken in by the organization?"
It's not the MISSION of BLM to directly give money to directly lift people out of poverty. Why would they do something not in their mission?
I mean, Trump's various businesses have not done ANYTHING to lift those in poverty out of poverty. Do I criticize his businesses for that? No. It's not part of the mission of the business.
It's a con to try to force a justice group to do charity work. It's one of the great White Cons that have been pushed on poor communities by white folks in power. "Let's focus on little charities, instead of big justice changes... just keep ignoring the injustices that keep people oppressed..."
Art,
This "more moral than Trump" thing is interesting. As someone who believes in what the Bible tells us that God/Jesus has said about "morality", I'd maybe suggest that we're all equally "immoral" in God's eyes (although in different ways) and that comparing one sinner to another is just about trying to generate pride (one of the 7 deadly sins) on the part of the sinner who thinks they're better than someone else. It really does seem like Dan is trying to get you to be like the Pharisees.
As someone who's considered bankruptcy at least once, I'll say that I will avail myself of any legal means to do what's in the best interest of myself and my family. Net worth doesn't enter into it.
I do love how Dan betrays his misunderstanding of what net worth actually is. It's like he thinks that Trump has vaults full of fungible assets that he can just pass out to anyone he chooses. It's a common misconception of the left when they set their sights on the money of those they deem "the rich".
For example, my current net worth is significant by any measure, but I am finding that paying the bills from my recent surgery to be problematic. Just because Dan would think that my net worth makes me "rich" doesn't mean that I'm flush with cash.
"I asked you a relatively simple question. If you were a billionaire and one of your companies owed 10 million dollars, would you use bankruptcy to avoid paying that debt your company owed... That your company owed?
You ARE aware the companies in their owners use bankruptcy to avoid paying all their debt, right?"
You do this all the time. Ask a question about something may or may not be true as if it has any relevance to the issue on the table so as to force a conclusion that validates your unsupported position. As such, my answer to that question, regardless of what it might be, also has no relevance to whether or not your allegations regarding Trump and his corporation's filing of bankruptcy was intended or resulted in avoiding legitimate debt. I'm saying it didn't, but rather as with most such filings, be they corporate or individual, restructures debt to more easily allow for repayment of debt, and usually at some cost to the filer. These costs may be destroyed credit rating for the individual, or a loss of control of a business as was the case with Trump.
"Unlike you, evidently, I strive to be like Jesus when he said,
"Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?""
This is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Jesus is speaking to charity. This discussion is about fulfilling contractual obligations.
"The point being, there are SOME things so obvious, that most of us poor and imperfect people recognize it. Being a billionaire and refusing to pay your debts to those to whom you owe money is one of them."
What is obvious is that you have no honest understanding of the very few (relative to the number of business dealings over the span of his life) bankruptcy situations. That is, as an extremely imperfect hater, you have a decidedly imperfect understanding of the situation and as such should likely not dare to expound on it. You also are deceitful in pretending you know he refused to pay his debts when what is on the table are disputes between him and those with whom he had a contractual agreement. Again, if you felt it was clear one with whom you had an agreement failed to meet the expectations of that agreement, you would be loathe to pay, and don't lie and say otherwise.
"It's not the MISSION of BLM to directly give money to directly lift people out of poverty. Why would they do something not in their mission?"
Are you saying their mission is to take in donations totaling around $90 million by some accounts and do nothing with it except perhaps maybe bail out those who committed crimes in their name? Are they even doing that with all that money?
"I mean, Trump's various businesses have not done ANYTHING to lift those in poverty out of poverty."
Oh no. Employing thousands, either directly or through contracting vendors has no affect on the financial status of anyone. Thus, even without "lifting people out of poverty" being a plank of his mission statement, he actually does that some one degree or another! Jeez, you're a moron!
"It's a con to try to force a justice group to do charity work."
It's a far greater con to perpetuate the myth that there is any real and true oppression of black people going on in today's America. It's easy to see this is true by virtue of the fact that this "justice" group has exploited the deaths of thugs who did not die due to any injustice, but as the consequence of their own criminal actions. Fortunately for them there are tons of useful sheep who will stupidly buy into their false narrative so easily.
"Let's focus on the big justice changes rather than the behaviors of those who bring about their own suffering." That's you. That's BLM.
Craig,
Your points are well made and well taken by anyone for whom honesty has any value. They also illustrate the feebleness of Dan's arguments given they ignore the realities you point out, which are only the tip of the iceberg.
The problem with Dan's argument about the "justice work" of BLM, is that he can't point to any specific, concrete actions that fit the "mission" or any accounting of what they've spent their 10's of millions on.
It's pretty easy to talk about how wonderful BLM is when they haven't done anything concrete.
Craig... "I do love how Dan betrays his misunderstanding of what net worth actually is. It's like he thinks that Trump has vaults full of fungible assets that he can just pass out to anyone he chooses."
No. I fully understand that extremely wealthy people just have bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more and more barns... Not that they just have cash sitting around their house in a big swimming pool.
The point is, they DO have way more barns than they need and they CAN liquidate some of their many barns in order to get the cash they need to pay the bills they owe. You know, like normal people do.
Or, as Jesus put it, "You fool! You build bigger and bigger barns to store your junk and you will die tonight. Then what good is all your junk in all your Barns going to do you?!"
Craig... "The problem with Dan's argument about the "justice work" of BLM, is that he can't point to any specific, concrete actions that fit the "mission" or any accounting of what they've spent their 10's of millions on."
