Jim Lincoln wrote: "(US) A poorly-educated white person or, collectively, white people of low social status."--- Wiktionary I have little problem and neither do most people with describing neo-nazis as white trash.
Wiki labels this "idiomatic, derogatory, ethnic slur", which you conveniently omitted. And how do you know such folks are neo-Nazis? Actually this is a gross misrepresentation, for contrary to what opponents may think, education/social standing has nothing to do with Nazi affinities; many leading Nazis were university-educated (e.g. Dr. Franz Six), especially telling since in Germany, graduate degrees have been a tougher go than in America.
You're playing the "Guilt By Association" game. Sure, many poor Southerners were racists, but so were Northern Progressives and urban minorities. The more you try to justify yourself, the worse you look.
Pff wrote: ... you pathetic turn the other cheek, resist not evil, sickening pacifist Christians...
Warmongers often fail to think through the consequences of their beliefs. Would you prefer a shooting war in which we kill more of their people to punish them for killing their people? What if their soldiers were unwilling draftees (slaves)?
And no one bothers to ask whether weddings are even part of the Biblical church's duties. This is a Catholic sacramental leftover which is no more legitimate before God than one before a Justice of the Peace or bureaucrat (as in France).
All the Bible requires is that both parties be believers. Officiating pastors are optional. And most cultures understand that having relatives present from both families is prudent, to hold the couple accountable, like the signing of any contract.
Douglas Fir wrote: To me, that is a big surprise, since 'they all look the same to me'
Novelist Kevin Kwan has observed that status-conscious Chinese are adept at pigeonholing within their cultural sphere. American-born Chinese ("ABCs") rank below, say, Singapore and Hong Kong Chinese, but Mainlanders rank even lower.
This matters to "Tiger Moms" on the lookout for marital prospects for their children.
Douglas Fir wrote: ...are there so many Christians in Hong Kong?
Wiki says 12% [nominally of course].
Sad thing about Hong Kong is, its evangelization was made possible mostly because it was stolen from Qing China via an unequal treaty after they lost the Opium War with the Brits. That the British ruled it well doesn't excuse the injustice.
This is one reason the Communists got a lot of mileage from claims of "Western Imperialism." They had more than a grain of truth.
I don't think CA Democrats consider the poverty rate a problem, for dependent poor people are precisely whom these Progressives want as constituents. They will never oppose gov't handouts, regardless of how destructive they are. The greater the poverty, the greater the Democrat stranglehold on state politics.
This is what results from allowing people on welfare to vote. Note that Sanders wants to extend suffrage rights to convicts!
CA has been a reliable harbinger of what will happen to the country as a whole.
Education cannot occur with anarchic punks running around. I often think putting them to work picking vegetables or splitting rocks might make teaching feasible for those who want to learn something (not that much of this will occur anyway outside indoctrination in pet Leftist subjects).
Of course my idea is unrealistic, since child labor, as punishment or not, is considered cruel. Public schools will continue as warehouses for kids "outsourced" by parents. Now finding semi-competent people willing to work there, even for union wages, might be a poser.
Frank wrote: For Democrats, the days of ‚Äúsafe, legal and rare‚ÄĚ on the abortion issue are in the distant past.
This gives one an idea of how their politics evolves. First it's getting wet feet, then the waist, then jump all the way in. It's safe to infer this is how gun regulation works for them as well. Slippery Slope indeed may be a formal fallacy, but it has a good track record in explaining Democrats. A little is never enough for them; I believe they call for as much as they think voters will tolerate at the time, rather than being honest and forthright about their ultimate goals.
Since "Black Lives Matter" types ascribe high minority arrest/incarceration rates to racism, then why not complain about their high abortion rate as well? I have a possible explanation: They want to eliminate black people. Margaret Sanger's agenda was consistent with this. So is the demoralization of police, so blacks can kill ea. other unhindered.
Democrats have learned that policies which pretend to help blacks but actually destroy them are an easier sell than Jim Crow laws. This was the devil's tactic in the Garden.
Jim Lincoln wrote: again, this happens in Australia quite well....
Irrelevant. Dr. Byrd is a pragmatist - he gets what *he* wants from the system, therefore it must be good. But Biblically, the ethics involved aren't difficult: Anyone who compels strangers to pay their bills, medical or otherwise, is simply a thief, whether a given socialized scheme "works" or not. Socialism is the ideology of thieves, who are their natural allies.
Medical care is the classic "wedge" issue since argumentum ad misericordiam is an easy sell to the unthinking.
Jim Lincoln wrote: You will notice notice, Timothy, countries that have universal healthcare like Australia don't have this problem.
You're not "thinking thinking," Jim, on two counts: 1) Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. There could be other reasons Australia lacks this problem. For all we know, it could be a Southern Hemisphere thing. Or maybe it's their beer; 2) These diseases have become more manifest *since* Obamacare. Not that I would necessarily blame it, but by your defective reasoning I could.
If you're posting this stuff merely to bait people, at least put more thought into it.