Wednesday, August 28, 2013

50 years later: Dr King had a dream but his dream became a nightmare

What a difference a of a half century makes. Fifty years ago, blacks in America were united in their fight against the external forces against them known as the segregationist Jim Crow and black code laws.. I doubt Dr King envisioned the future of blacks in America was going to turn out like anything it has become in modern day America. It's really sad to say that blacks as a people were more together socially, economically and morally fifty years ago, then they ever were in 2013. I remember my mother telling me stories about how Pennsylvania Ave here in Baltimore was the social place for many of the famous black entertainers in the nation to come and perform. Now it's just a typical high crime, drug addicted slum in West Baltimore. She also told  how the black social mindset was completely different back during her time then what it is today. Many of the stores in black neighborhoods were owned by black entrepreneurs. The church and the morals of church were engrained into the DNA of blacks especially young ones. So what in the hell happened to flip this all upside down and inside out in just a matter of 50 years? Fifty years ago, blacks had more to fear from being killed by whites then by blacks, now that has flipped. Blacks are statistically more likely to be killed by another black person then by any other person of any other racial group in America.  If Dr. King was alive today, and he made the mistake of speaking out against the moral decay of black America, he would get the Bill Cosby and Dr Ben Carson treatment of being labeled a sellout or Uncle Tom etc. With all the internal problems facing blacks from not having a father in the home, continuous high unemployment for black men, drug addiction, illiteracy, black on black homicides, it's laughable in a sad way how all of these problems can be ignored yet they can rally in the name of  an isolated innocent aka "Trayvon Martin". The so called black leaders of 2013 aren't going to address the real problems, because it simply does not pay to do so. How would Dr King feel about the social decay of blacks in modern America?

 
Would he approve of it? How would he feel about blacks selling poison to their own people?
I don't think that was apart of his dream. He believed that blacks should reach their fullest potential, and what many young blacks are doing sure as hell isn't that. The black shyster have blacks so screwed up in the head, they have them thinking some how that the "Tea Party" and Republicans are to blame for their situation and are their problem. Speaking of black manipulating shysters, Jesse Jackson said yesterday, that the "Tea Party is the resurrection of the confederacy"   I bet if someone was to press Jackson into explaining how the Tea Party is somehow negatively impacting blacks, he couldn't do it. It's easy for idiots like Jackson and other black racial racketeers to make such absurd statements like that, because the goal is to deflect the attention away from the real problems and to create a straw man bogey man as the problem, in other words deflect attention away from the internal problems that aren't being dealt with. Dr King's dream has been achieved in regards to race relations. This is not the same country that it was fifty years ago, but don't tell that to blacks who have been brainwashed to believe other wise. To them, this might as well be 1963. In some ways Dr King's vision has been realized and in other ways his vision will sadly only remain a dream and nothing more.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but I get a little annoyed by conservatives who naively make the mistake in joining liberals in treating MLK as though he were the official yardstick of "racial harmony"!

These same conservatives will use such catch phrases as "what would MLK do if he were alive today? in contrast to the the racially divisive tactics utilized by the left & Barack Obama.

King accomplished such astronomical success in helping to eradicat the unjust, racist jim crow laws which heavily discriminated against blacks. For that alone, I commend him highly. However, like any great leader, he was a flawed man who concealed many of his demons from public scrutiny.

It is also foolish for many conservatives to insist that he was somehow a "conservative" who advocated on behalf of many of the philosophies in which liberals today reject.

During King's time, such hideous acts as abortion & "gay marriage" were not even conceivable to the average American let alone liberals but this has been the central platform of the present day Democrat party since the ending the Civil Rights Movement.

Many Americans don't even realize that King played an integral role in advising LBJ in impleting many of the soul-crippling social policies which have sadly devastated most blacks today. He also said some very insensitive things against the divinity of Jesus Christ throughhout his letters from an Alabama jail while promoting himself as a "Christian" preacher.

Judging by the on going pattern in which I see today regarding many notable black "leaders" & public figures like Jesse Jackson, who once rejected abortion before entering politics, & Colin Powell, it appears that as they age, the grace of wisdom is not being acquired within their souls! Instead, they are merely trying to obtain some type of "street cred" in order to remain legit in the eyes of millions of unsophisticated youth, by adopting the emotionally-infused, juvenile philosophy of liberalism!

For some strange reason I can't help but assume that had MLK lived on throughout the 21st century, he would be an active member of the present-day Democrat paarty while publicly advocating on behalf of the support of Barack Obama!

King like the Civil Rights Movement were a product of that era. His speeches may carry a lot of weight for most people but I believe that they were simply idealistic fantasies which sadly have been twisted and manipulated by very wicked people,(mostly wealthy white Ivy-league educated) liberal Democrats)who want to discourage mostly blacks from leading truly, morally-upstanding & productive lives!

8:41 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"It's really sad to say that blacks as a people were more together socially, economically and morally fifty years ago, then they ever were in 2013".

Don't forget most schools and churches were segregated, thus blacks were "more together" educationally and spiritually also. But why would you say, "it's really sad to say", if you believe being "together" is a good thing? What's sad about blacks being "together" socially, economically, morally, spiritually and educationally?

Let me ask you this... If blacks were "more together" socially, economically, morally, spiritually and educationally fifty years ago, what was it that broke the bond?

10:15 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

At the 2013 March On Washington commemoration, Oprah said King forced US to wake up. Will blacks now following the democrat script wake up?

For what many black families need to focus on and not be in denial about, Mr. Williams tells the most vital facts in the link below.

Black Self-Sabotage, Walter E. Williams, Jul 31, 2013
excerpt: "If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn't develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media. Let's look at it. First, weaken the black family, but don't blame it on individual choices. You have to preach that today's weak black family is a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today..."

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/07/31/black-selfsabotage-n1651550

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Here is a throwback about Detroit. Back in the 20's thru the 50"s schoolteachers were modest in dress and life. Many of them were even unmarried, and were called things like "school marm." Also, I remember my grade school teachers in the 60's as nice, modest, and trustworthy on moral matters. Now in Detroit, schoolteachers to supplement income are going online to find men who want to "hire" them as "sugar babes" (those men will want more than a restaurant date, won't they?). What is destroying cities, is what many blacks are in denial about - moral degeneracy.
Detroit Teachers Moonlight As ‘Sugar Babies’ To Offset Wage Cuts, August 28, 2013
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/08/28/detroit-teachers-moonlight-as-sugar-babies-to-offset-wage-cuts/

9:52 AM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Here is an article about Nachelle Brown, an Oklahoma City woman who is black and who since turning to a Wonderfully Made Foundation shelter “has gotten her GED, a job, a bank account, is saving toward a car and has gained confidence in herself as a parent, an adult and a productive member of Society.” She says about the woman who runs the center, that “She's a straight shooter too.”

