< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6866 OF 6866 ·
|Feb-28-15|| ||schweigzwang: The greatest front men of all time!|
|Feb-28-15|| ||diceman: <Abdel Irada:
This would imply that <diceman> doesn't really *have* any idea how anything should be or should have been done; he just despises liberals and other communists and wants us all to know it.>
Wow, you really don't understand conservatism.
If I was to spew some talking points
Id be no more than a significantly smarter Jim Bartle.
This whole idea of "the solution" is already a liberal lie.
If I need to "decide" what to do about the black man he's already "not equal."
Some things are obvious:
1)The black man needs to be a man.
The industry that profits from him needs to be eliminated.
No "special" rights, no affirmative action, no hate crimes and so on.
These ideas already show a contempt for the black man.
...and are simply "used" for political gains.
If he's truly equal than he will be just like you & I.
(period!!!, as a famous liar once said)
2) There needs to be real education,
not an agenda, not an indoctrination.
An education that gives folks the ability to be employed, empowered.
Now, there's always the mess that's here, but that's because democrats
have spent 5 decades destroying the black, and black family.
...if the solution starts tomorrow,
what's here will pass.
So you tell me:
If a black man is born equal tomorrow,
and has family structure,
and gets educated.
...why wouldn't he make it?
Why would he need to be "owned" on the plantation?
All this comes down to is get rid of the lies and liars. The Democrat party is a top to bottom lie.
Step one is to create equality.
(unfortunately too many parasites need him as a host)
|Feb-28-15|| ||diceman: Now Im sure a Jim Bartle type will stroll in and say:|
What about racism diceman?
He "cares" about the people he owns.
He watches bicycle videos.
(and spots the white mans concern)
Because he's been trained, and it suits his politics,
he calls the "concern" racism/hate.
What Jim never spends anytime doing, is looking in the mirror.
He creates and supports a world where the black man has created crime, murder, gang violence, car theft, rape, drug dealing.
,,,and Jim wonders why someone would judge them.
Don't you think there are consequences to your dismal failure?
To your decades of lies?
Do you think when your agitator agitates until a young black murders two cops seated in a patrol car.
...others say "He's someone just like me."
"He's someone I want to bond with."
When folks look at a black man funny,
they've just seen your handy work.
Jim is the classic liberal joke.
9 out of 10 blacks die in this country
at the hands of a black man.
(the yield from having your individuality, education, opportunity, destroyed)
...but Jim's concerned how whites treat him at a bike.
...and puzzled why???
|Feb-28-15|| ||Marmot PFL: <There is an awful lot of misinformation and untruth out there about the legacy of the two major political parties and the civil rights movement. Conservatives often like to use slight of hand, insisting that because the early Republican party was stronger in support of civil rights, this means that conservatives have the moral high ground. This is totally untrue.|
Republicans – Moderate and Liberal Republicans supported civil rights. The Republicans who supported civil rights in America were not conservatives of the same ilk as George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They were liberals and moderates, people like former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chaffee and former senator governor Nelson Rockefeller.
Conservative Democrats opposed civil rights. The Democrats opposed to the civil rights movement weren’t Democrats with the center-left ideology of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They were, in fact, conservatives – especially from the south – with far more in common with Limbaugh, Beck, etc. than any modern mainstream Democrat. When people say that someone like notorious segregationist Bull Connor was a Democrat, they are technically right on the party label, but when it comes to ideology Connor and the rest of those opposed to racial integration were conservatives.
Conservatives opposed civil rights. At the time of the civil rights movement, outside of the parties, conservatives were opposed to the civil rights movement. Barry Goldwater, a conservative whose brand of politics would soon take over the Republicans in the guise of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, opposed civil rights law. He claimed that he viewed it as a states rights issue, and actually favored equal rights, but the practical effect of his stance would be to allow segregation – in the south “states rights” meant “Jim Crow.” The conservative intellectual movement – William F. Buckley’s National Review, for instance, opposed what they viewed as law-breaking protests by Dr. Martin Luther King.>
|Feb-28-15|| ||perfidious: The author of the piece cited by <Marmot> should refer to his dictionary; for spell check is no good, come to 'slight' of hand, rather than the correct usage of 'sleight'.|
|Feb-28-15|| ||diceman: <Abdel:
So, here's the problem: We have a large number of people who, for various reasons more often than not beyond their control, can't thrive under this "perfect meritocracy.>
<more often than not beyond their control>
No, they were sold a lie.
Told lies for political gain, "don't worry I can take care of you.
I'm your friend, I'm your buddy, he will starve you.
I will put forth programs to help you."
(allows me to take money and gain power)
<" What do we do about this?>
Ask the questions why are they there?
Who did they listen to?
What did anyone else who is a success do differently ?
