How's that? Do you believe that is my view?
Apparently
Posted on 05/15/2016 10:57:29 PM PDT by Trumpinator
The National Review, a conservative magazine for the Republican elite, recently unleashed an attack on the “white working class”, who they see as the core of Trump’s support.
The first essay, Father Führer, was written by the National Review’s Kevin Williamson, who used his past reporting from places such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt to dissect what he calls “downscale communities”.
He describes them as filled with welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addiction, and family anarchy – and then proclaims:
“Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster, There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. ... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.”
A few days later, another columnist, David French, added:
“Simply put, [white working class] Americans are killing themselves and destroying their families at an alarming rate. No one is making them do it. The economy isn’t putting a bottle in their hand. Immigrants aren’t making them cheat on their wives or snort OxyContin.”
.....
Downscale communities are everywhere in America, not just limited to Appalachia and the Rust Belt – it’s where I have spent much of the past five years documenting poverty and addiction.
To say that “nothing happened to them” is stunningly wrong. Over the past 35 years the working class has been devalued, the result of an economic version of the Hunger Games.....The working class only had their hands. They lost and have been left to deal on their own.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Oh come on, Bert, you can do better than that.
The 2010 census counted 151,781,326 men and 156,964,212 women. The difference in men and women is only .17% of the total population... that means less than a fraction of 1%. And you actually believe that this tiny difference in the number of men and women would mean that because there are more women than men, that the evils of the nation are all the fault of the women. LOL
Bert, my FRiend, I think that you are just too stubborn to admit that you made an improper generalized statement in your previous post and just can't bring yourself to admit it.
You stated in another post that you have a lovely caring wife who you admire. So I am assuming that you do not count her in on those women who's total fault is the destruction of the nation that you speak of, now do you? Of course you don't. And there are millions more like her..... millions!
The truth is that, though ungodly, liberal women contribute greatly to the evils of our nation, there are many evils in the mix and men do their fair share of these evils.
You and a couple of other posters here have said that I am just misunderstanding you. Just in case that is the case, why don't you enlighten us to EXACTLY what you mean by "women's real place in society". And please don't just reiterate that means "marrying and having babies" .... for women are encouraged by God to that and so much more. God does not command all women to marry and have babies. Some, He has chosen for other worthwhile tasks. Though I am not Catholic, I do admire Mother Theresa, just one example of a woman who did neither, yet led a worthy and beautiful life, dedicating her all to taking care of children and upholding family values.
Let me repeat..... I challenge you to tell us what it is that you think exactly is we womens' "real place in society"
:)
What continues to amaze me today is that those who are the first to shout about inequality and the legacy of slavery are also the ones foisting economic indenture on the illegal aliens (whose labor is primarily exploited by financial elites) and selling it to progressives and religious hypocrites as some kind of humanitarianism. Later generations will look at the current exploitation and wonder how we all sat by and let it happen, the same way today's yammering class pilliories yesterday's white majority over the slavery that was practiced by a predominantly elite minority of whites.
How's that? Do you believe that is my view?
Apparently
Quote:
Addicted to pornography and video games, our young men have not grown up into adults and our young women cannot find mates that have jobs and a family focus.
Unquote.
Well aren’t you the white knight...its all the men’s fault. I expect the church you belong to is pretty much says the same thing.
Hint: you and your mentality are a lot of the problem. If you care to know how, or have the guts to hear why, just ask.
Here is the ugly reality:
Under the new morality pushed by many “enlightened” churches women are now equal to men in all ways. That is not what genesis through acts says. In fact the sweep of the bible is that women’s original sin is a tendency to rebel against authority, a rebellion that results in disaster. That is why in acts Man is the head of women and Christ is the head of man, a point ignored in modern marriage oaths and by the so called enlightened churches. Society has fallen apart under this new morality and there is precious little reason for a man to get married today.
Under the old rules while women were assumed to be under the charge of their husbands, they functioned as the senate so to speak. Any married man who has a obedient wife well knows that one does not keep a happy household without listening to the wife and making accommodations where possible. Maybe not perfect but Western civilization managed to prosper and resulted in about the best fairest society in the world, not perfect, but better than most. Certainly the rights of women under these old supposedly oppressive rules were better than all of the societies western man ran across in his exploration of the world.
Now under the so called complementation doctrine we have the simple fact that all the western societies are falling apart, and the one thing women must do to perpetuate those societies (have children and raise them well in a married household) they are not doing. By revolting against male headship they have removed the reason for males to get married to them, something the churches seem to be encouraging (not all but most).
This is not to say men are not without sin, they are. The churches are very capable of pointing out male defects while they ignore and encourage female propensity to sin and rebel against their husbands and fathers.
Something to ponder.
Again, you are resorting to childish maneuvers to avoid answering the question. You can't actually answer the question, can you?
If you think I am confusing what you said and what you meant perhaps you might write more clearly. This is an idea we all can take more seriously on FR, including myself.
Hint: You obviously haven't been following the conversation throughout the thread.
And put a little more than a month under your belt here before you offer to school me in what I believe and what my "church" may believe.