I HAVE already done so.
1. BLM has helped organize THE SINGLE LARGEST YEAR OF PROTESTS in our nation's history. Period.
2. BLM has organized these protests across multiple states and months in a manner where 93% of the protests have been peaceful.
3. Throughout their work, they've won the support of the vast majority of the nation. The nation is more aware than ever of the problems with systemic racism in our legal and penal system and are wanting to see change.
4. By keeping these protests going and largely peaceful (in the face of white supremacist instigators and abusive police forces), they've kept the pressure on to change policing systems. Laws have been changed. New laws and rules have been instituted. Budgets have been changed and reconsidered and all that work is ongoing.
This work and that sort of change doesn't happen by accident.
You all DO recognize that, right?
Pay special attention to this first supporting link. These are huge and vital changes that were already implemented as of July, last year. No doubt, more change is on the way. I know that's true in my city...
https://www.vera.org/policy-changes-in-us-policing
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/07/9881950/protests-sit-in-black-lives-matter-one-month-progress
Again, this sort of awareness, that sort of change, these sorts of laws and rules being implemented, these protests... NONE of that happens effectively without people like BLM organizing and working for change and bringing awareness to the world.
I know that conservatives are often entirely clueless about the work that Justice organizations do and how very much work it is to do effectively, but if you're ignorant of the work involved, become educated. Why not volunteer for BLM in your city and learn more about where that money's going?
I'm fairly certain I've provided factual information on Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is what Trump's companies have utilized, but it's possible I'm thinking of other lying leftists in other discussions on other platforms. With that possibility in mind, I once again present for Dan's edification, these several links from "experts" on bankruptcy law and each with how it relates to Trump's use of the law. Dan won't read them, but now that it's clearly presented to him, we'll know the next time he tries to use this angle of attack, that he's clearly lying again for the expressed purpose of demonizing a president who has done more good for the nation than any politician Dan's ever supported...because that's what embracing grace looks like to Dan:
https://www.abi.org/feed-item/examining-donald-trump%E2%80%99s-chapter-11-bankruptcies
https://www.abi.org/feed-item/donald-trump-speaks-the-truth
https://bankruptcy-toledo.com/fact-checking-donald-trump-has-filed-bankruptcy-six-times/
http://bankruptcyresources.org/content/truth-about-trump-bankruptcy
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/29/trump-critics-misunderstand-use-bankruptcy/3306804002/
Should Dan actually take the time to read and study these links, he'll find they answer all of his concerns regarding Trump's use of bankruptcy law...
1. It's not in any way "abuse of the system", but rather a standard business practice.
2. Those who enter into contracts allow for the possibility of bankruptcy. It's a standard clause in every contract by any business person or entity worth their salt.
3. Trump did sell personal property, or at least property of his that was "owned" by any of his companies (very possibly the companies involved with the bankruptcy).
4. He paid personally in almost every case (I use "almost" loosely) in the mere loss of controlling interest.
5. Debts were paid.
So again, we should never have to suffer another bullshit attempt by Dan to demon Trump with this particular angle of hateful, unChristian, grace-embracing attack lest Dan expose himself again as a liar.
Man, you're not healthy. Mary, mother of Jesus, James, brother of Jesus and apostle, and Jesus ALL said quite clearly and repeatedly that the wealthy tend to be cheaters who steal and defraud money from their workers in a variety of ways and that it will be hell for them.
Trump demonstrates repeatedly and quite clearly that he is one of those oppressive cheating wealthy who don't give a damn about little people like you. For him, you're just another useful idiot, a sucker willing to give him support, money and the benefit of the doubt.
James and Jesus say "WOE to you who are rich! Your wealth you've stolen from the poor hollers out to God and it will all be burned away along with you and your multitude of barns!"
You, on the other hand, turn around, bend over and say, "Thank you Mr Trump! Give me another!" and just applaud one abusive rape after another, thrilled to be used by him and those like him and not caring who else he screws thanks to the support of his useful idiots.
++++++++
"While the losses were mostly borne by his creditors, Trump took tax deductions for large amounts of interest, depreciation, and operating expenses. As a result, he was potentially able to avoid paying federal income taxes for nearly two decades."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/11/01/the-art-of-the-dodge-trumps-916-million-of-net-operating-losses/?sh=35b956d8128f
"On the opening day of Trump Plaza in Atlantic City in 1984, Donald Trump stood in a dark topcoat on the casino floor celebrating his new investment as the “finest building in the city and possibly the nation.” Thirty years later, the Trump Plaza folded, leaving some 1,000 employees without jobs. Trump, meanwhile, was on Twitter claiming he had “nothing to do with Atlantic City,” and praising himself for his “great timing” in getting out of the investment.
In America, people with lots of money can easily avoid the consequences of bad bets and big losses by cashing out at the first sign of trouble. Bankruptcy laws protect them. But workers who move to a place like Atlantic City for a job, invest in a home there, and build their skills have no such protection. Jobs vanish, skills are suddenly irrelevant and home values plummet. They’re stuck with the mess. Bankruptcy was designed so people could start over. But these days, the only ones starting over are big corporations, wealthy moguls and Wall Street bankers, who have had enough political clout to shape bankruptcy laws (like many other laws) to their needs."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/donald-trump-bankruptcy-laws-213190
"The point is, they DO have way more barns than they need and they CAN liquidate some of their many barns in order to get the cash they need to pay the bills they owe. You know, like normal people do."
This is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at wealth and an assumption that selling assets is easy and practical.
