|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2009 23:22:50 GMT -5
you can't possibly be serious.
poverty did not make this sorry POS in oakland kill 4 officers and jeaopardize the lives of many more including innocent bystanders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Mar 23, 2009 23:25:02 GMT -5
I'm not defending him at all!
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 23, 2009 23:36:44 GMT -5
your statement above is one of the most racist things i've ever heard:
you sound just like al and jesse. they are constantly telling blacks they are victims and can't do anything cuz whitey is holding them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Mar 23, 2009 23:44:19 GMT -5
I was clarifying myself in response to Big Dog's earlier post that subdjoe questioned. It is not meant to defend or classify, but to point out how our society has shaped our current dilemmas.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Mar 24, 2009 1:27:46 GMT -5
Without trying to make this a racist or social class statement, the divide being either one, which the preponderance of Blacks find themselves in, this is the "way it is" or reality as we know it. Just as the Native Americans or Indians as they are also known, were placed on reservations, Blacks can only afford the poorest parts of town, unless extremely lucky via some kind of a break. I'm sorry if this sounds the way it does, but how else can one explain communities like this? The poorest Caucation communities don't fair any better. Actually, until the Great Society experiment, and the War On Poverty, they were doing OK. Then they got fooled into believing in the Cult of Victimhood. Look at how the left treats blacks, claims they can't compete on an equal footing, they need special help to be as good as whites. Listen to how Jesse and Al preach that they are all victims. Look at how any black who doesn't bow to the ghetto culture and victimhood, is labled an oreo, or an uncle tom. The only divide comes from the socialists who enforce that divide to push their social engineering. Look at what that idiot prof at SSU was saying in today PD. If the Dems ever decide that we are all AMERICANS and not a bunch of little ethnic groups and special interests to be kept at each others throats, then we can make progress. But until then, with the Dems spewing hate and division, expect nothing to change. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Mar 24, 2009 2:05:52 GMT -5
I was clarifying myself in response to Big Dog's earlier post that subdjoe questioned. It is not meant to defend or classify, but to point out how our society has shaped our current dilemmas. You might have been better off not saying anything at all. You largely missed the point and managed to tar yourself thoroughly into the bargain. I should be happy about all that, but I have to believe you don't really think that it's all about whitey trying to put the brothers down. And in case you care for a little historic perspective now that the jingoistic calls for more gun laws have started, the roots of modern gun control have their basis in Jim Crow laws, did you know that? I have to laugh every time a liberal gun grabber in an debate cites US v. Cruikshank as controlling case law in support the government's ability to enact more "gun control". In Cruikshank an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100-280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night. A total of three whites were killed. Some members of the white mob were indicted and charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870. Among other provisions, the law made it a felony for two or more people conspired to deprive anyone of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." The meaning of the ruling was clear... the state of Louisiana could restrict blacks from assembling (Amendment 1) and owning arms (Amendment 2) setting in motion nearly a hundred years of Jim Crow. And enabling gun grabbers to continue their quest to disarm all law abiding Americans in pursuit of their utopian ideal. I would submit that the real racism here exists with those who think they know better than the rest of us. The real racism exists in those who practice government giveaway in place of promoting individual freedom and responsibility. I would submit that the real racist is you. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Mar 24, 2009 20:25:26 GMT -5
subdjoe wrote:
How do you figure they were doing "OK"? What is "OK" mean to you? Which Great Society experiment are you referring to?
Somehow I don't think Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with you or he would not have jeopardized his own life in trying to encourage peaceful protests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Mar 24, 2009 20:34:35 GMT -5
Big Dog wrote:
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. If I missed your point, could you please elaborate? This is what you said:
"What we see in Oakland, from the Oakland Housing Authority abuses of the late 1980's, to The Riders, to Oscar Grant, to these latest killings is the end result of over 50 years of societal engineering and devolution. Government, in it's "compassion" has made Oakland what it is.
I doubt quite seriously that government, as it is constituted in Oakland anyway, will ever be able to fix it."
Why am I the racist?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2009 21:17:48 GMT -5
for the same reasons that al and jesse are.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Mar 24, 2009 21:48:49 GMT -5
subdjoe wrote: How do you figure they were doing "OK"? What is "OK" mean to you? Which Great Society experiment are you referring to? Somehow I don't think Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with you or he would not have jeopardized his own life in trying to encourage peaceful protests. They were coming up, being accepted in the professions and trades, getting into subrubia. That kind of think. Yes, it was gradual. That is how society changes, gradually and not over night. Then along came Johnson and the Great Society experiament, change everything overnight. That is when the Cult of Victimhood took hold of many blacks. MKL would not recognize the garbage, hate, and lies that the leaders of social change spew now. He would likely slap Jesse and Al into next week because of their racism and bigotry. He was standing up for EQUALITY, dammit. Not the "gee, blacks are too stupid and lazy to compete, so they need special treatment" crapola the left spews. I'd LOVE to hear what he would say about the idea of reparations. If he brought his message here today, not just the "I have a dream" speech, which gets trotted out and the words and meaning ignored - content of character, not color of skin. Yet every social engineer is a racist because they insist on judging by color. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2009 22:31:21 GMT -5
good ol' MLK. another great republican!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Mar 24, 2009 23:33:07 GMT -5
subdjoe wrote: How do you figure they were doing "OK"? What is "OK" mean to you? Which Great Society experiment are you referring to? Somehow I don't think Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with you or he would not have jeopardized his own life in trying to encourage peaceful protests. They were coming up, being accepted in the professions and trades, getting into subrubia. That kind of think. Yes, it was gradual. That is how society changes, gradually and not over night. Then along came Johnson and the Great Society experiament, change everything overnight. That is when the Cult of Victimhood took hold of many blacks. MKL would not recognize the garbage, hate, and lies that the leaders of social change spew now. He would likely slap Jesse and Al into next week because of their racism and bigotry. He was standing up for EQUALITY, dammit. Not the "gee, blacks are too stupid and lazy to compete, so they need special treatment" crapola the left spews. I'd LOVE to hear what he would say about the idea of reparations. If he brought his message here today, not just the "I have a dream" speech, which gets trotted out and the words and meaning ignored - content of character, not color of skin. Yet every social engineer is a racist because they insist on judging by color. I don't think I'm understanding your point subdjoe. It sounds as if you don't approve of the civil rights movement, because you say they were gradually coming up? How? They had separate water fountains, restaurants and had to sit in the back of the bus. They couldn't live in a "White" community or go to the same schools, how is that coming up? This is how society changes? |
|
