"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0208160529.b3bcfeb at posting.google.com...
> Mr. Knut: I have requested numerous times for you not to change the
> subject line. Are you so stupid as not to comprehend such a simple
> request, or are you simply unable to read properly?
>
And I'm TELLING you to quit changing it, because there are others who want
to follow this thread who are contributing much more than you ever could,
and thus deserve the courtesy of having it remain consistent.
> John Knut wrote:
>> >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:ce660175.0208151916.680f3805 at posting.google.com...> >> "John Knut" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message news:<c6a69.26146
> >
> >> > > However, if you have
> >> > > other agendas in mind, we'd like to hear them. For instance,
> would
> >> > > you plan to do with all of the individuals you deem as so
> inferior if
> >> > > they are unable to find employment anywhere? How would we
> educate
> >> > > them if you deem them as being uneducable?
> >> >
> >> > If the US economy had continued to grow since affirmative action
> was
> >> > implemented at the same rate that it had grown before affirmative
> >action,
> >> > U.S. GDP would now be $36 trillion, rather than only $9 trillion.
> It was
> >the
> >> > admission of IDIOTS into key positions, forced upon both industry
> and
> >> > government managers through affirmative action, that caused this
> sudden
> >> > reversal of our fortunes.
> >>
> >> Nice handwaving with the statistics, but you're not answering my
> >> question. I implied, "other agendas" BESIDES dealing with
> Affirmative
> >> Action, and the infamous one you have posted here prior.
> >
> >Use your head. If our economy were on track with its
> pre-affirmative-action
> >growth rate, it would now be four times its current size, and these
> inferior
> >employees would be living in households which earn four times as much
> as
> >they do now rather than interfering with productive workers in the
> work
> >force.
>> >It was these EXTRA 17 million unwanted women workers who employees
> were
> >forced to hire through affirmative action who caused the problem.
> Putting
> >them to work didn't increase family incomes--it caused family
> purchasing
> >power to drop to a third of what it was in 1968 (while most
> countries'
> >family incomes continued to increase, leaving Japan with family
> incomes two
> >or three times higher than ours).
> >
>> Whatever. This is not an answer to my question, however. I requested
> a discussion on how you planned to implement your "solutions". The
> above is redundant as you have already discussed it previously.
Where have you been? The solution was implemented 5 years ago, with
Proposition 209, which made "affirmative action" illegal in every state of
the union.
It's going to take at least 50 years to flush all the dead wood out of
industry, government, education, medicine, and law, but the process already
began then.
If you want a more detailed account, see http://christianparty.net/aa.htm
>> >> > The problem with letting government have even the slightest iota
> of
> >control
> >> > over our free enterprise system is that it puts the quixotic
> woman voter
> >in
> >> > charge of making decisions that she has utterly no ability to
> >comprehend,
> >> > just as you and parsetree have aptly demonstrated.
> >>
> >> You seemingly have no ability to comprehend an entire paragraph,
> John
> >> (nor apparently a request not to change the subject line). We
> already
> >> know about your proposal to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.
> However,
> >> I'd like to know what you have in mind in regards to the certain
> >> ethnic groups you continually malign. Do you have a WORKABLE
> solution
> >> in regards to this?
> >
> >Yes. Do exactly what our Founding Forefathers suggested and send
> them all
> >back to Africa and Mexico. Simple (particularly since Mexico
> currently
> >sends all its undesirables to the US, rather than spending more money
> on
> >prisons).
> >
> >That in fact is the ONLY "WORKABLE solution".
>> And how, exactly, do you figure that this is "workable"? First, you
> have to convince an entire free nation that their citizens must be
> forced to leave. Do you have any idea what kind of reaction this
> would cause? Then there's the problem of actually, physically getting
> all such individuals to comply. How do you plan to implement this?
> You're talking about millions of free people who were born and raised
> here, and who have far greater power than they had in the 18th and
> 19th centuries.
And who have not, and whose ancestors have not, in the entire time they've
been here, contributed a single positive thing to this society, and who've
done much to destroy it, or at least to attempt to. Removing undesirables
like this happens all the time. The Spaniards kicked out the jews and the
Moors who were a much bigger part of their citizenry at the time they did it
than niggers and jews are here. Did they ask for permission? No. The
French, Russians, Germans, Poles, Italians, all have had experience kicking
out the jews, which was an immense success each time. We even set up
Liberia so the niggers would have a place to go in Africa, and exiled the
Torys, who were a bigger percentage of the American population than jews are
today.