"Trump took tax deductions for large amounts of interest, depreciation, and operating expenses. As a result, he was potentially able to avoid paying federal income taxes for nearly two decades."
Holy Shit, Trump followed tax laws and took all of the legal deductions that he was entitled to take. Why that's just evil. I'm sure that none of the left wing billionaires ever take advantage of legal tax deductions.
FYI, bankruptcy laws protect EVERYBODY, they aren't limited to just "the rich". This notion that "the rich" have some sort of magical protection from losses and market fluctuations is incredibly simplistic. It also ignores the fact that Trump's investments and buildings supported thousands of jobs and generated millions in tax revenues. To suggest that anyone is obligated to continue a business venture that is failing is simply absurd.
Essentially BLM has raised over 90 million dollars and all they've managed to do is organize protests/riots. That's not impressive, nor is it concrete.
"Laws have been changed. New laws and rules have been instituted. Budgets have been changed and reconsidered and all that work is ongoing."
Again, 90 million dollars, for what?
But at least BLM has their sights set on eliminating the black nuclear family because the dissolution of the black family has been so successful up to this point.
One thing I don't think Dan realizes in his jihad against Trump, "big corporations, wealthy moguls, and Wall Street bankers", is that those people/companies all employ thousands of people. The Trump organization employs (as best I can tell) somewhere in excess of 22,000 people. It's probably conservative to estimate that there are another 15,000-30,000 employed by business that are dependent on the Trump organization. It's not unreasonable to estimate that Trump's bankruptcies kept over 20,000 people from losing their jobs and the attendant revenues (tax and otherwise) that go along with them.
It's just a very shortsighted and biased way to look at business owners availing themselves of every available legal means to stay in business.
It's also impossible to talk about the Atlantic City casino business without taking into account the control of the DFL political machine and organized crime. Nothing happened in the Atlantic City casino experiment that wasn't corrupt from it's inception.
Craig lies again about BLM. Stupidly false claims and attacks are still dangerous and diabolical, in spite of their inept stupidity.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifact-does-black-lives-matter-aim-destroy/
Dangerous and diabolical...to say nothing of ineptly stupid...is the Politicfact response to the factual charge that BLM seeks to destroy the traditional nuclear family. In its lame attempt to debunk the charge, it actually serves as evidence the charge is correct.
First of all, the piece itself has no more weight than any other personal opinion regarding what BLM's position actually is. That is to say, it is not proof or evidence the charge is false. It is simply an opinion without supporting evidence. It clearly states "A spokesperson for Black Lives Matter did not respond to our requests for comment." Thus, everything else within the piece is no better than opinion, and can only be viewed as such.
From the BLM website (as presented by Politifact):
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,"
How can "disrupting" not be detrimental to the concept of the nuclear family, which is commonly understood to mean a man and woman married to each other and the children they produced. One either supports the concept or one doesn't and the latter is detrimental by definition.
"Supporting each other as 'extended families'" is not the same as supporting the concept of the traditional family structure, and ignores its importance in the most ideal development of children. It's one thing to offer aid and support for broken families and/or single parent families. But to do so as if the impact on children and thus society is no different than what results from the traditional nuclear family is absolutely dangerous, diabolical and thus ineptly stupid, as it conflicts with all knowledge and understanding with regard to the best scenario for raising children. This abject stupidity does not surprise coming from an organization founded by lesbian marxists.
"We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work."
It is not a "practice" in the first place. It is the result of governmental policies that force parents, where the traditional nuclear family structure is intact, to choose between economic security and effective child care. Where a family is broken or run by women with no husband, that's the result of the woman's lifestyle choices that led her to responsible for children at all. Thus, it is the result of leftism in both government policy and personal ideology. BLM would only further drive this dangerous, diabolical and inept stupidity which it now falsely blames on the traditional nuclear family and the Judeo-Christian ideology which is its basis, and the capitalism that results from it and has resulted in societies which so benefit from them.
"Other observers don’t see Black Lives Matter as seeking to go that far."
This is where inept stupidity really screams out its presence. We can allow that there may be no conscious desire to destroy, yet fully understand destruction is the end result nonetheless. Does every child who plays with matches intend to burn down the house? Yet in every situation where socialism/marxism/leftism is the main ideology employed, harm has always followed, and how these ideologies view the family can do no better by virtue of the fact that it is inherently destructive in being anathema to the proven best scenario of the traditional nuclear family structure.
Everything that follows the above quote simply tries without success to legitimize the inept stupidity of pretending the best for society is to pretend the traditional nuclear family is the most ideal structure for raising kids and enhancing the culture, and then abdicating the responsibility of working to repair the stupidity in which proper families find themselves struggling due to previous leftist policy.
Clearly with regard to traditional nuclear families, BLM provides no "justice".
"Mary, mother of Jesus, James, brother of Jesus and apostle, and Jesus ALL said quite clearly and repeatedly that the wealthy tend to be cheaters who steal and defraud money from their workers in a variety of ways and that it will be hell for them."
No they did not. Nothing any of them ever said was so inanely general, but rather spoke to specific people at the time who were actually greedy and wicked due to their lust for money, not wealthy people in general. "Cheaters who steal and defraud" were those who engaged in those behaviors to become wealthy as much if not more than those born into wealth, and as such includes far more who weren't wealthy but hoped to become so.
You're a hater, Dan. A vile, unChristian hater who dares pervert Scripture to validate your hatred.
"Thirty years later, the Trump Plaza folded, leaving some 1,000 employees without jobs."