Brown is 26 years old with her four small daughters all under 7, and a fifth child due in December 2013. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of a father of the five children. Speaking of straight shooting, I wonder if anyone has told the man involved he needs to keep his pants on. I wonder if anyone has told Brown that she needs to keep her legs closed.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-foundation-empowers-supports-women/article/3877357

9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What disgusted me was that vendors were selling t-shirts with the fused images of Trayvon Martin and MLK Jr. I guess that the "Trayvon-Mania" still has not gone away.

http://conservativefiringline.com/trayvon-martin-mlk-jr-t-shirts-sold-dream-anniversary-event/

If that wasn't enough, MLK III suggested that Trayvon Martin was profiled and killed because he was black and demand that the stand your ground law be repealed. So, I I guess the evidence in the Zimmerman case was irrelevant, despite that Zimmerman has black friends, family members and went out of his way to help a homeless black homeless man who was treated unfairly by a member of the Sanford police dept. Yet, Trayvon Martin was still considered an innocent "saint" despite that he he had a juvenile criminal record, and referred Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker." So, whatever happened to judging the content of one's character not the color of his/her skin?

If I had a bullhorn, I would question MLK 3 how those reacting to the Zimmerman jury and the verdict of how the so-called black leaders who spat hate rather than promote peace. They call for no prayer and turned their noses away from the facts and call for boycotts, protests and revenge-especially the random attacks by black youths who go around beating innocent whites in the "name of Trayvon". Also, I would ask what would he do about the issue of black-on-black crime that is going around like an epidemic.

If his father was around, I would assume he would give his son an earful.

-Big Pop

9:37 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Anonymous said "Many Americans don't even realize that King played an integral role in advising LBJ in impleting many of the soul-crippling social policies which have sadly devastated most blacks today. He also said some very insensitive things against the divinity of Jesus Christ throughhout his letters from an Alabama jail while promoting himself as a "Christian" preacher."

Your whole comment about MLK deserves magnifying. I will start with the good, and then the bad. Besides helping to remove mad dog racial boundaries in the USA, there are two things I remember most about Matin Luther King (MLK):

1) He urged people (blacks) that no matter what the past oppression and crisis to live and to work without fear and without bitterness.
2) I heard MLK say that the proper freedom of black people will also free white people from their guilts and their fears.

Before he recently took down his site at blackinformant.com, Duane had posted some links concerning the truth about MLK. Information about MLK was from his papers archived at Stanford University and for a time were posted on Stanford's website. I say for a time because apparently the university removed them from their website (perhaps after a firestorm from people who were reading King's views). Well, you know how this internet age is. Once the stuff is out there, people like me print and file it, plus it is still on servers somewhere. Some other links at the time were: www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm and www.dontgogreek.com/mlkjr.html

In his writings King denied the virgin birth, denied the Second Coming of Christ, denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and he denied that the blood of Christ could take care of sin.

Years ago before that, I came across and bought one of those Readers Digest condensed books series, because it had "My Life With Martin" by Coretta King. She said Martin said he cared little about the temperature of hell, but rather with man's life on earth. (This is what can happen when theology training comes from social gospel bible scoffing oppressors in sheeps clothing.) King was a masterful leader, speaker, and activist who catalyzed change in America. But there is a reason why unbelievers, and blind lost sectarians make him an idol. Although he eloquently mouthed some Christ words here and there, conjoined with the words of philosophers and writers, King did so not in the spirit of Christ, and not for heaven's sake. He did so for earthly civil rights.

10:30 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Anon;"Many Americans don't even realize that King played an integral role in advising LBJ in impleting many of the soul-crippling social policies which have sadly devastated most blacks today".

And what "soul crippling social policies" might those be Anon? Let's see, there was Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, 1965 Social Security Act, The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, federal education funding for Head Start, Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, The Child Safety Act of 1966, The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967, 1968 Truth-in-Lending Act, the Food Stamp Act, Community Action Program, Job Corps and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), just to name a few... All together there was about 250 social programs. So tell me, which of the "Great Society" programs "crippled" most blacks? Oh, I forgot about the Voting and Civil Rights Acts. Were they the social programs that "devastated" most blacks?

"First, weaken the black family, but don't blame it on individual choices. You have to preach that today's weak black family is a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today".

First, weaken the black family- "Don’t forget, you must pitch the OLD black male vs. the YOUNG black male, and the
YOUNG black male against the OLD black male. You must use the FEMALE vs. the MALE, and the MALE vs. the FEMALE"
.

Sound familiar? That passage is from the Willie Lynch Letter. The letter has been debunked by many notable scholars, so I accept the judgement of in-authenticity. However, many of those same scholars have stated that it could have been written sometime in the late 1950's to early 60's. If that is the case, then it does carry a degree of relevance to the present state of black America.

5:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allen-"Let me ask you this... If blacks were "more together" socially, economically, morally, spiritually and educationally fifty years ago, what was it that broke the bond?"

Well, to begin with, LBJ's Great Society Bill and the War On Poverty had a lot to do with it.

7:22 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

anon "I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but I get a little annoyed by conservatives who naively make the mistake in joining liberals in treating MLK as though he were the official yardstick of "racial harmony"! "

I don't think Dr King was the "official yardstick" for racial harmony, but he was the most noticeable and remembered figure from that era.

anon "
It is also foolish for many conservatives to insist that he was somehow a "conservative" who advocated on behalf of many of the philosophies in which liberals today reject.

During King's time, such hideous acts as abortion & "gay marriage" were not even conceivable to the average American let alone liberals but this has been the central platform of the present day Democrat party since the ending the Civil Rights Movement."

I know that Dr King was apart of the labor movement. With so many black pastors selling out god in the name of supporting the liberal causes of supporting the butchering of unborn children and the mockery of marriage through homosexuality, it's hard to say whether Dr King have fallen in their footsteps if he was not assassinated and lived to this day.

anon "Judging by the on going pattern in which I see today regarding many notable black "leaders" & public figures like Jesse Jackson, who once rejected abortion before entering politics, & Colin Powell, it appears that as they age, the grace of wisdom is not being acquired within their souls! Instead, they are merely trying to obtain some type of "street cred" in order to remain legit in the eyes of millions of unsophisticated youth, by adopting the emotionally-infused, juvenile philosophy of liberalism!"