It's not merely workable. There's no other option.
Do we know "what kind of a reaction this would cause"? Of course we know.
We know that 89% of those who've responded to the poll at
http://christianparty.net/poll.htm so far agree wholeheartedly.
Did you take the poll?
>> >> > The extra 17 million women in the labor force are the major, but
> not
> >only,
> >> > problem. This $27 trillion loss of productivity divided evenly
> over
> >those
> >> > extra 17 million women is a NEGATIVE productivity of more than
> $1.5
> >million
> >> > each. Needless to say, it takes a lot of productive men workers
> to make
> >up
> >> > for each $1.5 million loss.
> >> > http://christianparty.net/gdpgold.htm> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > You LIE by saying "As one who has always been naturally
> interested
> >in
> >> > > > productive discourse", precede that with the intentionally
> most
> >> > > > counterproductive discourse imaginable [read: "hate-filled
> >diatribes,
> >> > > > ranting, ranting, ranting about all the problems"],
> >> > >
> >> > > On the contrary. I was merely summing up your hundreds of
> posts for
> >> > > the sake of space and brevity. [Please explain how using
> racist and
> >> > > anti-semitic slurs can be anything but "hate-filled". Why do
> you use
> >> > > those words? What's your point?]
> >> >
> >> > This is called "projection", which is something you feminazis
> never seem
> >to
> >> > be able to grasp. But for the benefit of others, you feminazis
> "hate"
> >> > people who use normal English words, so you presume that anyone
> who
> >dares
> >> > use words you don't like must "hate" you.
> >>
> >> 1. I never identified myself as a feminist, nor have I suggested
> >> censoring or suppressing you. Therefore, it is you who are once
> again
> >> are using hate-filled language by implying that I am somehow
> >> affiliated with Nazis. [...or are you?]
> >>
> >
> >You haven't "identified" yourself as a feminist? Do you know any
> other type
> >of person besides a feminazi or a jew who LIES by saying "As one who
> has
> >always been naturally interested in productive discourse", preceded
> by the
> >intentionally most counterproductive discourse imaginable [read:
> >"hate-filled diatribes, ranting, ranting, ranting about all the
> problems"]?
> >
> >Nazis were jews. Do you *really* think I'm a jew?
>> No, I think you're a Nazi because your ideas are very similar. If it
> walks like a duck... And if you're not, then you're something just as
> bad.
Something that most Americans don't know, and that not even I knew after
living in Germany for 9 years, was that the Nazis began persecuting,
torturing, prosecuting, harassing, imprisoning, and killing both Protestant
and Christian leaders in Germany in 1933 (mainly because this fact was
"classified" until recently) http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm
You obviously don't even understand Christianity, so certainly someone like
you is incapable of telling the difference between Naziism and Christianity,
much less of understanding Naziism.
This is the typical feminazi Pavlovian Dog Reaction, though, which means
that you can quit denying that you're a feminazi.
>> >If you "think" the word "feminazi" is "hate-filled language", then
> CERTAINLY
> >you agree that accusing someone of being a "Nazi" is too?
> >
>> Oh, my mistake <sarcasm>. However, it was the Nazis who separated
> people in terms of birth groups, like you do. It was the Nazis who
> were big believers in eugenics, just like you are. It was the Nazis
> who believed in the inherent superiority/inferiority of certain birth
> groups, just like you do. It was the Nazis who believed in removing
> those birth groups from an entire nation, just like you do.
It was the Nazis who persecuted Christian leaders and KILLED 48 million
CHRISTIANS.
It's Christians in Germany who rejected and condemned Nazis and Naziism and
Hitler and the entire jewish garbage can.
>> YOU walk the walk and talk the talk. I have expressed no such ideas.
> Therefore, my assessment of you is closer to an actual straightforward
> description based on the ideas you have expressed, whereas your
> labeling of me is baseless.
Ah, there we go. You're obviously a jew. Only jews believe that calling
someone who's an obvious anti-Nazi a "Nazi" is ok, but calling an obvious
jew a "jew" is not.
Is this the double standard you hoped to impose so that you could engage in
"productive discourse leading to eventual solutions of problems, I (we?) am
just curious"?
You're the ultimate hypocrite. All of you jews are.
>> Have I expressed censoring or eliminating birth groups? Can you
> produce a URL showing where I have authored any such sentiments? If
> not, then I suggest you stop lying about me. (And I am talking
> specifically about *me*, so don't give me a "you feminists" answer as
> a way to dodge the question.)