What this statement ignores is that the Trump casino employed thousands of people for 30 freaking years. Talk about missing the point. Who decreed that every business venture must stay for eternity to employ people? What a bizarre notion.
Unfortunly Dan is confused by BLM's tactic of hiding their mission statement when it got too much bad publicity.
Clearly we want to encourage more fatherlessness among the black community. Many would say that the lack of intact nuclear families is why African immigrants outperform American blacks.
Marshal... "No they did not."
Yes, they literally did. Look...
Jesus literally said, WOE TO YOU WHO ARE RICH...
Mary literally said that God would tear down the powerful and lift up the poor.
James literally said...
Now listen,
you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened in the day of slaughter.
Open your eyes.
Marshal... "rather spoke to specific people at the time who were actually greedy and wicked due to their lust for money, not wealthy people in general"
Jesus... "WOE TO YOU WHO ARE RICH..."
WHICH "specific people" were Jesus speaking to?
According to Jesus, "you who are rich."
Period.
Marshal...
"but rather spoke to specific people at the time who were actually greedy and wicked due to their lust for money, not wealthy people in general. "Cheaters who steal and defraud" were those who engaged in those behaviors to become wealthy as much if not more than those born into wealth..."
Jesus...
Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
"...do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Your claims are not biblical, Marshal.
Cracontinues with his diabolical, evil slander. Shame on him and all the fathers of lies.
Craig... "confused by BLMs tactic of hiding their mission statement..."
BLM, on their About page...
"BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer.
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada,
whose mission
is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives."
Wow. How sneaky of BLM, hiding their mission deep in THE SECOND sentence of their About page!
Dan's confused about a lot of things. You make a great point about the purpose of business. Too many "social justice warriors" and proponents of minimum and/or living wages seem to regard the purpose of business as one of employing people. But employing people is a consequence of success. As a business makes a reputation for itself as an entity which serves people by providing for their needs or desires, the business man hires to multiply his efforts in that endeavor in order to provide the needs or desires of more people. If few people want or need what the biz has to offer, no employees are required and thus no jobs are offered. If those needs or desires dissipate, so too does the need to continue employing people the business man once did. Employees exist for the benefit of the employer, not the other way around. If an employer needs people, he decides the value of the position and pays accordingly. If his decision results in no takers, he must then adjust his offer to attract employees or find another way to serve the increase in customers if he wants to keep them. Employees are a business expense or investment, and like all others an owner incurs, they must result in a return. If having an employee produces no increase in profit to the business, he is a waste of revenue and is not needed.
Companies fold for any number of reasons. Any employee who finds himself in dire financial straights because his job no longer exists clearly did not live in a manner that accepted the possibility that the job might not last forever. The "paycheck-to-paycheck" existence of some employees is far more a matter of the employee's responsibility than that of the employer who set wages according to business concerns rather than the concerns of each individual employee. If I'm running a business, I want to try to pay any employees I choose to have enough so that they stay as long as I need them, but not so much that it cuts into my profits, which is the reason I have run a business in the first place. No business hires to enrich employees. They hire to enrich themselves by enabling themselves to serve a larger segment of the market. But there's always a limit as to what that means in terms of paying employees. The employee has a responsibility to himself and his family to prove his value demands more, but the employer isn't required nor always able to accommodate that demand. From there, the employee decides if he'll learn to live on what he's getting currently, or take his chances in seeking a better deal. All the while, the existence of the job is never guaranteed and if the job disappears, the employee must have secured his ability to weather whatever span of time required to replace the lost gig with another.
Few employers are happy about cutting jobs, especially if they've developed any degree of personal relationship with his people. There's no reason to believe that Trump is uncaring about his employees. That's just what haters need to believe about him to justify their hatred of him. At the same time, there's no requirement that any employer must be concerned about his employees beyond making good on any agreements, contracts or promises made to them at the point of hiring.
Craig... "Clearly we want to encourage more fatherlessness among the black community."
I wonder if Craig can admit how very stupidly false this asinine slander is, or if he can admit he can't find a SINGLE BLM advocate ever saying anything like this.
You are a liar, Craig, damned by God and all that is holy and decent.
Marshal... " There's no reason to believe that Trump is uncaring about his employee..."
Turn around, bend over, and say, Thank you, Mr Trump, sir! Give me another!
No reason? Not if you're entirely ignorant of the man and his real history. But for the informed and rational, the man is clearly, wildly narcissistic. There's no evidence he gives a damn about anyone but himself.
Reality, boys. Embrace it.
"Yes, they literally did. Look..."
No, they literally did not. Look...
Both Christ and Mary are not speaking of all rich. Indeed, they also are likely not speaking of the material rich. As with all of your ramblings regarding the poor, they are not speaking of the material rich every time they speak of the rich.
But then, in addition to that, you bring up James who is speaking of a specific percentage of the rich as opposed to the rich in general. It is absurd that there existed no rich people in those days who had compassion for the less fortunate. Pathetically so. But it is about such rich that had no care for the poor James criticizes. Your socialist bent would presume the worst about any rich person, while pretending that those with a lighter purse are necessarily good people. Scripture teaches us to play no favorites, and you do so constantly with regard the rich and poor, and on the basis of the most superficial characteristics.
Open your eyes after you pull your head out your backside.
"WHICH "specific people" were Jesus speaking to?"