Is it really a riddle why being “owned” leads to bad outcomes?
<•Tell them, "Ha ha, you lose," deprive them of all aid, and see what happens?>
No, you have it backwards. <"Ha ha, you lose,"> is continuing to take aid, continuing to listen to those who use you and throw you under the bus.
< deprive them of all aid, and see what happens>
This is the same argument made for welfare reform.
They’ll be dead in the streets, they cant make it.
The liberal always starts with contempt for his loyal voters.
These "ideas/solutions" lies have destroyed peoples lives,
there will be heavy lifting necessary.
<•Continue to warehouse them in public housing (largely unfit for habitation) and give them a pittance to live on>
What’s known as the “Great Society.” (It’s been tried)
(what could be wrong with something called that???)
<•Adopt a "far-left" solution: Create a guaranteed minimum income for everyone, working or not, with additional financial aid available to those who want to continue their education?>
Why empower a political liar/fraud?
How about a “far-right” solution?
Like work, independence.
<Like work, independence.>
They cant do that because they’ve been owned like dogs/cats
and don’t know how to get their kibbles & bits.
Maybe we should start with DNC, democrat politician, community agitator, reparations.
|Feb-28-15|| ||diceman: <What???
They cant do that because they’ve been owned like dogs/cats and don’t know how to get their kibbles & bits.>
...and things should be called by their real name.
If they need help getting into school,
it should be called the:
"I listened to a democrat liar adjustment"
Instead of "affirmative action."
|Feb-28-15|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <Adopt a "far-left" solution>???|
Why is it that alternatives to conservative policies are always <far left>??
Is this pure demagoguery or an intolerance of anything that is provided for by government? (cough military welfare cough)
Reasonable Americans don't want communism nor do they want fascism. Perhaps it's possible to have the slider set somewhere in the middle without the nutters in the Tea Party shouting socialism.
They should try living in Europe - they would be outraged at the "far left solutions" and 'communism' there. Even positively apoplectic to learn that they mostly work - see socialised healthcare outcomes VS US corporate healthcare outcomes and massive difference in cost between the two.
|Feb-28-15|| ||al wazir: <twinlark: Now why would he kill a man like Nemtsov?> Gee. Why would he kill a man like Magnitsky? Why would he kill a man like Yamadayev? Why would he kill a man like Litvinenko? (That's kind of a lot of provocations, wouldn't you say?)|
It could be that he killed them for the same reason Stalin ordered Trotsky, Kirov, and others killed: "No man, no problem."
|Feb-28-15|| ||johnlspouge: @<diceman>: You have defended your opinions with consistency.|
How do you feel about a government apology for slavery, similar to the apology for Japanese internment?
As an immigrant, I feel that the American government has been singularly lacking courage about this issue. How much courage do you have?
|Feb-28-15|| ||johnlspouge: < <al wazir> wrote: It could be that he killed them for the same reason Stalin ordered Trotsky, Kirov, and others killed: "No man, no problem." >|
For what my opinion is worth, you understand the Soviet mentality at least as well as my wife. She suffered under the Soviet system and said virtually the same.
|Mar-01-15|| ||HeMateMe: <sponge> While a sitting President, Bill Clinton publicly apologized for slavery. It may have been before both houses of Congress, I'm not sure. I would be surprised if he was the first American President to do so. In any case, it has occurred.|
Disgraceful that Japan has never publicly apologized to Korea for enslaving their women in brothels, in the 1930s and '40s. Their national psyche must be quite fragile to keep something like that buried; I wonder if they teach their school children about the excesses of Japanese militarism during WWII.
|Mar-01-15|| ||al wazir: <johnlspouge: For what my opinion is worth, you understand the Soviet mentality at least as well as my wife. She suffered under the Soviet system and said virtually the same.> I don't want to seem ungrateful for what appears to be a compliment, but I'm really not sure to what extent the Putin administration employs Stalinist methods. (<twinlark> seems to think that even by suggesting that they might have something in common, I am renewing the Cold War.) Political assassination in Russia has a history that long antedates the October Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...|
|Mar-01-15|| ||HeMateMe: Mort and Abdel are happy with Iran becoming a nuclear power. Neither will be critical at all of Iran, a nation on the USA terrorist sponsoring list.|
|Mar-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <HeMateMe>: Do you have visual issues that lead you to confuse "u" with "n"?|
Otherwise, it's hard to account for your persistently calling <johnlspouge> "sponge."
|Mar-01-15|| ||cormier: GN 22:1-2, 9A, 10-13, 15-18
God put Abraham to the test.
He called to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am!” he replied.
Then God said:
“Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love,
and go to the land of Moriah.
There you shall offer him up as a holocaust
on a height that I will point out to you.”