I've always said that the difference between a conservative and religion and a liberal and religion is inverse. Conservatives who are religious let their faith guide their politics. Liberals are the opposite, they let their politics dictate their religion which is an oxymoron and a contraction, because what liberalism represents is anything but moral.

anon "King like the Civil Rights Movement were a product of that era. His speeches may carry a lot of weight for most people but I believe that they were simply idealistic fantasies which sadly have been twisted and manipulated by very wicked people,(mostly wealthy white Ivy-league educated) liberal Democrats)who want to discourage mostly blacks from leading truly, morally-upstanding & productive lives!"

I agree. The whole event the day before yesterday was nothing more then a glorified Democrat pep rally with Dr King the person taking backstage to the grandstanding people. It was like a Paul Wellstone style funeral rally. I didn't see any stories about any of the speakers speaking out on how race relations are far better then they were 50 years ago. Of course that wasn't going to happen, because it's not in their nature to speak when something is good.

10:27 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

P Allen quoting me "CB;"It's really sad to say that blacks as a people were more together socially, economically and morally fifty years ago, then they ever were in 2013"."

P Allen "Don't forget most schools and churches were segregated, thus blacks were "more together" educationally and spiritually also. But why would you say, "it's really sad to say", if you believe being "together" is a good thing? What's sad about blacks being "together" socially, economically, morally, spiritually and educationally? "

Nice trying to take what I said out of context allen, but no cigar for you. What I said was obvious. Blacks didn't have the internal problems nowhere to the degree 50 years ago then what they have now 50 years later.I can't believe you couldn't figure that out. As I said, the problems back during hte 60's were mainly EXTERNAL aka Jim Crow. The problems in 2013 are strictly INTERNAL aka black on black homicides and violence, drug addiction, poverty, literacy, fatherless homes. So again, you still see what I was really saying allen? really?

Indigo "Black Self-Sabotage, Walter E. Williams, Jul 31, 2013
excerpt: "If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn't develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media. Let's look at it. First, weaken the black family, but don't blame it on individual choices. You have to preach that today's weak black family is a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today...""

I've said for the longest time, that the progressive agenda has done more to harm black people then the KKK could have ever dreamed of doing. Supporting the killing of unborn black children is obviously something the white racists support, they support as many abortion clinic popping up in minority neighborhoods as possible. They support blacks youths not getting a quality education, because in their eyes, they don't have to worry about them getting a foothold in society. Of course white racists don't support the idea of black children who have potential to excel and be taken out falling schools and placed in private schools where he or she can truly strive. To this day, I can't find a liberal who can tell me point by point how their agenda has truly helped the upward mobility of blacks. I can go point by point how it has done catastrophic damage to blacks though. This might has well have been the agenda of the Klu Klux Klan.

Indigo "Here is a throwback about Detroit. Back in the 20's thru the 50"s schoolteachers were modest in dress and life. Many of them were even unmarried, and were called things like "school marm." Also, I remember my grade school teachers in the 60's as nice, modest, and trustworthy on moral matters. Now in Detroit, schoolteachers to supplement income are going online to find men who want to "hire" them as "sugar babes" (those men will want more than a restaurant date, won't they?). What is destroying cities, is what many blacks are in denial about - moral degeneracy.
Detroit Teachers Moonlight As ‘Sugar Babies’ To Offset Wage Cuts, August 28, 2013
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/08/28/detroit-teachers-moonlight-as-sugar-babies-to-offset-wage-cuts/"

Just when I thought I've seen everything, it gets even more insane. liberalism is a moral cancer. So the people intrusted with educating the children of Detroit are tricking themselves out as sugar babies. I'm sure there are people who will defend this as normal and say it's not a big deal.

11:11 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

Chicago Public Schools Mandates Sexual, Health Education For Kindergarten
This is just an example of why so many kids grow up to be so screwed up as young people into adulthood,thanks to the perversion
of liberalism. There is no valid argument what so ever on why the Chicago Public School system or any school system should be teaching kindergarteners about sex. First off, it's the parent's job to do that. Liberals can't nor won't let children simply be children.

These wackos are even mandating that kids be taught about homosexuality in Californian schools and parents can't even opt out
. This is why parents who can either send their kids to religious private schools or they home school their kids in order to get them away from these warped minded progressive "educators".

11:32 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Nice trying to take what I said out of context allen, but no cigar for you. What I said was obvious. Blacks didn't have the internal problems nowhere to the degree 50 years ago then what they have now 50 years later.I can't believe you couldn't figure that out. As I said, the problems back during hte 60's were mainly EXTERNAL aka Jim Crow. The problems in 2013 are strictly INTERNAL aka black on black homicides and violence, drug addiction, poverty, literacy, fatherless homes. So again, you still see what I was really saying allen? really?".

Lol! I began by pointing out that blacks were also segregated in schools and churches. So, obviously I know that the problems then were EXTERNAL and today's problems are INTERNAL. Hell, I've repeatedly written on this blog that "WE AS BLACKS NEED TO SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS AND NOT LOOK TO LIBERALS NOR CONSERVATIVES TO ADDRESS OUR ISSUES."

The other night on the Bill O'Reilly show, O'Reilly lied and said that no conservatives and no "black" conservatives were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech. Although I won't give him credit, he did come back the next day to claim he "made a mistake." Frankly I believe O'Reilly knew exactly what he was doing when he told the lie.

Many white conservatives of his ilk often play games such as his. Their intent is basically to keep up the rift between prominent and socially influential black figures. I believe he knew that some black conservatives had turned to their invites. But in keeping with the "keep them blacks divided", and the "why do they do vote the way they do" mantra (which by the way is played by both liberal democrats and conservative republicans), O'Reilly decided to sound the horn!

O'Reilly, in an interview with Democrat James Carville, used an entire segment to bash the MLK event. As I said, he did return the next night to claim the assertion he made was a "mistake." Yet, being that the MLK celebration was a major event, O'Reilly knew that he could not ignore it and not do "some kind of story." The fact that almost every republican (particularly black republicans) had turned down their invites, he knew he could not, and would not do a full segment and not explain their absence. Soooo, HE LIED!