In Christ's case, He was speaking of those who are rich in their opinion of their own selves and their own status. These can indeed include those who are not materially wealthy. If His "blessings" were on the poor in spirit, as was absolutely the case, then he would be concerned about the plight of those who were the polar opposites of those people. How absurd and superficial to presume when Christ was speaking of those who would cheat others that He only referred to the wealthy, as if no poor person every engaged in such sin. That's more than absurd. It's stupid. But it shows your understanding is tainted greatly by your socialist leanings. Christ didn't care about material things...of things of this world...but of the spiritual poverty and wealth.
"According to Jesus, "you who are rich.""
So again, just as you fail to understand who Christ refers by "the poor" when He is saying "blessed is the poor" or "I come to bring Good News to the poor", so too you fail to understand what He means by the rich in Luke6:24...because you're a socialist who envies the wealthy.
"Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples..."
...what Dan then corrupts to push his socialist understanding. That's easy to do by taking this passage out of context. It has nothing to do with wealth in general, but with the rich young man's attachment to his wealth which interfered with his full understanding of what it means to follow Christ. The same misunderstanding you manifest constantly in your comments.
""...do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth"
Again, and with intent, take this out of context choosing to forget a later connected verse that puts it all into proper perspective. You always ignore verse 33: "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."
Said another way, Jesus doesn't tell anyone to NOT seek wealth, but to seek first God...to always put Him first above all other things one might seek, be it wealth or anything else. This is hard for the socialist to understand, so fixated on wealth as you are.
"Wow. How sneaky of BLM, hiding their mission deep in THE SECOND sentence of their About page!"
Wow. How moronic it is for an enabler to not know what was the original mission statement that has been altered to what Dan presents now!
"I wonder if Craig can admit how very stupidly false this asinine slander is, or if he can admit he can't find a SINGLE BLM advocate ever saying anything like this."
I wonder if Dan can admit how very stupidly false it is to focus on what Craig says while ignoring there's next to nothing (I'm being generous here) by BLM promoting fathers and mothers staying together as man and wife to raise their kids as God and nature meant as the best scenario for the best outcomes of children of every race. BLM is so fixated on the bullshit notion of "extended families" that they don't acknowledge the fundamentally most important component of what family is and the benefits to kids who are raised within them.
"You are a liar, Craig, damned by God and all that is holy and decent."
That's hilarious coming from you...in a pathetic, may God forgive you sort of way.
"No reason? Not if you're entirely ignorant of the man and his real history."
I've countered your every allegation about the man with both fact and reason. In doing so I've not suggested the man is without fault as a businessman or...a man. But you haven't presented anything solid to accuse him at all, preferring the lazy way out and just repeating crap you haven't been able to verify. Not one single thing.
" But for the informed and rational, the man is clearly, wildly narcissistic."
But not being either, you're simply parroting what other haters have said...because you're a hateful grace-embracer.
"There's no evidence he gives a damn about anyone but himself."
Sure there is. I've provided quite a bit of it over the years of his presidency. In the meantime, you've provided no evidence to maintain the grace-embracing hateful position that he doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself. It's a favorite trope of lefties like you.
Marshal...
"Both Christ and Mary are not speaking of all rich. Indeed, they also are likely not speaking of the material rich. As with all of your ramblings regarding the poor, they are not speaking of the material rich every time they speak of the rich."
YOU say that they are not speaking of all the rich. But you just make that claim without ANYthing to support it but your say so. Bullshit.
Jesus' text in question says LITERALLY,
"But woe to
you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort."
Not "WOE to SOME of you who are rich. Just Woe to you who are rich. Period.
Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
Marshal...
"But then, in addition to that, you bring up James who is speaking of a specific percentage of the rich as opposed to the rich in general. It is absurd that there existed no rich people in those days who had compassion for the less fortunate. Pathetically so."
? Likewise, James says literally,
"Come now,
you who are rich,
weep and wail over the misery to come upon you."
In both cases, he is speaking of those who are rich. PERIOD. No conditions, no exceptions, no "You rich who are in a minority who cheat people..." just WOE TO YOU WHO ARE RICH.
And why? Do I think there are not some exceptions and that being rich condemns everyone who is rich? No, I don't think that. I'm not a literalist. But I also think that Jesus explains clearly who he is speaking of and WHY when he says, "It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God..." He is showing that being wealthy and not being ensnared is the EXCEPTION to the rule. Why? We see why, we who side with/align with the poor. Because the rich tend to be like Trump, ensnared by their wealth and prone to abuse the poor and dodge paying their laborers.
Open your eyes. Just because you say something doesn't make it so.
The text says what the text says.
"YOU say that they are not speaking of all the rich. But you just make that claim without ANYthing to support it but your say so."
I have plenty to support it. And unlike you, I don't need to corrupt Scripture to do it.
"Jesus' text in question says LITERALLY,
"But woe to
you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.""
Yes. He literally says this. But does He literally mean the materially wealthy or the spiritually wealthy? The correct answer is: the latter. This is true because He isn't referring to the materially poor in the contrasting verses which precede this (Lk 6:20-22).
"Just because you say something doesn't make it so."
So it's good, then, I never make this claim.
"In both cases, he is speaking of those who are rich. PERIOD. No conditions, no exceptions..."
So, are suggesting that because he isn't specific (I would argue he is) he is therefore suggesting all rich people of his time "hoarded wealth in the last days" (what last days?), failed to pay the workmen who mowed their fields, lived on earth in luxury and self-indugence fattening themselves in the day of slaughter ("day of slaughter"?) and condemned and murdered innocent men who were not opposing them? How do you back up this belief? By the mere fact that the verse doesn't specify James had specific wealthy people in mind? Was cruelty and oppression some kind of requirement of the rich? Don't be absurd. I know it's hard for you, but put in some effort.