When they came to the place of which God had told him,
Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it.
Then he reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son.
But the LORD’s messenger called to him from heaven,
“Here I am!” he answered.
“Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the messenger.
“Do not do the least thing to him.
I know now how devoted you are to God,
since you did not withhold from me your own beloved son.”
As Abraham looked about,
he spied a ram caught by its horns in the thicket.
So he went and took the ram
and offered it up as a holocaust in place of his son.
Again the LORD’s messenger called to Abraham from heaven and said:
“I swear by myself, declares the LORD,
that because you acted as you did
in not withholding from me your beloved son,
I will bless you abundantly
and make your descendants as countless
as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore;
your descendants shall take possession
of the gates of their enemies,
and in your descendants all the nations of the earth
shall find blessing—
all this because you obeyed my command.”
|Mar-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <HeMateMe: Mort and Abdel are happy with Iran becoming a nuclear power. Neither will be critical at all of Iran, a nation on the USA terrorist sponsoring list.>|
Please stop lying about my opinions.
What I really think about Iran can be found in many real posts; if you want to honestly *say* what I think, you could quote from them.
Instead, you ignore everything I actually *do* say in favor of making up things and attributing them to me.
We've discussed this before, so I must regard it as yet another example of the Big Lie in action.
This kind of behavior is so consistent with you that I can't help wondering if you're a paid, trained propagandist/astroturfer for ... someone.
Such cattle are not thin on the ground, and there is no clear reason to assume you are not one of them.
|Mar-01-15|| ||al wazir: All, or nearly all, the Japanese who forced Korean women to become "comfort women" are dead now, as are the women themselves. An apology would have merely symbolic value; it wouldn't punish the guilty or compensate the victims. Likewise, American slaveholders and the slaves they held died long ago. An apology for slavery would be no more than a political gesture.|
But I have read of something that would be a concrete and meaningful action. The reasoning goes like this: Many people now alive own property inherited from or given by their parents or grandparents. Some have assets inherited from their great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on. Wealth is passed from generation to generation through gifts and inheritance, so some portion of the wealth of those now living who had slave-holding ancestors derives from the property those slaveholders owned, *some of which was accumulated through the uncompensated labor of their slaves*. In contrast, the descendants of those slaves cannot attribute any of what they now own to an inheritance from that time, because *slaves owned nothing*.
So a fair recompense would be to assess the descendants of slaveholders an amount equal to what they have inherited as a result of the wealth their ancestors accumulated through the efforts of their slaves, and transfer it the descendants of the slaves. The tough part is figuring out how much to assess and what share each descendant of slaves should receive. Good luck with that.
|Mar-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: Interesting approach, <al wazir>: Suggest a solution, tell us how nearly impossible it will be to implement, and then wish us luck and ride into the sunset.|
Since you came up with the idea, though, it is *your* responsibility to say how it would be effected.
Good luck with that.
|Mar-01-15|| ||al wazir: <Abdel Irada: Since you came up with the idea, though, it is *your* responsibility to say how it would be effected.> The reading disability that you have diagnosed <HeMateMe> with must be infectious.|
What part of <I have read of something...<<>>> escaped your comprehension?
|Mar-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: Not *my* fault, <aw>. You may have read this idea from someone else, but *you* introduced it here, so it's your baby.|
|Mar-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: <What part of <I have read of something...<<>>> escaped your comprehension?>|
This part: "<<>>>". :-)
|Mar-01-15|| ||al wazir: <Abdel Irada>: Nice try. |
No, I clearly stated, in English, that it was *not* my idea. Quit squirming and take your medicine -- the medicine you are so ready to prescribe to others -- like a grown-up. You made a mistake. (Not a big one. It's not the end of the world.) You didn't read all of what I wrote, or read it carelessly. We all do it from time to time. Admit it and move on.
|Mar-01-15|| ||Abdel Irada: And *I* clearly stated that it doesn't matter if the idea was originally yours. By choosing to present it, you accepted responsibility.|
Now, stop squirming and take the medicine *you* prescribed.
(And yes, humor aside, I read your post in its entirety and responded accordingly. I may be pulling your leg to Philadelphia and back, but I did not overlook so much as a jot or a tittle of what you wrote.)
|Mar-01-15|| ||twinlark: < al wazir: <twinlark: Now why would he kill a man like Nemtsov?> Gee. Why would he kill a man like Magnitsky? Why would he kill a man like Yamadayev? Why would he kill a man like Litvinenko? (That's kind of a lot of provocations, wouldn't you say?)|
It could be that he killed them for the same reason Stalin ordered Trotsky, Kirov, and others killed: "No man, no problem.">
"Kill man, BIG problem."
Don't suppose you thought of that?
Your russophobia is showing.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6866 OF 6866 ·