Ponderable

I really am tired of seeing the insanity joe posts. I never was a tabloid reader and this yellow journalism joe is addicted to isn't just innocent fun, some idiots actually believe it and post it in forums as if it's real.
You are disputing my MLK post? You are disputing his speech the night before he was killed?
I feel the ignoramus is about to ignore the truth so he can stay ignorant and put me on ignore.
 
Civil Rights Renaissance to Remember Martin Luther King
By Ben Voth
March 4, 2018 is the 50th anniversary of what may arguably be the end of America’s second revolution: the civil rights movement. On March 4, 1968, Martin Luther was assassinated on the balcony of the Loraine Motel in Memphis. The assassination was a jacobin fantasy long sought against King since the inception of his leadership efforts for civil rights beginning in 1956. King’s assassination 50 years ago was perhaps an end of the community of the beloved and a non-violent effort to bring a stop to segregation and other overwhelming aspects of racism in the United States. King’s efforts along with other leaders such as James Farmer, Jr. and James Meredith were increasingly sidelined by more militant efforts to reject American political conventions as articulated by men like Stokely Carmichael in his famous alternative to the non-violent movement expressed in the simple words: “Black Power!” 50 years later, America needs more than ever a renaissance of the American civil rights movement.


With the ascendancy of black power movements like the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army, white participants in the civil rights movement were expelled. The Christian, non-violent, and religious trappings of the movement were discarded and the partisan beliefs that blacks must claim for themselves the rights so long denied became dominant and entrenched. Carmichael incited the counter movement when he co-opted James Meredith’s “March Against Fear.” On June 16, 1966, Carmichael led the crowd in chants of “black power” andexplained in Greenwood, Mississippi: “every courthouse in Mississippi ought to be burned down tomorrow to get rid of the dirt and the mess.” The idea of ‘burning it down’ has become a trademark of an Alinsky-inspired vision of riots and violent destruction across the nation. Carmichael’s frustration tapped into an endless sea of anger all people feel at the pain of genuine injustice. Academics have to a large extent fanned the flames of 50 years of black power fantasies by offering false hagiography of leaders such as Malcolm X. In current re-tellings of the 1960s, Malcolm X is viewed as the path not taken versus King, and a militancy we should now embrace to reduce problems like police killings of innocent black men like Stephon Clark. Malcolm’s last words, less than 24 hours after having his house bombed by jacobin radicals and one week before being assassinated himself, show a change of heart different from his present hagiography: “I say again that I'm not a racist, I don't believe in any form of segregation or anything like that. I'm for the brotherhood of everybody, but I don't believe in forcing brotherhood upon people who don't want it. Long as we practice brotherhood among ourselves, and then others who want to practice brotherhood with us, we practice it with them also, we're for that. But I don't think that we should run around trying to love somebody who doesn't love us.” Malcolm X’s repudiation of segregation and exit from the Nation of Islam was a diametrical change from his debates with James Farmer Jr. in 1962 and demonstrated a decisive break with the radical visions of NOI. His change of heart came not long after civil rights workers James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman were murdered in Mississippi in the summer of 1964. Exasperated with the non-violent methods of his martyred brother within the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Ben Chaney joined the ranks of the Black Liberation Army in the 1970s. This terrorist group was dedicated to violent revolution against racism within the United States. Chaney went to jail for years after being caught running guns related to several murders committed by the group. He has since renounced the path of violence he formerly embraced.

In 2018, we need a renaissance of the American civil rights movement. They myth that confrontation, anger and neo-segregationism have not been tried sufficiently, needs to be seen for the 50-year failure it has been in American race relations. The nation needs to re-discover King’s words at the conclusion of his letter from a Birmingham jail. In the closing, King said the South would someday remember her heroes: “the James Merediths, courageously and with a majestic sense of purpose, facing jeering and hostile mobs and the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer.” James Meredith is still alive today in Mississippi and largely shunned by experts for failing to maintain the reactionary political zeal that holds civil rights memory captive to one political ideology. Meredith’s 2012 biography, “Mission from God,” stands as a powerful correction to the conventional secular and ideological narratives of how we should both remember and act upon race relations. Civil rights heroes such as John Lewis need to remember the true calling of civil rights when confronted with the bi-partisan opportunity to stand with President Trump at the opening of the Mississippi civil rights museum in Jackson. Great non-partisan leaders like Reverend John Perkins continue to point us toward a better path. As long as civil rights memory is used as a narrow ideological whipping post for Republicans, it is African-American men who will bear the brunt of ongoing injustice. Meredith, Farmer, King, and Malcolm X all understood this dangerous jacobin end of spiraling partisan cynicism. The 50 year anniversary of King’s assassination in the immediate aftermath of Easter, is an ideal time for a national reconsideration of our present path on race relations. The conclusion of King’s last public words on the night of April 3—the eve of his assassination, are a compelling reminder of our eternal idealistic call for justice as seen through God’s eyes:

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! And so I'm happy, tonight.