"But I also think that Jesus explains clearly who he is speaking of and WHY when he says, "It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God...""
But his is no more than a remark on temptations specific to rich people, which aren't really unknown among the poor. In your case, it's the envious and covetous sentiments dripping from your attacks on the wealthy and favoritism of the poor. This is rank hypocrisy as if the poor are somehow pure and your perverse praise of them is true nobility. You're the Pharisee in the temple condescending to the tax collector begging God for forgiveness. And while some rich may indeed be snared by the trappings of their wealth, so too are so very many more poor who are ensnared by their lust to acquire wealth.
"He is showing that being wealthy and not being ensnared is the EXCEPTION to the rule."
No He's not. He's simply pointing out the temptations with which the rich are faced, and what's more, He was doing it in a context when there was no Christianity, and thus, no Christians who became wealthy. I've spoken many times on the philanthropy of the rich and just how much more they've done for the poor than have the likes of you.
Both Jesus and James are not demonizing the rich by their words. When they say "woe to you who are rich", it is an expression of concern for them in a time when wealth was regarded as a sign of favor by God.
And in some cases it was. Think of Abraham (Gen 13:2), Job (Job 1:1-3, 42:10-13), Joseph (Gen 39:2) David, Solomon, Joseph of Arimathea. If wealth was somehow so corrupting of anyone who acquires it, how could these men have been favored in any way, some made wealthy because of their devotion to God?
What's more, God does not show favoritism (Rom 2:11-13, 4:16) and we're not to do so, either (James 2:9)
"Because the rich tend to be like Trump, ensnared by their wealth and prone to abuse the poor and dodge paying their laborers."
Not only is this just your covetous and envious nature talking, but you haven't even proven it's true of Trump! But in your grace-embracing hatred for the man, it's just something you need to believe. Seek help for this craven, black-soul flaw in your character.
I admire Dan’s ability to make vague accusations of all sorts of evil, while simultaneously lying through his teeth.
He’s either unaware that BLM purged their mission statement of all sorts of things when they started getting flack for the radical tenets of the group. One such tenet was dismantling of the nuclear family. Now I’m not sure, but I’d say that dismantling the nuclear family can’t be done without removing fathers. The reality is that the epidemic of fatherlessness has already done incalculable damage to multiple generations of black children. So of course it makes sense to further dismantle the family structure in the black community.
You again vomit your lies, Craig. Read. Understand.
BLM NEVER advocated dismantling the nuclear family.
Read it. Again. Repeat it to your sin-sick mind.
BLM NEVER advocated dismantling the nuclear family
Do you understand?
Speaking of dismantling WESTERN VIEWS of the nuclear family is NOT the same as dismantling families.
You're so tangled up in the primacy of white supremacy, you read disagreement with WESTERN cultural norms and you view that as an attack on families, as if white western culture is the only way to do family.
Take back your lies. Repent.
Craig... "Now I’m not sure, but I’d say that dismantling the nuclear family can’t be done without removing fathers."
Another damned lie.
Just stop it.
"BLM NEVER advocated dismantling the nuclear family"
This is another case of Dan playing word games in order to defend the indefensible. BLM needn't actually say, "We advocate for the dismantling of the nuclear family" for BLM to actually promote that behavior. Yet what they do say results in the same consequences.
"Speaking of dismantling WESTERN VIEWS of the nuclear family is NOT the same as dismantling families."
Truly a distinction without a difference. If one's views of the nuclear family change, how could nuclear families not change as well? It's like the LGBT reprobates changing western views of marriage having changed marriage (for other reprobates and the weak-minded).
"You're so tangled up in the primacy of white supremacy...,"
This is they type of thing we've come to expect from those so tangled in the primacy of their white-guilt. It's pathetic and worthy of mockery for its inanity.
"...you read disagreement with WESTERN cultural norms and you view that as an attack on families, as if white western culture is the only way to do family."
"Family" is a man and woman married to each other and the children their union produces. This isn't merely a western "norm", but a rather universal norm with few exceptions. It is the most essential form of "family" for the proliferation of the species and for it's betterment and prosperity.
Take back your stupidity, Dan, and repent of it.
"Craig... "Now I’m not sure, but I’d say that dismantling the nuclear family can’t be done without removing fathers."
Another damned lie."
He's right Craig. There are other ways to dismantle the nuclear family, such as the promotion of the LGBT agenda, to name one of them.
Speaking of lies, Dan has to make up his own version of BLM’s now hidden agenda in order to spew his vitriol,
Maybe he can point out what BLM has done with their 90+ millions to make life better for all the fatherless black children out there.
The family of Dr King, speaking today...
"King, the wife of Martin Luther King III, said it can be frightening for Black children to see videos of people who look like them being killed by police. So she not only encourages Yolanda to be open about her emotions, but to find the silver lining in these tragedies. For example, she tells Yolanda that Black people may be victims of injustice, but
there is an entire movement of people rallying for equality.
Yolanda, she said, wants to be a part of that movement.
"It's important as mothers to always try to find, even in the midst of the most painful situation, to try to find something that we can give our kids hope to grab on to," King said. "We want to prepare our children in a realistic way, but you also want to protect them..."
""We are going to be the generation that dismantles systemic racism once and for all, now and forever," Yolanda said in a moving speech. "We are going to be the generation that calls a halt to police brutality and gun violence once and for all, now and forever."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/08/us/arndrea-waters-king-mothers-day/index.html
++++
Or, here's another child of King speaking to BLM and police violence...