>
Why don't you explain to this forum what exactly you mean by the following,
and why you felt compelled to post it?
> Dear Mr. Knut:
>> With all due respect, you have been flooding these boards with your
> hate-filled diatribes, ranting, ranting, ranting about all the
> problems in the world you feel are caused by your least favorite birth
> groups. As one who has always been naturally interested in productive
> discourse leading to eventual solutions of problems, I (we?) am just
> curious to know if you have come up with any workable solutions to
> these so-called problems you have been ranting about. Please share if
> you have any.
What exactly did you hope to accomplish with this diatribe? Why don't you
explain exactly who you "think" "hates" who.
This is a childish game, for sure, but if this is the game you want to play,
then YOU describe the ground rules.
> >> 2. Here is an example of what you consider a "normal English
> word",
> >> courtesy Webster's Online Dictionary:
> >>
> >> Main Entry: nig·ger
> >> Pronunciation: 'ni-g&r
> >> Function: noun
> >> Etymology: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre,
> from
> >> Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger
> >> Date: 1700
> >> 1 : usually offensive : see usage paragraph below : a black person
> >> 2 : usually offensive : see usage paragraph below : a member of any
> >> dark-skinned race
> >>
> >> John, do you have any comprehension of the phrase, "USUALLY
> OFFENSIVE"
> >> ...? If you are deliberately using a word taken as OFFENSIVE, it
> >> usually implies that you have no good will towards whomever you are
> >> directing your words.
> >
> >Who do you think uses this word most often? Niggers! This word can
> appear
> >20 times in a single paragraph in nigger communities. Nobody uses
> the word
> >anywhere NEAR as often as they do. So if this "phrase" is "USUALLY
> >OFFENSIVE", then you must believe that niggers are ALWAYS being
> "OFFENSIVE"
> >(20 times per paragraph)?
> >
> >Do you believe niggers are ALWAYS being "OFFENSIVE", feminazi? Do
> you think
> >they're ALWAYS trying to "OFFEND" each other? I don't think so.
>> Context, John, context. Do you understand what "context" means? No?
> I'm not patient enough to bother explaining it right now, but if you
> wish to understand the importance of context, then I invite you to go
> to the neighborhoods where you claim black people call themselves
> that, and try using the word yourself.
You couldn't even explain what made the sun come up in the morning, so don't
pretend to this forum that you know something about "context" that nobody
else knows.
My nigger friends call me a honkey, and they even call me a nigger when
they're in a good mood. I have video tapes of them and myself sitting
across from the West Angeles Nigger Church, drinking coffee and watching the
big fat nigger mommas and their little niglets rolling out of the "church"
meetings, which actually put Zulu War Dances to shame.
You wouldn't understand "context" even if we were talking about your face,
and you certainly don't understand what you "wiberals" and jews did to my
nigger friends with your infinitely STUPID "welfare" and AFDC and HUD and
food stamp programs.
>> >Wouldn't it be more accurate to state "OCCASIONALLY OFFENSIVE"? Or
> in your
> >little feminazi mind, do niggers just not count? Is that it? You
> don't
> >really care what niggers say, because it's only what you honkeys say
> that
> >counts. In your vernacular, is it really "USUALLY OFFENSIVE" to say
> nigger?
>> Calm down, John, you're frothing at the mouth again.
>
This was a paraphrase of *your*words, you fool.
> >Do you really think STUPID "wiberals" whose HYPOCRISY stinks to High
> Heaven
> >deserve even a modicum of "good will"? No. You're a billion times
> worse
> >than niggers, so if you really want "OFFENSIVE", then you can easily
> be
> >reclassified from feminazi to "wiberal".
>> Now you're foaming so much at the mouth you don't even know how to
> talk right. Maybe if you unclench your jaw you might sound a little
> bit more coherent? Anyhow, you are falling back on any one of a
> number of logical fallacies, as well as lying about me once more. Let
> me enumerate:
And I quote: "USUALLY OFFENSIVE".
Does that shouting look at all familiar to you?
>> 1. First, you make the faulty and incorrect assumption that just
> because I have taken note of your hate-filled language, that I must
> somehow be excusing any hate-filled behavior of anyone else. I have
> expressed no such sentiments anywhere. If you have any doubts, I
> invite you to produce a URL where I (specifically me) have stated that
> it was OK for black people to engage in bad behavior, say words that
> are considered vulgar and express hatred towards others.
