Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 16 of 22 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 322
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,510
    It it privately funded then the fund can do whatever it wants.

    Just like baking a cake.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    25,141
    Yeah but everyone was calling it racist before. Now because it's privately funded it's no longer racist? I'd really like mngopher to give me some clarification here.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    It it privately funded then the fund can do whatever it wants.

    Just like baking a cake.
    I imagine denying a cake to a homosexual couple was exactly what Jesus had in mind.
    Last edited by valade16; 03-29-2021 at 12:25 PM.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,564
    Privately funded? No issues from me. As others have said people can do what they want with their own money.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11,769
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    But I thought it was racist? So now because it's privately funded it's no longer racist?
    Correct, the issue many were noting was excluding white people from government assistance.

    Thatís not what this actually is it is privately funded which is different. They are not excluding people they are simply hand picking who they want to give their own $ to.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,122
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    But I thought it was racist? So now because it's privately funded it's no longer racist?
    It's against the constitution for the government to do it, it's not for individuals to do it.

    It's not that it's racist or not. Though certainly singling out a race for something is a tricky thing. If a Spaniard wants to sponsor college for other Spaniards generally nobody is going to have a problem with it. If the same person said "anybody but asians" people will have a problem with it. But when it's private the issue isn't a legal one.

  7. #232
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58,415
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...checks-1579070

    https://oaklandresilientfamilies.org/

    The Facts
    The initiative is a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color $500 per month, and with no rules on how they spend it.

    I hadn't seen that part before either.
    Hundreds of posts in and someone finally looks underneath the hood and shares a very critical detail.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    25,141
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Correct, the issue many were noting was excluding white people from government assistance.

    Thatís not what this actually is it is privately funded which is different. They are not excluding people they are simply hand picking who they want to give their own $ to.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So now because it's private the question of it being racist or not gets thrown out?
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    25,141
    I could've sworn a bunch of you guys were claiming not to be right wingers just a page or two ago yet now you're all saying private funding > people.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,510
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I imagine denying a cake to a homosexual couple was exactly what Jesus had in mind.
    I dunno.

    JC was more of an unleavened bread, manna kind of guy.

    No idea what he would have thought about a cake.

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    12,360
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    So now because it's private the question of it being racist or not gets thrown out?
    Youíre really going to pretend to not know the difference between what you can and cannot do with disbursing taxpayer funded money versus how someone wants to use their own money?

    People are allowed to be racist or have racist intentions up to a certain point. And disbursing their own money certainly falls under that category I believe.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yankees Farm System

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    I dunno.

    JC was more of an unleavened bread, manna kind of guy.

    No idea what he would have thought about a cake.
    It's not the cake he would have thought about, it's his followers refusing to bake them for others he wouldn't have been too keen on.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11,769

    Oakland, CA to give $500 per month to low income non-white families

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    So now because it's private the question of it being racist or not gets thrown out?
    You can still consider the racial aspect, denying a race of benefits solely based on their race could quite easily be described as such. Thatís what I noted when this first started and is still the same. It is normally thought of as racist to act in this manner.

    It is much different when the government takes these actions as a form of creating a safety net for those in need compared to a company hand picking some group they want to give these benefits to though.

    That government part was the bigger issue and using race to decide who is deserving would have been an issue if it were done that way. It was private funded though so they can do what they want. I donít think itís malicious nor was that the point, the issue was inserting race based standards on if someone is worth getting govt assistance at poverty levels is what most were against and calling a form of racism.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    16,285
    #1, what do you expect from the state of California and #2, what do you expect from the Democrat Party? Imagine if they did the same thing for just white people; the blacks would burn that **** to the ground!
    Eichel Tower

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    25,141
    Quote Originally Posted by DeW-Star View Post
    Youíre really going to pretend to not know the difference between what you can and cannot do with disbursing taxpayer funded money versus how someone wants to use their own money?

    People are allowed to be racist or have racist intentions up to a certain point. And disbursing their own money certainly falls under that category I believe.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My whole premise is people > property/money

    I find it hilarious how everyone was crying racism until they found out it's a privately funded program. This just goes to show that you're all of the property > people mindset yet you get mad when I call you right wingers. Of course you don't understand how racism works. You just dismissed it because of something being privately funded. You're nuts!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

Page 16 of 22 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •