The subversion of white, Christian, family values with black gangsta rap?

The wrong is not so much that 'persons of Anglo descent' diminish in popularity, it is that outside, unnatural occurring instances are causing such, such as minorities being paid to breed, go to school, get preferential treatment in regards to their careers, and so on and so forth. If we lived in a truly equal society and the white populous was diminishing due to uninfluenced factors, then so be it. The very idea of racism is hypocrisy.

chocolate > Vanilla. classic battle and chocolate always wins. Cant say that im happy about it, but the truths within my ice cream bowl can tell no lies.

its karma you deserve them

I won't rest until I hear a gangsta rap version of Our God Is An Awesome God.


We DO live in an equal society. Anyone in poverty is eligible for these programs. Do you want a truly Darwinian society where humanity just casts off the poor to the gutters? Because social safety nets exist for a very good reason. Severe wealth inequality is a huge problem and never ends well in the long run.

infallible logic




If we lived in an 'equal' society, there wouldn't be any examples of one race being donned privelages, whilst another is deprived. Do you honestly believe that if I were to walk into a hospital and have a child right now, that they would allow me to do so and walk out without a bill? How about the person of hispanic heritage that just crossed the border? Do you think that the average number of people on welfare are typically minorities or not? If not, do you think there might perhaps be a reason behind that, aside from their being 'under privileged'? The problem is, you don't even realize these things are going on, because people like yourself are only told one side of the story and lead to believe that side of the story is the truth. It's a little different when you see it first hand. A perfect example of that, is when you see a black woman, who is being paid to go to school, paid to raise her children a substantial amount of money from the government, is paid to live in a rather nice appartment, and has a 'baby's daddy' on the side that's living off of her income while making an income himself (if you take such into account, said person would not even qualify for welfare), then would you not agree that example would be considered 'racism' when you also take into consideration that the same example would not apply if that person were a white woman? I've seen it first hand. The very system we've created is 'racist' by definition. The very irony of this post is that most folks would prefer to label me a racist for even mentioning such, disregard what I've mentioned altogether, and continue to ignore what's going on. That is precisely why whites are becoming a minority, they are forced to work and earn everything they have, while minorities are being spoon fed and promoted through social engineering.

This post was edited by KurosakiIchigo on May 20 2012 03:42pm

Whether the majority of people are on welfare are minorities or not is completely irrelevant. Poverty is the deciding factor. And anything you're describing are the exceptions to the norms rather than the norms themselves. Sure, there are going to be individual cases that can be hand-selected to try to discredit programs altogether, but that doesn't mean it's at all normal.

"That is precisely why whites are becoming a minority, they are forced to work and earn everything they have, while minorities are being spoon fed and promoted through social engineering."

That's why what you're saying comes across as racist. There's plenty of "white trash" hillbillies just breeding up a storm thanks to welfare. It has nothing at all to do with race and everything to do with a basic flaw in the welfare system.

What I think should happen is that people on welfare should be required to hold jobs in order to continue receiving benefits, and any income they make would be deducted from the payments they receive, at least in part. That way welfare will be what it was designed to be all along. A social safety net and not a person's/family's sole source of income. I think you'd probably agree with me there. (and obviously there'd be exceptions for those who are physically unable to work).

Is it? I think it pertains to our discussion perfectly.



Thanks for proving my point of the double standard. I didn't use any racial insults, but merely commented on the nature of the system and it's dealings with people of different races. The fact that it's acceptable to call someone 'white-trash', or a 'redneck', just goes to show how serious the double standard is.

You do realize that this entire discussion is based on race and it's socio-political benefactors, right? The problem with welfare is that it is not merely an 'aid', it is a crutch that promotes incompetence and or inequality.

It's completely irrelevant when you shift gears and are only talking about welfare and social safety nets. You stopped talking about race and started talking about the poor.




You're saying that welfare benefits only minority groups. It doesn't. It benefits the poor. And what I ended with would directly address the problem that you're bringing up. Welfare contingent upon employment status is a seemingly obvious solution.