It's you who's taken everything out of context. You don't have a clue what
the word nigger means to 99.989% of the people who use that word, which is
niggers. You despicable "wiberals" "think" you have a corner on the English
language or that you can dictate at will what words people can or can't use,
or that you can set up a double standard where niggers get to say nigger but
honkeys can't, or that you can just willy-nilly accuse people of "hate"
whenever they digress from your narrow little coffin-like minds.
Drop dead. Your ability to "reason" is on par with the typical output of
"women's intuition", namely, negative knowledge.
>> 2. By going off on this tangent, you dodge the question once more.
>> 3. You fall back on the "two wrongs must make a right" fallacy. No,
> they don't.
>
You got this exactly 180 degrees wrong, and it's not worth explaining to you
that you DO NOT know what other people think, period. It's impossible for
you to do that, so you're PROJECTING what YOU think because you "think" that
since you "think" this, they must be "thinking" the same thing.
Dead wrong.
> >> > The Holy Bible
> >> > warns us to "abhor those who rise up against you [God]? I have
> nothing
> >but
> >> > hatred for them; I count them my enemies", and American jews and
> >feminazis
> >> > and sodomites and other "wiberals" and muds have collectively
> warned us
> >that
> >> > they do "hate" God and have risen up against Him.
> >>
> >> The Holy Bible also says, "judge not lest ye be judged". (FWIW
> this
> >> is the third (fourth?) time I've posed this question: how can you
> call
> >> yourself a practicing Christian while you're frothing and spewing
> all
> >> of this obvious hate?)
> >
> >You're a moron. You don't know how to even quote a single passage in
> the
> >Holy Bible.
>> Mattew:7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.2: For with what judgment
> ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall
> be measured to you again.
>> This implies that you are going to get back what you give, John. You
> are going to get judged yourself if you continue judging others.
> Anyhow, did Jesus Christ go around preaching that people of certain
> ethnic backgrounds are inferior and ought to be forcibly moved, etc.?
> No? If you're not behaving like Christ, then you are not a practicing
> Christian, sorry to say.
This is the second time you misquoted Holy Scripture. You need to put it
into "context" with the following:
"They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name. Do I
not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against
you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies", Psalms
139:21
"You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor
or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor",
Leviticus 19:15
"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well
as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the
judgment is God's", Deuteronomy 1:17
"...we command you, brethren, on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which he received of us", 2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship
hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
>> >And now you want someone to explain Christianity to you? Your
> >ability to comprehend Christianity obviously passed a long time ago,
> along
> >with your ability to psychoanalyze normal people.
>> I understand Christianity better than you do. Christianity was
> founded on the principles that Christ taught, in order to show us the
> way to eternal salvation. And FWIW it is NOT about separating people
> into birth groups and spewing all sorts of judgment at them just
> because of whatever birth group they belong to.
You're 100% dead wrong. Christ *did* separate people into groups, and told
His Twelve Disciples *precisely* which groups to associate with, and
*precisely* which groups NOT to associate with.
Didn't you know that feminazis and jews were some of His favorite targets?
Do you know who He told His Twelve Disciples to associate with:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter
ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
"who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the
giving of the law, the service, and the promises; of whom are the fathers,
and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God,
blessed forever. Amen", Romans 9:4-5
"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel," he said, "Because He has not
forgotten His people but has effected redemption for them", Luke 1:68
He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." Matthew 15:24
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite
indeed, in whom is no deceit!" John 1:47
I ask then, Did God reject his people? May it never be! For I also am an
Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, Romans 11:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ezra 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying,
The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated
themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their
abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the
Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Ezra 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for
their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of
those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this
trespass.
Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all
the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my
lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be
done according to the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Nehemiah 9:1 Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of
Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackcloth, and earth upon them.
Nehemiah 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all
foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their
fathers.
Nehemiah 9:3 And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the
law of Jehovah their God a fourth part of the day; and another fourth part
they confessed, and worshipped Jehovah their God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Deuteronomy 7:1 When Jehovah thy God shall bring thee into the land whither
thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the
Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the
Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and
mightier than thou;
Deuteronomy 7:2 and when Jehovah thy God shall deliver them up before thee,
and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them: thou shalt
make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them;
Deuteronomy 7:3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter
thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy
son
http://christianparty.net/israelites.htm
John Knight