"King would have supported the Movement for Black Lives, a coalition that includes Black Lives Matter, his daughter said.
“My father believed that every human being has value and should be treated with dignity,” she said. “He would certainly applaud the assertion that Black lives matter and the passion for aligning reality with the assertion.
“Black Lives Matter is saying, ‘Value my personhood. Treat me with respect. Equal respect.’ His teachings remind us that we must correct any system, policy or practice that refutes these statements. And, therefore, we must work diligently to perpetuate justice at its best, which he defined as ‘love correcting everything that stands against love.’”
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2021/01/15/inheriting-movement-daughter-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-reflects-message-nonviolent-social
++++++++
King's 12 year old daughter and her family can understand systemic racism and how important the BLM movement is. Maybe you should educate them how very wrong they are.
You are, after all, well-informed white men, you should be able to set them straight.
[/sarcasm]
I wonder, given a chance to talk with the King family, would you tell them they're wrong? Do you know how laughable that would be?
Marshal... "Truly a distinction without a difference. If one's views of the nuclear family change"
THERE ARE OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY BEYOND JUST THE ONES YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
Good GOD, what a bunch of cultural narcissists.
Look, what they are specifically speaking of is the notion of Each Family being an Island. They're saying, "We're all in this together. It takes a village to raise a family." It's speaking to the communal nature of nurturing healthy families. These are ALL GOOD GODLY and CHRISTIAN ideals.
WHY in the name of all that is holy do you fight so hard against decency, morality and family?
"THERE ARE OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY BEYOND JUST THE ONES YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH."
A family is made up of a man, the woman with whom he is married and the children their union produced. It's not "narcissistic" to acknowledge truth and facts.
I understand what the adage, "it takes a village..." is intended to express. I also understand how marxists and other leftists corrupt it as they do the word "family" to push their narrative...which conflicts with true Christian ideals.
"WHY in the name of all that is holy do you fight so hard against decency, morality and family?"
This from the guy who supports, celebrates and enables indecent and immoral sexual behaviors.
"King, the wife of Martin Luther King III, said it can be frightening for Black children to see videos of people who look like them being killed by police."
1. Why allow children to see such videos?
2. Why allow children to believe such videos depict innocent, law-abiding black people being killed by police?
3. Why allow children to believe such videos indicate "systemic racism" or the targeting of black people by racist cops?
4. Why allow children to see such videos without explaining the obligation of every citizen to live right, obey the law and comply with the lawful instructions of cops fulfilling their duties as law enforcement officers all of us need?
I have a big problem with MLK being exploited to support a movement that only superficially appears to align with his beliefs...even if those doing so are descended from him. I DO NOT believe MLK would confuse the marxist, racist BLM movement with what he believed. Indeed, I believe he'd distance himself from them and the false narrative of the left with regard police confrontations with thugs lauded as martyrs for his beliefs.
I believe MLK would be appalled by people abusing his beliefs to enable bad behaviors given his concern for the content of one's character.
Marshal..."I believe MLK would be appalled..."
Good God in heaven have mercy on you. Your arrogance is Titanic.
Oh? Really? YOU believe that King would be appalled? YOU believe you know King better than King's own family? To hell with you and your arrogance! To hell with you and your white presumption! To hell with you and your dumb as a rock racism. Get over yourself. You are just not that smart.
Marshal, blinded by his whiteness... "1. Why allow children to see such videos?"
If you listen to black folk, they will tell you.
Many black families do so because they have to protect their children. They have to have "the talk" with their children, instructions on how to survive encounters with police. That's just reality. I get that you don't see it because of the privilege of your whiteness doesn't mean you have to fear for your life when you encounter police, but not everyone has your privilege.
Marshal, attacking people he knows jackshit about, said... "2. Why allow children to believe such videos depict innocent, law-abiding black people being killed by police?"
You don't know what they did and didn't say, so to hell with your slander and attacks. I have no reason to believe, in this case, they didn't say who Floyd was, but regardless of who he was and what he'd done, the police don't get to execute him on the spot for trying to use a fake $20 bill.
Of course, you piece of shit. You defender of a broad daylight, filmed and viewed by many people and he still didn't care murder.
Again: THE POLICE DON'T GET TO KILL criminals.
Marshal... "3. Why allow children to believe such videos indicate "systemic racism" or the targeting of black people by racist cops?"
The facts are what the facts are. Why do you think YOU KNOW BETTER THAN the family of Martin Luther King? Is there no end to your arrogance and slander of your betters?
Marshal... "4. Why allow children to see such videos without explaining the obligation of every citizen to live right, obey the law and comply with the lawful instructions of cops fulfilling their duties as law enforcement officers all of us need?"
Because the police DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL YOU FOR BEING RUDE, FOR BEING A CRIMINAL, for selling "illegal cigarettes" or for trying to pass a fake $20.
Of course.
Have you entirely forfeited your soul? What has so blinded you to basic human decency?
"Oh? Really? YOU believe that King would be appalled? YOU believe you know King better than King's own family?"