3:37 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Just when I thought I've seen everything, it gets even more insane. liberalism is a moral cancer. So the people intrusted with educating the children of Detroit are tricking themselves out as sugar babies. I'm sure there are people who will defend this as normal and say it's not a big deal".

I'll defend them!! These teachers make very little money. The low wages forces them to take on second jobs. Sugar Babies, or a Hooter girl, at times is the only option. Here's a picture of home economics teacher, Mary Carver in her Hooters uniform. She's also a "Sugar Baby." Yummmmmmm!

Seriously though... How many Playboy bunnies claim they're "avid readers of the Wall Street Journal?" Or that someone told you,It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing! Drinking? Why, no, Officer! So hundred's of "SCHOOL TEACHERS" have taken to the INTERNET to make a little extra money and satisfy their kinky needs? Yeahhhhhh right...

I'd be more apt to believe it if they weren't ALREADY EMPLOYED!

6:20 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "
Lol! I began by pointing out that blacks were also segregated in schools and churches. So, obviously I know that the problems then were EXTERNAL and today's problems are INTERNAL. Hell, I've repeatedly written on this blog that "WE AS BLACKS NEED TO SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS AND NOT LOOK TO LIBERALS NOR CONSERVATIVES TO ADDRESS OUR ISSUES."

We need to solve our own problems? Wow, sounds good in theory, but it sure hasn't turned out that way over the past 50 years. Did you get a chance allen to watch the MLK 50th anniversary of Dr King's Dream speech? The event was packed with with wall to wall progressives. I've only heard on person out of all the speakers mention about the black on black homocide problem. The rest were talking about issues that have ZERO impact on blacks, like bitching about needing to show an ID to vote, amnesty of illegal aliens, calling the conservative supreme court justices the new confederacy etc. Bill O'Reilly was attack by progressives, because he laid out on his show what the black community needs to do to get it's act together. He was attacked not for saying anything that was controversial or racist, black progressives were mad simply because it was Bill who said it.

p allen "The other night on the Bill O'Reilly show, O'Reilly lied and said that no conservatives and no "black" conservatives were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech. Although I won't give him credit, he did come back the next day to claim he "made a mistake." Frankly I believe O'Reilly knew exactly what he was doing when he told the lie. "

Spare your fake outrage allen already. I am even a fan of O'Reilly but I will say that I don't believe he lied. I do believe he didn't get all his facts in a row before he ran with the story. The definition of the word lie is to "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood".

p allen "Many white conservatives of his ilk often play games such as his. Their intent is basically to keep up the rift between prominent and socially influential black figures. I believe he knew that some black conservatives had turned to their invites. But in keeping with the "keep them blacks divided", and the "why do they do vote the way they do" mantra (which by the way is played by both liberal democrats and conservative republicans), O'Reilly decided to sound the horn!"

lol, first off allen, Bill O'Reilly is NOT a conservative, he's a moderate. He goes after the conservative right just as fast as he goes after the far left. I know you think white guy and fox news, it has to mean conservative, but in this case no. I would like to know what black Republicans and conservatives were invited though. Seeing how black liberals talk bad about black conservatives, I couldn't blame them for not going. I would have to think on it to if I had an invite, because I know that it wouldn't have been given out of sincerity by black liberals.




9:02 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"We need to solve our own problems? Wow, sounds good in theory, but it sure hasn't turned out that way over the past 50 years".

Ohhh please Tyrone... I've said that at least 1000 times on your blog. You know my angle. I "KNOW" that no one can solve the problems which plague our communities, but our communities and ourselves. Quite frankly, you're the one that really doesn't understand the concept.

CB;"Spare your fake outrage allen already. I am even a fan of O'Reilly but I will say that I don't believe he lied".

Think again my friend... O'Reilly has a staff of producers, writers and fact checkers. Politics is a key "factor" in the production of his show. Thus, any show worth it's salt in political reporting, has not one or two, but multiple connections with multiple politicians, their staff and their handlers. I'm not going to believe for a moment that Bill O'Reilly did not inquire of his own staff, or of his own personal connections, if any republicans or conservatives were invited.

CB;"The event was packed with with wall to wall progressives".

MY POINT EXACTLY! You and I both noticed it!! However, I don't have any D.C. republicans or conservatives in my Rolodex. So the last thing I would have done was make a claim that "no conservatives were invited" without knowing for sure. Hell, I wouldn't have even wrote a blog post making such a statement without knowing for sure.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar, but he ain't dumb. He knew exactly what he was doing.

CB;"I would like to know what black Republicans and conservatives were invited though".

Every member of Congress was invited.

Some republicans were even invited to speak, yet all declined. In essence the Republicans "boycotted" the event.

10:45 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"lol, first off allen, Bill O'Reilly is NOT a conservative, he's a moderate".

Yeah, right... And Kieth Olbermann is a moderate and not a liberal.

1:16 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "
Yeah, right... And Kieth Olbermann is a moderate and not a liberal. "

Why do you always give me the opportunity to expose how wrong you constantly are allen? As a conservative, why would I say that O'Reilly isn't a conservative if he is one? Think on that for a sec.
Why would a so called conservative in your eyes attack Laura Ingraham who is definitely a conservative?


Why would a so called conservative attack conservative talk show hosts as kool aid drinking idiots allen?


O'Reilly words on conservatives

<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-claims-conservatives-are-attacking-him-over-thump-the-bible-to-diminish-his-power-megyn-kelly-weighs-in/>
Why would a so called conservative insult religious social conservatives and then claim conservatives are out to get him?</a>
You have to retrain your brain allen on who you think are conservatives. Conservatives been knew for years that O'Reilly is nothing more then a self promoting riding the fence blow hard moderate. You have to do your research. Stop going by what other liberals tell you about who is a conservative.




1:45 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Why do you always give me the opportunity to expose how wrong you constantly are allen? As a conservative, why would I say that O'Reilly isn't a conservative if he is one?".

LOOOOL!!! Get real Tyrone.

Just because a "conservative" attack's attacks another "conservative" doesn't mean the attacker isn't "conservative!". It's really silly of you to think so Tyrone.

Jesse Jackson attacked President Obama saying he wanted to, "cut his [Barack Obama's] nuts out." So I guess that doesn't make Jackson a "liberal." Hell, over 70 percent of NRA members are for background checks and certain gun control measures. Does' that make 70 percent of NRA members "moderate?"