I'm not worried about anything.

I'm not fearing any man!

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!”
Here's another solution - people like yourself could stop being racist assholes.
 
You are disputing my MLK post? You are disputing his speech the night before he was killed?
I feel the ignoramus is about to ignore the truth so he can stay ignorant and put me on ignore.
No, I'm just tired of scrolling past all the lies and ignorance you post day after day.
 
Joe poses that question because if you’re white, you should join him on his crusade against the oppression of whites in a changing America. Don’t be a race traitor, Booter!
That is an honest question, just trying to figure out what angle he is playing.
 
No.....you're Lying to yourself.

It's your posts that contain those accusations.

It's quite disheartening to see your low intellect responses
in retrospect isn't it......
And that was hiz response to my post of MLK's speech quotes.
Maybe he doesn't like black people?
What a racist he iz.
 
Ann Coulter: We Used to Care About One Another


coulter-headshot-640x480-640x480.jpg


by Ann Coulter4 Apr 2018584

4 Apr, 2018 4 Apr, 2018
Once upon a time, we cared about the welfare of our fellow Americans. Farmers in the Midwest devastated by tornadoes, trailer parks washed away in a Florida hurricane, our country’s ranking on various international comparisons — we all rooted for our fellow Americans. Like all countries, we would squabble, but we were family. We were all Americans.
Not anymore! Now, no one cares about anything but getting rich, the better to separate oneself from the lives and concerns of poorer Americans.


Businessmen, Wall Street bankers, ethnic activists, Democrats and Republicans (including the president, apparently) — all of them have a stronger fellow feeling toward Saudi princes and German bankers than toward Iowa farmers. Being “inclusive” to “Dreamers” necessarily means being exclusionary toward our own working class.

So what if wages have flatlined — or declined! — for several decades? The smart set aren’t wage-slaves.

Mexican drug cartels aren’t swarming through their towns. They live in fancy neighborhoods.

Somali refugees aren’t beating up their kids — who are safely ensconced in expensive private schools, anyway.


Members of our governing class seem to have decided the country is doomed, so they may as well make their pile. Sure, they’ll have to face the wrath of voters and may be voted out of office, like Eric Cantor. But they’ll end up on corporate boards or win lucrative lobbying contracts. Plus, being “progressive” on immigration will look great on their kid’s Princeton application.

advertisement

Everybody’s looking out for No. 1.

It wasn’t always this way. Politicians, liberal activists and journalists used to care about even non-fashionable Americans.

One doesn’t have to go back to the Garfield administration to find a time when everyone wanted to protect the nation from dysfunctional immigration — the crime, the drugs, the poverty, the wage-depressing effect, the burden on our social services. Positions that are today considered hateful used to be called “common sense.”

A 1995 news article in The New York Times calmly described preparations the Immigration and Naturalization Service was making in case a “vast flood of illegal immigrants” surged across the Mexican border, “inundating entire communities as it washes north into the American heartland.” Under the Clinton administration, the illegals would face either “immediate voluntary deportation” or “emergency detention.”


No indignant denunciations followed.

More hate speech from the Times:

“Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border.” — New York Times editorial, Sept. 29, 1997

“(The I.N.S.) is extremely troubled, but has improved under the leadership of Doris Meissner. Since her appointment in 1993, … (t)he border is tighter, and the I.N.S. is deporting record numbers of criminal aliens.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 10, 1997

Just a few years ago, Charles Lane, an editorial writer at The Washington Post, called for “prompt exclusion of unaccompanied Central American minors” during the border surge under Obama. “Only by showing people there is nothing to be gained by paying traffickers for the traumatic voyage through Mexico will the chaos cease.”


The great civil rights icon Barbara Jordan produced a report on immigration more than two decades ago, calling on the government to end chain migration and put a dead stop to illegal immigration, for the benefit of all Americans.

“Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”

She added: “Deportation is crucial.”


Far-left Democrats used to openly proclaim ideas that would get them banned from Twitter today:

“When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that illegal immigrants cannot work in this country.” — Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 1985


“No sane country would (reward illegal immigrants), right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission, and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?” — Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, 1993

Very recently, a presidential candidate who seemed to actually care about America’s working class denounced illegal immigration as “a Koch brothers” idea. That was Bernie Sanders.

He explained: “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers’ proposal. … That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. … It would make everybody in America poorer — you’re doing away with the concept of a nation-state. … You have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people.

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour — that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country; I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.” — Bernie Sanders in an interview with Ezra Klein of Vox on July 28, 2015

Forget hypocrisy — I don’t care about that right now. It’s the cruelty that interests me.

