The color of their hOOdies.

Yeah...I think that sums it up pretty well. They both practice the same thing.

you guys obviously do not know your history or you would never make such a ridiculous comparison...shame on you!

Which Ku Klux Klan? The one that exists now or the one from the twentieth century that lynched blacks, dynamited their in-church children, burned crosses in their yards, tortured innocents and burned churches? The twentieth century one went broke after a mother sued them for lynching her son. She didn't get much more than their world headquarters building though.

I don't think the NAACP is anything like the twentieth century NAACP Klan . I don't know much about the one that exists now.

The NAACP is persecuting whites and Hispanics....RIGHT NOW....George Zimmerman specifically because he's NOT black.

The KKK persecuted people just because they WERE black.


Same coin...different sides.

If they can persecute George Zimmerman after he was acquitted, and get away with it......then they can and will do it to any of us next.

Again, Doc, which KKK are we comparing the NAACP to? The lynching, cross burning, church burning, children bombing one, or the 21st century version?

There is no difference...the tactics are the only thing that different. They single out someone NOT their same race out of some delusional fixation of some perceived wrong.

In this case that a Black kid they feel was entitled to assault someone and attempt to beat them to death for no legal reason.

Because we've been hearing them claiming for years they didn't do nuttin...even when caught red handed doing it.

If that's legitimate then WE have the right to go after any Black that commits a crime against a white, hispanic or asian person...because that would obviously be a hate crime using their logic....and it doesn't matter what the court decides...nothing matters until they are dead or in jail.

So lynching, bombing children, and burning churches is the same as raising hell when Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers? Or is the call by the NAACP for a Federal criminal trial of Zimmerman the moral equivalent of the murder of Michael Schwerner by the KKK for his civil rights activism in Mississippi.

Or are you comparing the NAACP to the current KKK that stands on county courthouse steps and shouts "White Power".

Which KKK are you comparing to the NAACP.

It may be that we are not disagreeing.

The NAACP does in its actions shout Black Power...they enlist the more radical element they support (the Black Panthers) to actually use those words.

And remember its the Obama crowd that have been making very real death threats to Zimmerman and his family....and Holder, Obama, the NAACP are all acting in unison.

I think there is a difference. Back in the day, when the late senator robert byrd was a klan recruiter and chapter leader, it was a truly shameful part of American history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

It was far more than just Byrd.....

I'm not defending either one...they both have the same goals for the same reasons.

Which KKK are you comparing the NAACP to? The one that lynched blacks, burned churches, and bombed children and was sued out of existence - or the KKK of today.

Other than the race they advocate for I don't see much difference between the NAACP and the KKK of today.

It may be that we don't disagree. Which KKK are you comparing the NAACP to?

Mike,

What does the KKK of today advocate, and practice? I was not aware there was any significant difference between the Klan of the '60s and the Klan of today. Of course, I am aware that there haven't been any church bombings lately, but have the underlying sentiments changed? Not saying there isn't a difference- just that I am not aware of it.

SRH

Stan I don't know really know what the new KKK advocates exactly. But I have seen what the NAACP advocates in the last few months. I am sure both organizations are racist and their advocacy in the Zimmerman trial reflects that racism.

I think the new KKK is racist. I do not support it. The old KKK was a racist terror organization. As bad as the new KKK is, the old KKK was much worse.

The NAACP has never been a racist terror organization.

You fellows are forgetting one element that has risen to replace the former era of Klan terror- the Neo-Nazis and White supremists-- and they have the Internet, outlaw biker gang affiliates, sleeper cells in prisons seething with anger-and of course their "Mother's Little Helper" Eric Holder with the "Fast & Furious FUBAR" that put more firepower into their hands-

For all practical purposes....I consider all the racist groups the same...be they white...Black or Hispanic.(there are probably Asian ones I haven't heard of)..Even if not mentioned specifically by name.

guys: murder has been done in the name of the kkk. murder has never been done in the name of the naacp.

..that we know of.

Here is another list of organizations that have not had murder done in their name -

...that we know of:

The Boy Scouts of America
Multiple Sclerosis Society
Chick Filet
Amarillo Globe News
Scripps National Spelling Bee
The Girl Scouts of America
United Square Dancers of America
The Worlds Fair

mike: I dare to ax, do you have a point with your last post?

I beg to differ....the NAACP terrorizes entire citys.

Please link to history or report of NAACP burning churches, bombing children, lynching citizens, crashing airliners into buildings, bombing marathons.

That they are a racist organzation is bad enough. You don't have to spin the truth. They have exposed themselves to the world in the Zimmerman trial.