Even more telling of your "misguided notions", you yourself posted a link for me where "conservative" Mark Levin brutally attacks "conservative" Michael Savage!!!! If memory serves me correctly, aren't you a HUGE fan of Levins???? So is he "now" not a conservative??? (you can take your foot out your mouth now Tyrone)

I remember when O'Reilly' went on a ranting rampage about "conservative radio talkers" back in 2008. Although he was clearly talking about Rush Limbaugh, he never mentioned Limbaugh by name. But just to show you how "passionate" he was about the attacks, for some strange reason (uh-hmmmp, Roger Ailes...) he abruptly ended his attacks. (Hmmmmm? can you say ROGER AILES?) The Atlantic has the story.

Bill O'Reilly can say whatever he pleases. He'll call himself a two headed dragon if it boost's his ratings and fattens his paycheck. I know you've heard the old cliche', "If it walks like a duck." If you haven't, perhaps you should look it up. And if you don't understand it, ask me and I explain the meaning...

5:54 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Concerning that speaker lineup at March On Washington 50th, with their denial of what afflicts blacks in America, and what they call their agenda (profiling, Trayvon, voter rights, gays, minimum wage, etc) what a detrimental bunch of blind idiots.

It is high time for conservative blacks to ignore the labeling and namecalling, and mount up nationally, and start displacing the progressive poisons. I'm talking Allen West, Tim Scott, J.C. Watts, Walter Williams, Laveda King, Star Parker, and many others on the rise who can articulate the core issues.

Republicans need to learn the lessons from the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. A scandal-free and winnable true conservative needs to be identified, groomed and rallied around. Conservatives need to wise up and stop diluting their vote by voting for 4 or 5 different conservatives, who then cancel each other out. By doing that the “moderate” in the mushy middle gets nominated. Half the country would vote for a strong conservative, especially now, but many would sit out on a McCain, Romney, or Dole.

Once in place, a conservative could first stop the progressive “medicines” that have been making the sicknesses worse. Ken Hutcherson, a black conservative, wrote about what he would do if he became president: http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/if-i-were-president/ He tells how he would stop the bleeding on lying murdering jihad fanatics, illegal immigration, public education, entitlements, and supreme court activism.

8:36 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Indigo;"He tells how he would stop the bleeding on lying murdering jihad fanatics, illegal immigration, public education, entitlements, and supreme court activism".

Really? Let's start with his first stop-gap measure you assert...

"Lying murdering jihad fanatics;"

Who are these fanatics and how can you identify them before they strike? Although most American Muslims are not fanatics, most feel as though their being profiled as such. So, how do you convince them that you're not targeting fanatics without alienating the non-fanatics?

"Illegal Immigration."

Very touchy issue that no president to this day has ever solved (or even attempted to solve). It's funny that you would think that "half the country" would vote for your version of a "true conservative." Yet, the champion of the conservative agenda, Ronald Reagan, signed the first major amnesty in U.S. history granted to 3 million illegals. Seems like a real "DUHHH WHAT?" moment to me...

"Public Education."

Do what to public education? Improve it? Abolish it? As far as improving public education, the only alternative I've heard from conservatives is Charter schools and vouchers. Yet, in almost every case (particularly in URBAN areas) charters and vouchers have not made any difference. Here is the report of The Evaluation D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.

"Entitlements."

You mean like Social Security and Medicare? What conservative (or any politician for that matter) could get elected touting a platform of "cutting" or eliminating Social Security? NONE! As far as "Obama Care", it's a done deal... you'll just have to deal with it.

"Supreme Court Activism."

I agree that the Supreme Court shouldn't be politicized. However, political parties push political agendas on presidential candidates, and the president, to appoint judges that suit their agenda, which in turn politicizes the court. When Justice Roberts backed away from the "politicization", and voted to approve Obamacare, republicans and conservatives alike went apes#!T.

As far as Gay Rights and the right to marry, any politician focusing on turning it back won't get far in a presidential election.

3:55 AM  
Blogger Jif Frommer said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408624/Baltimores-houses-standing-The-beautiful-row-houses-sprawling-tenements.html

Interesting article on Baltimore here.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "OOOOL!!! Get real Tyrone.
Just because a "conservative" attack's attacks another "conservative" doesn't mean the attacker isn't "conservative!". It's really silly of you to think so Tyrone."

Oh sigh! Allen, put on your thinking cap if that's possible. Why would I as a conservative say that O'Reilly isn't a conservative? If he is one, why wouldn't I just say that he is? Could it be that, I know what he is. Even he says he isn't a conservative. O'Reilly is a news commentator, so it's ok for a person to give their views based on being conservative, liberal or even moderate, and O'Reilly is moderate period. You sound just as goofy as when Chris Matthews a days ago Obama is everything a white conservative should applaud Chris considers his chocolate stud puppy a "moderate". lol

12:41 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Why would I as a conservative say that O'Reilly isn't a conservative?".

You say it, but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Mitt Romney says he's a "conservative." Yet even I know that he's not. And why do I know he's not? Because his rhetoric and political ideas on the issues has never implied he was a "conservative." Bill O'Reilly's rhetoric and political commentary has "CONSERVATISM" written all over it! Sure he might break ranks on a small issue or two, but his crazy right wing rants on the issues rings very clear in my ears.

CB;"You sound just as goofy as when Chris Matthews a days ago Obama is everything a white conservative should applaud Chris considers his chocolate stud puppy a "moderate".

President Obama is a card carrying progressive liberal, and there ain't no doubt about it. That's why conservatives hate him. That makes Chris Matthews just as wrong about the president as "YOU" are about O'Reilly!

5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a link hosted by black conservative David Carroll I found interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFwrI3M891Y&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa8xefYexeNlbnv3NFHcL7Q

5:28 PM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

I can in all honesty say that most of these issues have to do with the Welfare State and that the endless war on drugs is not helping either. Our public schooling system is also to blame is a huge way. Government has caused more issues for Blacks and never really solved anything, giving the illusion of short term problem solving but nothing more then that. We desperately need less Government if any at all. Name me any part of Government that does not use force somehow by a monopoly of central planning. Certainly we can do a better job then men in suits payed for by wage slaves just to blow people up over seas in endless wars and claim we are being kept safe while our freedoms are eroding here at home.

3:46 AM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

And speaking of the Welfare State, a chat between Sowell and Williams.

http://youtu.be/-Kotkt4DIz8

Take that Statists.

4:04 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "You say it, but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about."

