To those of you who would like to select both "they're dumb" and "they're lazy," I would like to take this time to apologize for not allowing multiple choices; just pick the one you believe to be closest to the truth.
Referring to a photograph of a Moral Monday protest, [Malcolm "Mac"] Butner said on Facebook: “Gee, they are all black. I guess the white folk could not get off because they were too busy working (and) being productive, good citizens.”
“The primary difference between the leaders of the Confederate States of America and the Union is that Confederate leaders were godly gentlemen and the Union folks were not,” Butner posted June 5.
can't think of a person better suited for a housing authority than a neo-confederate republican
THIS OUTREACH CRAP HAS BEEN TRIED MANY TIMES BEFORE AND HAS ALWAYS FAILED BECAUSE THE GROUPS YOU OUTREACH TO CARE ONLY ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU ARE GOING TO PROMISE AND GIVE THEM AND WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE MORE THAN THE LIBERALS AND DEMS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE A PRINCIPLED BONE IN THEIR BODY AND THEY DON’T CARE EVEN IF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS DESTROYED. TO HELL WITH THE LESBOS, QUEERS LIBERALS AND BABY KILLERS.
no word on if this was copied directly from the comments section of a yahoo news article
Butner has denied the charges in the discrimination complaint. His Facebook statements did not involve housing or discrimination against black people, Butner said in a June interview.
“I’m still protected by the First Amendment,” Butner said.
According to posts on former U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh’s Twitter account Thursday night, the conservative radio talk-show host was kicked off the air on WIND-AM (560) for using racial slurs while trying to have a discussion about racial slurs.
In a series of tweets posted about 7 p.m., Walsh says: “Just got kicked off the air until further notice. Tried to have honest discussion about racist terms and management censored my language.”
And: “I’m trying to have an honest, adult conversations about words without resorting to alphabet soup phrases (C-word, N-word, etc).”
MLK responded to the Moynihan Report with the following:
The most optimistic element revealed in this review of the *****
family's experience is that the causes for its present crisis are
culturally and socially induced. What man has torn down, he can
rebuild. At the root of the difficulty in ***** life is pervasive
and persistent want. To grow from within the ***** needs only fair
opportunity for jobs, education, housing and access to culture. To
be strengthened from the outside requires protection from the grim
exploitation that has haunted [the community] for 300 years.
MLK argued in favor of a strong social safety net, strong unions, and affirmative action, believing that racial stratification (and the disproportionate failure of black families) was not a product of the inherent abilities of each race (as race is not real) but rather the product of a structurally and oftentimes explicitly racist society. This flies in the face of "colorblind" ideology which stems from the misguided belief that MLK's dream was a call to begin ignoring race and, subsequently, racism.
Most here would agree that the black community had a very, very difficult time leading up to the Civil Rights Act. However, there is a very real split in perception from that point on. What do you think?
Murray Newton Rothbard was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a revisionist historian, and a political theorist whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism.
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal rightnot to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)
Ron Paul is a most unusual politician — in many ways. In the firstplace, he really knows what he's talking about. He is not only for the gold standard. He knows why he is for it, and he is familiar with the most advanced and complex economic insights on the true nature of inflation, on how inflation works, and how inflationary credit expansions brings about booms and busts. And yet Ron has the remarkable ability to take these complex and vital insights and to present them in clear, lucid, hard-hitting terms to the non-economist reader. His economics is as sound as a bell.
But, even more important, Ron Paul is an unusual politician becausehe doesn't simply pay lip service to moral principles. He believes in moral principles in his mind and heart, and he fights for them passionately and effectively. High on his set of moral principles is the vital importance of individual freedom, of the individual's natural right to be free of assault and aggression, and of his right to keep the property that he has earned on the free market, and not have it stolen from him by confiscatory taxes and government regulations.
Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together.
I know there's at least one Austrian School poster around here. Rothbard helped establish the Mises Institute, which has been unironically cited by more than a few posters here. What's up with this guy, those of you who think that the Austrian School might be on to something? As a freedom hating leftist, I am reluctant to support a right to starve children. How might you go about convincing me to reconsider my position on baby starving?