Oh? Really? YOU believe that King wouldn't be appalled? You believe King's family are not immune from the lure of progressive, race-hustling bullshit you find so appealing? The situation in MLK's day was not at all the same as the situation now. Innocent black people were victims of unjust racist practices. Those we see in these many videos...constantly broadcast to support the progressive, race-hustling bullshit you find so appealing...are NOT "innocent" black people preyed upon by evil racist cops. They're punks with police records resisting arrest and being combative. I don't give flying rat's ass what color your skin is. If you're not teaching your kids that the demise of these punks was NOT the result of their own stupid, criminal choices, then you're shit as a parent and you're poisoning your kids in a manner that very well may result in them coming to a similar end.
This isn't a racial thing, you moronic fraud. This is how things work for all people, and there are similar cases on the books involving white punks meeting the same result. This is the point you race-baiting threats to the culture intentionally dismiss, and for that you put more black people at risk for perpetuating the lie, and also you put non-black people at risk for thinking it will never happen to them if they respond to lawful police action in the same manner.
God help any black people who regard you as a friend! Get over yourself. You're neither smart nor honest.
Dan, blinded by his white-guilt and racial self-loathing:
"Many black families do so because they have to protect their children. They have to have "the talk" with their children, instructions on how to survive encounters with police."
If by this you mean they teach their kids the obligation of every citizen to live right, obey the law and comply with the lawful instructions of cops fulfilling their duties as law enforcement officers all of us need, then it's no different than "the talk" my parents gave to me, and "the talk" most honest, loving, law-abiding parents teach their kids. Were your parents morons like you are? I prefer to believe they were unfortunate to have brought a moron into this world.
"I get that you don't see it because of the privilege of your whiteness doesn't mean you have to fear for your life when you encounter police, but not everyone has your privilege."
I get that you need to believe I'm some beneficiary of this mythical "privilege of whiteness", but the true fact is that I do indeed have to fear for my life if I choose to engage with cops they way some black people do because of the myth of black victimhood ingrained in them by race-hustlers and ignorant people like you. I also get that the risk to an innocent black person of being killed or beaten by cops is about as low as it is for anyone else if they comply with lawful police commands.
There are plenty of videos of assholes giving cops a hard time without the cops losing their cool. We just saw one of the dumb-bitch "teacher" who was calling the cop a murderer over and over and insulting him because he's Mexican. Good parents do not raise their kids to become assholes like this "teacher" and the many punks and thugs who died in police custody because they acted like punks and thugs.
"Marshal, attacking people he knows jackshit about, said... "2. Why allow children to believe such videos depict innocent, law-abiding black people being killed by police?""
I'm only responding to the implication of your nonsensical, fact-free position. If the woman is NOT using such videos to teach their kids the consequences of bad choices, then what other possible lesson could there be of allowing the kids to view them?
"You don't know what they did and didn't say, so to hell with your slander and attacks."
No, I don't know what they did or didn't say other than where "she tells Yolanda that Black people may be victims of injustice". But that's true of anyone, regardless of color. Why teach the kid she's more likely than anyone else of being so victimized when there's no truth to it? It's a myth told by those who don't take the time to actually study the facts and data. If there's any slandering and attacking, it's by you against me, you lying moron.
"...the police don't get to execute him on the spot for trying to use a fake $20 bill."
They didn't "execute him on the spot" and his death was not the result of his having passed funny money, but the result of his bad health, his indulgence in dangerous illegal drugs and his combative response to lawful police directives, you lying fake Christian.
"Again: THE POLICE DON'T GET TO KILL criminals."
Uh...actually, they do. Just as the military "gets to" kill enemies when under attack or to defeat them after having attacked others, cops "get to" kill criminals when the criminals are combative, resisting arrest or during the commission of a crime...particularly when the crimes threatens lives. In short, they "get to" kill those who break the law. The fact is it's a question of whether or not the killing is justified, and more often than not...WAY more often than not...the killing of a suspect is indeed justified.
"The facts are what the facts are. Why do you think YOU KNOW BETTER THAN the family of Martin Luther King?"
The FACTS are that this is nation which is far less racist than ever before in it's history...despite the racism of race-hustler and chuckleheaded white guilt fake Christians like you...and likely the least racist nation on earth where millions seek to enter to flee from such things, you moron. Why do you think descendants of MLK necessarily know better than me just because they're descended from King? Does there having descended from King grant them some special knowledge? Are they necessarily guaranteed to study the data and facts before presuming to speak on racial matters? Aren't you judging them in the same manner you're judging me, you fake Christian? I'm not particularly impressed by anyone who ignores reality in favor of a false narrative, and sharing a bloodline with MLK Jr. doesn't mean jack shit. We have enough people who deceitfully rode on his coattails (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, who, as far as I can tell, didn't do much more during his time in Congress than to constantly remind us he got his ass beaten in Selma). What you've presented here indicates they're no better. I hope the reality isn't as lame as your depiction of it.
"Because the police DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL YOU FOR BEING RUDE, FOR BEING A CRIMINAL, for selling "illegal cigarettes" or for trying to pass a fake $20."
Not only does this idiocy not answer the question preceding it, it is a repetition of the lie that cops killed anyone "FOR BEING RUDE, FOR BEING A CRIMINAL, for selling "illegal cigarettes" or for trying to pass a fake $20." God help black people who regard you as a friend! God help you for pretending to be a Christian!
"Have you entirely forfeited your soul? What has so blinded you to basic human decency?"
This is hilarious and hypocritically ironic coming from you. There's nothing decent about someone who perpetuates a myth that has factored so heavily in the crime rate and the false perspective of blacks toward cops that has led to so many losing their lives and liberty. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but your unjustified arrogance and self-satisfaction has no room for it. You're no friend to the black race or any other minority. You're a true danger to them.
Post a Comment