Oh really? lol. I guess I can't speak on conservativism, because I'm really a liberal right allen? lol

p allen "Mitt Romney says he's a "conservative." Yet even I know that he's not.

Duh! Congrats for understanding the obvious on that one allen. Romney has always been a moderate.

p allen And why do I know he's not? Because his rhetoric and political ideas on the issues has never implied he was a "conservative." Bill O'Reilly's rhetoric and political commentary has "CONSERVATISM" written all over it!

When did Bill O'Reilly claim, state, imply or point blanks referred to himself as a conservative allen? Just tell me.
Sean Hannity is on the same network as O'Reilly and Sean is unapologetic in his conservative views and flat out states whenever possible that he is a conservative and is a member of the conservative party of New York. You must have forgotten that there is a thing called "moderates" aka someone who hold varying views not necessarily all to the right or left. Look up the Coffee Party and also blue dog democrats. O'Reilly could attack the right every day for 10 years straight but as long as he is on Fox News, you will blindly see him as a pure blooded conservative allen, that is your problem that you refuse to see the obvious about O'Reilly.

p allen "Sure he might break ranks on a small issue or two, but his crazy right wing rants on the issues rings very clear in my ears."

Small Issues, again, you can't grasp the obvious, take the goggles off. Why would Bil O'Reilly attack the 800 pound gorilla Rush Limbaugh who is one of the most powerful voices in conservative talk radio, you can't bring a logical explanation for that. Why would O'Reilly need to go out of his way to say or claim he's not a conservative, when he works for Fox News? His show is the number one show on Fox News, so explain it.

Eddie "I can in all honesty say that most of these issues have to do with the Welfare State and that the endless war on drugs is not helping either. "

No it's not helping the intended folks the government claim they are trying to help Eddie, but it is helping government bureaucrats and agencies though by keeping them in a job fighting an impossible war to win. War on Hunger, War on Illiteracy, War on Drugs, all have been failures, but the budgets for the respective government agencies get ever bigger yet the result never get better.

Eddie "Our public schooling system is also to blame is a huge way. Government has caused more issues for Blacks and never really solved anything, giving the illusion of short term problem solving but nothing more then that."

The public school system's grand solution to educating black kids is to dumb down the tests so they can pass, give them a diploma and close the door on them from behind. Progressives never fix the problems, they merely expect everybody else to see the problem as normal especially with black students.

Eddie "We desperately need less Government if any at all. Name me any part of Government that does not use force somehow by a monopoly of central planning. Certainly we can do a better job then men in suits payed for by wage slaves just to blow people up over seas in endless wars and claim we are being kept safe while our freedoms are eroding here at home."

The government be it at the local, state or federal levels have very few successes to frag about in claiming why they are needed but they do have many failure to support why they are needed less and less.Liberals will never see the error of ever bigger government. It simply doesn't work and only makes matters worse.

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

Thanks for the reply Alpha Conservative Male. As a Voluntarist, nicer term for Anarchist, it is nice to see how many of these issues can be agreed upon. Not everything will be agreed upon of course but if folks will just wake up which I think they are, albeit slowly, they will find out that it is all a racket of force and violence. Med-evil Ireland had no Government for 2,000 years, Iceland had no Government for a long time. Technology is making is easier to free up our lives. Clearly no one has all of the answers as to how we all would live under a Stateless Society but I would rather have smaller groups of criminal thugs that can be ousted from a community while responsible citizens can find creative ways of protecting themselves and there properties rather then allowing a massive centralized group of criminal thugs with this massive amount of power telling us how to live, what to learn, what to eat, what to say by force.

People can strive to cooperate through the marketplace of ideas and innovation. Living in a localized manner will be better for everyone and to travel freely. I want peace and progress. Government stagnates this and sets us backward in progress. They are the definition of insanity. I am not an American nor some Nationalistic Patriot but a free-thinking human being with universal morals that everyone can agree upon.

Who will build the roads, anyone may ask? People will. We can figure it out. We can do anything better, cheaper and longer lasting then Government ever could.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

It's funny as to how terms can be altered as well. In one sense I can call myself Progressive in the way humanity should move forward but not by any forced manner. Technology is very Progressive in it's nature. I support technology for good. I can be Conservative in a Austrian-Economic sense and Family Value sense. Liberal in the private Social Sense as long as anyone with differing life styles from my own can keep them private as to respect one another and not use any means of force against me to agree with there's for example nor make it some public example. I guess in a Stateless Society, the community can choose who they want around and not. Again, I do not have all of answers but we can learn as time moves on.

1:32 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"When did Bill O'Reilly claim, state, imply or point blanks referred to himself as a conservative allen? Just tell me".

Just tell you...? No problem, all you had to do is ask!

Look here..., a dog doesn't have to bark or bite to be a dog. A bird doesn't have to fly to be a bird. And a conservative doesn't have to say he's a conservative to be a conservative! Bill O'Reilly is a showman/entertainer/talking head FIRST AND FOREMOST! He play's a role on television. His role is to portray a "MODERATE" talk show host. He's not really a "moderate", he just tries to play one on television.

O'Reilly does not praise nor support "MODERATE" political ideology. Does O'Reilly support "moderate" tax hikes? Is O'Reilly "moderate" on drug legalization? Is O'Reilly "moderate" on abortion? Was O'Reilly "moderate" about the Iraq war? Is O'Reilly "moderate" about social entitlements?

CB;"Why would Bil O'Reilly attack the 800 pound gorilla Rush Limbaugh who is one of the most powerful voices in conservative talk radio, you can't bring a logical explanation for that".

Because you don't use logic Tyrone. First off, O'Reilly NEVER MENTIONED LIMBAUGH BY NAME. Did you get that Tyrone? Let me write it again...HE NEVER MENTIONED LIMBAUGH BY NAME! It was "ASSUMED" by those who pay attention to him, and by Roger Ailes, who's "O'Reilly's boss. Left and right wing talkers often disagree. It just so happens O'Reilly is a "hothead" of sorts. So, he went off on those who wanted to cast blame about the banking and mortgage crisis. I clearly remember his rant from his radio show in 2008. Apparently you don't, because as I said, he never mentioned Limbaugh by name. Thus, the logic is simple. O'Reilly had a difference of opinion about an issue (the banking and mortgage crisis) and he called out those on the right (which other talking heads have done to each other) because he had a different opinion! Now do you see how logic works Tyrone?

1:40 AM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

P Allen...