Or maybe you're one of those perpetual 14-year olds and I struck a nerve?
““I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Well, you appear just to be another stubborn jerk.
southern jerk, no new york values
Oh, a Cruzite. You might want to learn how to write in cogent sentences - not Haiku - if you want to have an online conversation.
rule of 65
when 65 you can write and spell as you please
You wouldn’t know a cruze type if he whacked you on the head
(1) you said: "the sweep of the bible is that women’s original sin is a tendency to rebel against authority..."
I do not see that the Bible says that "a tendency to rebel against authority" is a propensity of only women. Yes, this was Eve's sin, she rebelled against God's authority. But Adam committed the same sin of rebellion against God when he listened to Eve and also ate of the fruit.
Twisting the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:14, which says, "It was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression", some have suggested that because Eve was tricked by the devil, women have a stronger propensity toward deception. Others have gone so far as to insist that women are to blame for all the evil in the world and are therefore under a greater curse than men. The Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were both held guilty by God for their disobedience, and they were both punished.
(2) you said: That is why in acts Man is the head of women and Christ is the head of man"
Eve's sin is certainly not the only reason that God decreed "Man is the head of women and Christ is the head of man". Nor does this imply inequality or male domination. Eve was created to be a helpmate or companion to Adam, this does not imply that Eve's only purpose in life was that of a domestic servant. She was created to be a co-worker with Adam so that they might rule together over creation as God commissioned them to do. There are other reasons.... In the Jewish culture there was a concept of Headship which meant that the male is the one who represents his descendants. This concept is carried out in, for instance, it was Eve who first sinned. But sin entered the world through Adam, not through Eve. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." This is because Adam represented humanity and creation. When Adam fell, we inherited sin, we fell.
Another reason, it says in Gen. 2:24, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." When a man and woman get married, they become one flesh. There is a unity between them. But, it is the man who is the head of the family which is why it says that the man is the head of the woman. Paul makes it clear that the headship is related to the created order: "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. This headship is not about having the upper hand, nor is it to mean that a woman has no rights or is a second-class citizen. On the contrary, God tells the husband some very serious commands: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless," (Eph. 5:25-27).
Finally, the headship issue is an issue of order, not who is better or more important. The husband is the head of the wife in the family, and he has the responsibility of guiding his family to a closer relationship with the Lord. God will require it of him on the day when all our deeds are judged by God.
(3) you said: "The churches are very capable of pointing out male defects while they ignore and encourage female propensity to sin and rebel against their husbands and fathers.
While what you said is for the most part true, it is the way you say it that leads me to cringe a bit.
First of all allow me point out that the Church I belong to is not hesitant to remind us women of our responsibility to accept our husband as head of the family.... and rightly so! But understand that as I clearly laid out in #2 above, the husband has his responsibility toward the wife as well, and for many women it is difficult to submit to an unloving, ungodly husband. I don't know what the answer to that dilemma is, I am fortunate to never having to face it.
Next (and here is where the cringing part comes in), allow me to say that the propensity to sin is not a sin against the husband. The propensity is to sin is against God. It is not the husband who has the right to command the submitting, it is God who commands it. And I think that women who come to understand this concept, will then have no problem in submitting.
Then you speak of "rebelling against their fathers". I believe that the scriptures command us to honor our father and our mother.
Believe me, Frederick, when I say that I understand that morality has fallen apart and am appalled that many churches are not teaching as they should. Should we be surprised that this is happening, after all Jesus told us that it would happen in the end days. I only took exception to Bert's comments because he was blaming it all on women when the truth is, men and women are to blame.
Bill Buckley famously observed on numerous occasions that he would sooner be governed by 100 people chosen at random from the Boston telephone book than by the 100 typially serving US Senators. Jack Kemp's crime (?) was apparently that he shared with Ronald Reagan the quality of being an optimistic public figure genuinely seeking to better the lives of each and every Ameerican.
Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh ar, despite lifelong service to the conservative movement, being pilloried for not being mindless zombies applauding Trump's every utterance. That they both supported Moral Monster Mitt Romney against Obozo apparently does not suffice as a sacrifice of capable minds in service to country (?) unless they also make clear that Trump not only should be POTUS rather than Hillary (who could disagree?) but also make believe that he is the Second Coming of Ronaldus Maximus, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Antonin Scalia and Jesus Christ all wrapped in a package posing as a "working class" NYC real estate billionaire.
Truth is the one major and consistent casualty of the 2016 campaign. Hopefully, turning Comrade Grandma into the last casualty will make it a bit more palatable.
I see on your home page that you’re an engineer. My experience on FR is that engineers have trouble expressing themselves clearly. I think this is because generally they are so dismissive of liberal arts and, in particular, English Literature.
You have no idea how old I am.
May God bless you and yours!
I’m not surprised. Obviously it ain’t what it was back in the 1980’s.
Neither is WSJ, or the other rangs, IBD, etc. We have ESPN going all Bruce Jenner.
Insanity - it’s what’s for breakfast under the Obamanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.