Have well-heeled Americans really decided to abandon their fellow citizens? These merchants of compassion have none to spare for our own people? I’m not a steelworker, a waitress or a black teenager looking for an entry-level job, either. But I still care about other Americans.
 
Ann Coulter: We Used to Care About One Another


coulter-headshot-640x480-640x480.jpg


by Ann Coulter4 Apr 2018584

4 Apr, 2018 4 Apr, 2018
Once upon a time, we cared about the welfare of our fellow Americans. Farmers in the Midwest devastated by tornadoes, trailer parks washed away in a Florida hurricane, our country’s ranking on various international comparisons — we all rooted for our fellow Americans. Like all countries, we would squabble, but we were family. We were all Americans.
Not anymore! Now, no one cares about anything but getting rich, the better to separate oneself from the lives and concerns of poorer Americans.


Businessmen, Wall Street bankers, ethnic activists, Democrats and Republicans (including the president, apparently) — all of them have a stronger fellow feeling toward Saudi princes and German bankers than toward Iowa farmers. Being “inclusive” to “Dreamers” necessarily means being exclusionary toward our own working class.

So what if wages have flatlined — or declined! — for several decades? The smart set aren’t wage-slaves.

Mexican drug cartels aren’t swarming through their towns. They live in fancy neighborhoods.

Somali refugees aren’t beating up their kids — who are safely ensconced in expensive private schools, anyway.


Members of our governing class seem to have decided the country is doomed, so they may as well make their pile. Sure, they’ll have to face the wrath of voters and may be voted out of office, like Eric Cantor. But they’ll end up on corporate boards or win lucrative lobbying contracts. Plus, being “progressive” on immigration will look great on their kid’s Princeton application.

advertisement

Everybody’s looking out for No. 1.

It wasn’t always this way. Politicians, liberal activists and journalists used to care about even non-fashionable Americans.

One doesn’t have to go back to the Garfield administration to find a time when everyone wanted to protect the nation from dysfunctional immigration — the crime, the drugs, the poverty, the wage-depressing effect, the burden on our social services. Positions that are today considered hateful used to be called “common sense.”

A 1995 news article in The New York Times calmly described preparations the Immigration and Naturalization Service was making in case a “vast flood of illegal immigrants” surged across the Mexican border, “inundating entire communities as it washes north into the American heartland.” Under the Clinton administration, the illegals would face either “immediate voluntary deportation” or “emergency detention.”


No indignant denunciations followed.

More hate speech from the Times:

“Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border.” — New York Times editorial, Sept. 29, 1997

“(The I.N.S.) is extremely troubled, but has improved under the leadership of Doris Meissner. Since her appointment in 1993, … (t)he border is tighter, and the I.N.S. is deporting record numbers of criminal aliens.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 10, 1997

Just a few years ago, Charles Lane, an editorial writer at The Washington Post, called for “prompt exclusion of unaccompanied Central American minors” during the border surge under Obama. “Only by showing people there is nothing to be gained by paying traffickers for the traumatic voyage through Mexico will the chaos cease.”


The great civil rights icon Barbara Jordan produced a report on immigration more than two decades ago, calling on the government to end chain migration and put a dead stop to illegal immigration, for the benefit of all Americans.

“Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”

She added: “Deportation is crucial.”


Far-left Democrats used to openly proclaim ideas that would get them banned from Twitter today:

“When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that illegal immigrants cannot work in this country.” — Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 1985


“No sane country would (reward illegal immigrants), right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission, and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?” — Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, 1993

Very recently, a presidential candidate who seemed to actually care about America’s working class denounced illegal immigration as “a Koch brothers” idea. That was Bernie Sanders.

He explained: “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers’ proposal. … That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. … It would make everybody in America poorer — you’re doing away with the concept of a nation-state. … You have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people.

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour — that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country; I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.” — Bernie Sanders in an interview with Ezra Klein of Vox on July 28, 2015

Forget hypocrisy — I don’t care about that right now. It’s the cruelty that interests me.

Have well-heeled Americans really decided to abandon their fellow citizens? These merchants of compassion have none to spare for our own people? I’m not a steelworker, a waitress or a black teenager looking for an entry-level job, either. But I still care about other Americans.
She should know. She lives in Palm Beach, with houses in LA and a condo in Manhattan. She’s very, very wealthy and I’m sure never gave two shits about Iowa farmers. The article is about half right, though. We need to care more for each other and we need to enforce immigration laws.
 
She should know. She lives in Palm Beach, with houses in LA and a condo in Manhattan. She’s very, very wealthy and I’m sure never gave two shits about Iowa farmers. The article is about half right, though. We need to care more for each other and we need to enforce immigration laws.
We all care about farmer $ub$idie$.
 
Back
Top