"Lying murdering jihad fanatics;"

If we stop bombing other countries and stop manipulating there Governments, maybe they would not want to kill us. They ain't killing us for our freedoms.

"Illegal Immigration."

Get rid of the borders. Man should travel freely. What is a line drawn in a map? What harm would it do if people were to truly be free to move and live where they want?

"Public Education."

Get rid of it. It has destroyed our children and families. Privatize it or better home school everyone.

"Entitlements."

Get rid of them all. By what natural right is anyone entitled to anything that the State steals from us and gives to the needy by gun point, by printing more money, raising more taxes and so on. What happened to mutual aid, voluntary organizations, donations?

"Supreme Court Activism."

An abuse of judicial power which has corrupted the so-called system of law.

1:44 AM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

From above, on lying murdering jihad fanatics, and on illegal immigration:

Anyone who has been studying since 9/11 will not be “surprised” again, but perhaps disgusted at “useful idiots” being deceived and infiltrated by gradual measured sharia “law.” The germination process after the 9/11 seed was planted, if not exterminated, can take 10, 20, 30 or more years (death wish suicide bombers don't mind waiting), but once the underground termites reach critical mass, public change be effected very rapidly (as planned). If brainwashed savages want 5 daily “prayer” breaks, footbaths in airports, ban on pork, and women in burquas, then they can go back to their own messed up caliphate country of origin. They use first cordial, then political, then violent terroristic means to take advantage of tolerance and freedom (and naivety). The victory mosque at ground zero in New York, was, as stated by Sowell, to be a giant middle finger aimed at America. If many Americans are so shallow and dense to be oblivious to these things, then they deserve what they get. (On the Fall 2013 first day of a nearby public elementary school, where Jesus is taboo, a hallway bulletin board had “The Five Pillars of Islam,” that is until parents got them to take that down.)

It is well known that pregnant Mexican and Asian women come to the USA to give birth to their “anchor babies” that get all the privileges of USA citizenship. One of many examples of loopholes that play us for suckers. (If Americans tried to go and do that in Mexico, the Mexican police would throw them in jail or deport them, after having a big laugh about it.)

5:49 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Eddie "Illegal Immigration." Get rid of the borders. Man should travel freely. What is a line drawn in a map? What harm would it do if people were to truly be free to move and live where they want?

The “no borders” extreme is just as wrong and weak as the “far far right angry hateful conspiratorial” extreme. BOTH extreme anger responses play into the hands of America's enemies, because they both lead to anarchy, nihilism and confusion (disorder). It always takes a wise, measured approach to govern a nation. God's word approves the “nations” (Matthew 28:19), and their ruling power (civil authorities) to punish evildoers and praise well-doers, and for lawful taxation, tribute, custom (Romans 12:1-7). It takes money for police, and for an army (add interstate highways, public transit, streetlights, etc). Borders (lines on a map) are necessary, for national sovereignty, and to enforce a nation's own laws.

5:52 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Eddie “Technology is very Progressive in it's nature. I support technology for good.”

Yes, technology can be good when it supports a good life; but otherwise “many inventions” of man can be sought out by those who reject being upright as God made us to be (Ecclesiastes 7:29). I support and follow Jesus Christ totally, and His church; Not corrupt sects of man (Roman 16:16-18). Jesus never corrupts or abuses, but satanic vain philosophies do. Without Christ there would be no matter and mind to invent technology. On Jesus the Word, John 1:3 says, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” The sheer number of people who are blind about Christ (thanks to errors of sects), is a reflection of the spiritual root of all of man's problems.

5:55 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

2013 Million Muslim March on Washington, set for September 11. Twelve years to the day from the horrific acts by 19 suicide mass murderers using four planes, all young male mideast jihadists, who plotted for years, who overstayed visas, who duped flight instructors, who whetted their appetite for their “big eyed virgins in heaven” (ha!) by getting lap dances in bars the nights before, and who shouted “Allahu Akbar!” into the black boxes while killing 3000, including some fellow muslims, using boxcutters to slice any resistors. Then they want a mosque at the old World Trade Towers site? And now they march on the nation's Capitol for their rights? On 9/11?

http://www.loyolaphoenix.com/media-hype-match-reality-million-muslim-march

9:27 PM  
Blogger Beyond The Political Spectrum said...

I am neither conservative or liberal. I'm not a big fan of political conservatives (too sanctimonious) or political liberals (too unrealistic and given to fantasies about reality), but I cannot argue with the thesis...we are in big trouble!

2:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

paa said: Bill O'Reilly is a showman/entertainer/talking head FIRST AND FOREMOST! He play's a role on television. His role is to portray a "MODERATE" talk show host. He's not really a "moderate", he just tries to play one on television.

O'Reilly does not praise nor support "MODERATE" political ideology. Does O'Reilly support "moderate" tax hikes? Is O'Reilly "moderate" on drug legalization? Is O'Reilly "moderate" on abortion? Was O'Reilly "moderate" about the Iraq war? Is O'Reilly "moderate" about social entitlements?


So...where in all of that proves O'Reilly is a Conservative? First and foremost, Conservatives identify themselves as Conservatives. Conservatives also distinguish themselves from moderates by declaring their Conservative ideology and principles as such. O'Reilly has never identified himself as nor has he declared his principles or idelogies as such. You presume he is a Conservative because some of his ideals are the same as Conservative ideals. Libertarians have some ideals/principles that are the same as Conservatives. Much in the same way moderates and liberals share some of their priciples/ideologies.

10:51 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Anon'"So...where in all of that proves O'Reilly is a Conservative? ".

Look Anon, if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...it's a duck!

As I explained in clear and concise sentences, O'Reilly is a SHOWMAN. He plays a role to get paid his enormous salary. Secondly, he's a big LIAR. He'll say anything to keep his $150 million contract plus perks. Wake up dude and smell the business of "ENTERTAINMENT." I'd bet you thought that FOX's broadcast of "Alien Autopsy" was real martians being dissected. Earth to Anon, it ain't real.

Moreover, have you ever used the right-wing term, "RINO?" If staunch republicans and conservatives can call out people in their own party as "NOT" being what their "OWN" say they are, why can't O'Reilly "NOT" make a claim to what he clearly is? Conservatives call President Obama a "socialist", yet I've never heard president Obama say he is or has ever been a socialist.

RTW, the first lady is encouraging Americans to drink more water as a healthy option. Rush Limbaugh claims it's a "political" stunt. So are you ready to give up water to thwart Michele Obama's political stunt?

