Serious fun, seriously

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
If one prejudges another based on race, one is prejudice. If they set up a system to hold back the people of race, they are racist.

If one prejudges another based on sex, one is a sexist. (I skipped the step for brevity.)

If one prejudges another based on being a politician, one is a “politicianist.”

If one prejudges another based on their party, one is a “partyist.”

If a democrat prejudges a republican, the democrat is a “republicanist.”

If a republican prejudges a democrat, the republican is a “democratist.”

And if either party sets up a system to destroy or hold back the other–what are they?
 
Jim_Baur said:
If one prejudges another based on race, one is prejudice. If they set up a system to hold back the people of race, they are racist.

If one prejudges another based on sex, one is a sexist. (I skipped the step for brevity.)

If one prejudges another based on being a politician, one is a “politicianist.”

If one prejudges another based on their party, one is a “partyist.”

If a democrat prejudges a republican, the democrat is a “republicanist.”

If a republican prejudges a democrat, the republican is a “democratist.”

And if either party sets up a system to destroy or hold back the other–what are they?
Click to expand...
Fascists. Or Bolsheviks.
 
There is no punchline or soup line.

The humor, which is tragic, is that many leading politicians prejudge and prejudge openly those of the opposite party.

Then their prejudging writes laws against the other party.

If they don’t write U. S. laws against the other party, they make plans to destroy their opponents.

Thus they are the worst kind of prejudice person–they turn into “racists.”

A racist is one that prejudges and organizes against another based on “race.”

All of the leading members of both parties are guilty of this, and are proud of their “partyist” tactics.

I, too, am a “politicanist.”

I prejudge the leading national republicans on their pro-life rhetoric. Regan was pro abortion as governor of California. Then on the national level he became pro-life.

I prejudge the Democratic mufti-millionaires party. I can’t believe they are for poor people, nor lower taxes. My taxes are too high to believe them.

If either party wished to improve education, let them study that which is taught in the military academies. They could then apply that to changing the public school education in the impoverished communities of American–rural and urban. The planning and money spent to go to war could transform the entire country, and we could still have our military.
 
Jim_Baur said:
If one prejudges another based on race, one is prejudice. If they set up a system to hold back the people of race, they are racist.

If one prejudges another based on sex, one is a sexist. (I skipped the step for brevity.)

If one prejudges another based on being a politician, one is a “politicianist.”

If one prejudges another based on their party, one is a “partyist.”

If a democrat prejudges a republican, the democrat is a “republicanist.”

If a republican prejudges a democrat, the republican is a “democratist.”

And if either party sets up a system to destroy or hold back the other–what are they?
Click to expand...
a destroy-ist! 🙂
 
Jim_Baur said:
If one prejudges another based on race, one is prejudice. If they set up a system to hold back the people of race, they are racist.

If one prejudges another based on sex, one is a sexist. (I skipped the step for brevity.)

If one prejudges another based on being a politician, one is a “politicianist.”

If one prejudges another based on their party, one is a “partyist.”

If a democrat prejudges a republican, the democrat is a “republicanist.”

If a republican prejudges a democrat, the republican is a “democratist.”

And if either party sets up a system to destroy or hold back the other–what are they?
Click to expand...
They are obviously, “Liberal-ist”. There are no Democrats in Washington.
 
Bishop Braxton of Belleville, Illinois, USA once said in a homily over 20 years ago: the most powerful minority are the super, super, super wealthy!

Perhaps they are “majorityists.”

If they exists, “majorityists,” do they tell legislative, executive, and judicial branches what to do?

My parents told me that it is actually and oligarchic plutocracy—there are no aristocrats.

My grandmother Goldie said it a different way–“when you pay the bills, you can make the rules.”

My neighbor from Ireland said it another way–“You can’t beat City Hall.”

Perhaps the plutocracy, if they exist, says, we electronically make and print the money, and we do make the rules. They, or someone, electronically created
$ 9,000,000,000,000.00 (nine trillion) during the financial panic of 2008.

Perhaps Bishop Braxton, my parents, my grandmother, and my neighbor are all correct.
 
If I am accurate: both party leaders are “partyist,” it is really, really serious.

Are the parties playing “Good Cop Bad Cop”?

Are the leaders playing “Good Cop Bad Cop”?

Are they merely using Straw Men all of the time at the leadership levels?

When one sees the D Day 360 it begins to open the lay person’s eyes as to the about infinite work to go to war.

With that much money and planning our schools, villages, townships, farms, cities, counties and states could be infinitely improved.

Do they really care?

Could they not control immigration in a heart beat (in whatever direction they want)?

Could they not stop illegal drugs (past and present)?

Could they not stop crime (greatly reduce it)?
 
I wonder, and I do not know, if there are “Christianists”?

Are there different kinds of “Christianists”?

Are there many different kind of “ists” as there are religions?

I could go on, but this is crazy enough, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top