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

paa said:Look Anon, if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck...it's a duck!

Conservatives call President Obama a "socialist", yet I've never heard president Obama say he is or has ever been a socialist.


Excellent point! You assert that you've never heard Obama say he's a socialist. There is a litany of information in Obama's books and statements made by Obama espousing socialist ideals - far too many to list here, though. The majority of his political ideology and platform are equivalent to socialist ideals.

9:32 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Anon;"Excellent point! You assert that you've never heard Obama say he's a socialist. There is a litany of information in Obama's books and statements made by Obama espousing socialist ideals - far too many to list here, though. The majority of his political ideology and platform are equivalent to socialist ideals".

Anon, you're an easier fish to catch than Tyrone is. I lured you right into that one....

All it took to make you agree O'Reilly was a conservative, was a little push of "socialism" and "communist" right-wing accusational rhetoric, and BAM! You bite like a Big Mouth Bass on a Rat-L-Trap! First off, the difference between O'Reilly and O'bama is that, one is a political pundit, the other is the president.

Tell me this Mr. smart guy... Conservatives, along with Liberals (and socialist, I might add) often complain about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor. The poor aren't necessarily getting poorer, but it's an obvious FACT that the rich are getting richer! Conservatives, however, cast most of the blame on "the Obama economic policies." But wait... how can that be??? The rich are most definitely getting richer, yet the president is a socialist??? Go figure!

After the Great Depression the U.S. Government saw a need to "mix" socialistic economic policies with capitalist ideals. The only problem is that, IT'S THE RICH THAT BENEFIT THE MOST FROM THESE POLICIES! So is you want to call the president of the United States a "socialist", go right ahead. Because you can't prove that the poorest Americans (white, black, liberal or conservative) are proudly displaying their allegiance because the president and the government makes rich people richer.

Weren't you just fill with joy when you heard AIG got $67 billion? Didn't make you feel like a proud American when PrivateBancorp got bailed out for $240 million? How about Wells Fargo's $25 billion... made you feel like your team just won the Super Bowl, didn't it? Yep!! That's socialism at it's best! Give all the money to the banksters and the corporate bosses and it will "trickle down" to the working class..OOOppppps! That's another presidents theory... my bad

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your blog. I am happy that I stumbled upon it by googling "Why do blacks support Obama". I live in Africa and it reminds me so much of tribalism here. I really appreciate that you encourage people to think for themselves. I am saddened that we have a president who is not patriotic and exploits individuals and groups for personal gain. I know he is not the first to do it, but I have never seen it so blatant.

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

paa: All it took to make you agree O'Reilly was a conservative, was a little push of "socialism" and "communist" right-wing accusational rhetoric, and BAM! You bite like a Big Mouth Bass on a Rat-L-Trap!

I'm confused - where did I agree with you that Bill O'Reilly is a Conservative? I made a case for Obama being a socialist but never made a reference to O'Reilly. As far as your "duck" theory goes, geese look, sound and act like ducks; but they aren't ducks - they're geese.

paa:The poor aren't necessarily getting poorer, but it's an obvious FACT that the rich are getting richer!

There are more families on welfare/public assistance than ever before. There are more people unemployed, under-empolyed and not working or looking for work in our nation's history. The number of people working is the lowest in recorded history.

Wealthy people have the tools and the means to invest and protect their wealth without regard to whomever is the President. So, I can agree that the poor aren't getting more poor but there are significantly more poor now than ever before. The rich aren't taking the money they continue to accumulate from the poor either. Money or wealth isn't created by government. Any money held by our government comes from businesses and individuals in the form of fines, fees, penalties and taxes.

I was against all of the bailouts for any company/corporation. It's not the government's job to determine which companies should succeed or fail.

8:39 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Anon;"The number of people working is the lowest in recorded history".

That's the stupidest thing I've heard since, "the 2008 economic crisis is President Obama's fault!" Do you really believe that more people were employed during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl? Allow me to digress, because such and idiotic statement shouldn't be dignified with a response.

Anon;"So, I can agree that the poor aren't getting more poor but there are significantly more poor now than ever before".

Yes, very true, there are more poor. However, when did the trend begin? After WWII the country saw a significant increase in "middle-class" households. But do you know when the downward spiral began? Do you think it started around January 2009? Granted, the income gap has continued to grow since 2009, but did it start there?

Anon;" I made a case for Obama being a socialist but never made a reference to O'Reilly".

Okay, you think President Obama is a socialist...fine. What I'm saying is that your logic is flawed. If Obama is responsible for increasing welfare and government assistance, low employment and widening the income gap, why are the rich getting richer? You say he's a "socialist" and his policies are "socialist", yet the rich are getting richer? How is that socialism?

Socialism is, "an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production accompanied by cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity." You ignorantly claim more people are out of work than ever before in the nations history. How can people not own anything, not produce goods for themselves, let alone for the state, and basically not working or producing at all, how is that "socialism?"

How can you cite your twisted facts that are in direct conflict with socialist principles, and still claim that socialism and a socialist is running the country? Your logic is deeply flawed.

2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

paa:That's the stupidest thing I've heard...

I should have clarified for accuracy. The number of people working compared to the number of people not working is the lowest by percentage since 1978. Is it stupid? No, it's sad and hasn't improved.

paa:Yes, very true, there are more poor. However, when did the trend begin?

As far as I remember, we were debating about the rich getting richer while poor people stay poor. My response was simple: The rich have the means and oppurtunities to protect and grow their wealth - regardless the President or that President's political ideology.

paa:You ignorantly claim more people are out of work than ever before in the nations history. How can people not own anything, not produce goods for themselves, let alone for the state, and basically not working or producing at all, how is that "socialism?"

Not ignorantly at all - by populational percantage there are less people working (labor force participants) than there has been since 1978 - I confused my facts while trying to make my point. The fact I confused was there are more unemployed/under employed people than ever.

paa:How can people not own anything, not produce goods for themselves, let alone for the state, and basically not working or producing at all, how is that "socialism?"

It's a part of socialism called welfare. Welfare takes money from working middle class citizens through taxes and redistributes that money. Welfare discourages initiative and entrepreneurship and leads to excessive government. Granted, there are people who need welfare because they aren't physically or mentally able to work.

More people on welfare (relying on the government) - socialist.

More people collecting unemployment (relying on the government)- socialist.

3:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home