All I know is that if we started a NAAWP or National Association for the Advancement of White People, we would be accused of being racist, bigoted, and prejudiced.

Same thing goes if we had a Congressional White Caucus, White History Month, White Miss America Contest, WET (White Entertainment Television), White NFL Players Association, White Coaches Association, White Knights (police organization), United White College Fund,and here's a bunch more:

http://www.blacknews.com/directory/black_african_american_organizations.shtml

Then we have people like Don Imus or Paula Deen or Earl Butz being forced out of careers and fired for racist remarks or jokes, but we have race hustlers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson getting away with multiple anti-semitic remarks, and Jesse admitting that "spitting in white peoples food gave me psycological gratification" when he was a waiter in Greenville, S.C. (Life Magazine, Nov. 1969).

Any black person I know who simply grabbed the brass ring and made an effort to get an education and a job has done very well. Quotas and affirmative action made this very easy too, for those who took advantage. But huge numbers want to dwell in the past, suck off the government/taxpayers tit, live a life of crime and/or drug abuse, and then whine that we don't like them. Gee, I wonder why?

The local chapter of the NAACP will barely give you the time of day if you're white and not a reporter.

+1

Got no argument out of me on that. The NAACP is a racist organization. But they are not a terrorist organization.

mike: we are agreeing on more things than not...this is very disturbing to me.

bottom line is $$$$$$ Race hustlers and microphone pimps like Sharpton and Jackson get donations and make money every time they cry "racism"....so does the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as the mainstream media whose ratings go up and advertisement $$$ roll in. These morons have done more to instill divisiveness between the races than anyone else. Aided and abetted now by the president's inflammatory remarks and Eric Holder finding time to investigate Zimmerman, but no time to investigate Fast&Furious, Benghazi, IRS, or any of the attacks made by blacks on whites. None of these idiots care about the number of people killed in Chicago because that is largely black on black and they can't cry "racism". Pathetic.

That point could be argued when their actions terrorize an entire nation.

I am not being terrorized. I don't see the people around me in terror.

Again, how about a link to a terrorist act by the NAACP? Or a link to to a report of the NAACP telling their constituency to lynch, child-bomb, church-burn.

The NAACP IS a racist organization. It is so obvious that they are not a terrorist organization like the twentieth century KKK that it lowers credibility to argue that they are.

There is a culture in the US that is mostly black that terrorizes their neighborhood with crime and street shootings and drug selling and witness intimidation. It scams the system of welfare we have in place to help the otherwise hungry and homeless. We can legitimately despise that culture. But to attribute that culture to the entire black race and its organizations is like attributing the Klan lynchings in the past century to he entire white southern states culture.

This I think is a bit different from physical injury or property destruction.

There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the naacp have and continue to cause innocent law abiding citizens to live in fear of injury or death. I also believe there are innocent law abiding citizens whose lives are in financial ruin as a result of naacp intentional action.

I wonder if joe average would feel terrorized if his small business ground to a halt from picketing, and needed to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense of pc allegations.

You see what been happening in the news..the victims of the mental midgets who are protesting and trashing and burning things can make the claim they are victims of terrorism. And not just simple crime.

Their first amendment rights end the second someone trespasses..the first window gets broken...the first waft of spray paint his the wall of someone else....and its well beyond it before the first fire is set.

Joe Average would be wronged. Most of Joe Average's competitors would be more forthcoming with donations to black organizations when "asked."

But Mr. Average wasn't lynched. His children were' t bombed while they were in SuSunday school. His church wasn't burned. He wasn't terrorized. He was threatened with negative economic consequences if he didn't go along. That is not terrorism.

There is no doubt in my mind that that illegal economic Coercion is exactly what Jessie And al do to make a (good) living.

Not a big deal Mike, I know it's just a bit of splitting hairs. In the beginning of this thread, there was a little more focus on physical injury. A quick look at the definition of terrorism does not require physical contact. Even more so when concepts like coercion are used.

Not trying to equivocate here with your point. I do know that street thugs have killed for a pair of sneakers, could be an innocent person would be devastated with fear if faced with loosing their entire life around them as they know it, even if their church wasn't bombed.

The lack of physical contact seems to be an important point not to be dismissed. There are now laws against bullying, which do require any physical contact, but apparently to some bullying was ok at the worst times of the twentieth century.

I'm with you, but I just can't trivialize what financial ruin would do to a person or family. Or hiding and living in fear of a stirred up mob.

How many billions if not trillions have been handed over to Welfare queens and other blacks who never worked a day in their lives? That money came principally from white people who worked and made sacrifices to pay those taxes AND raise their families.

Craig I own a small business. I have spent thousands of hours fretting over thE finances and survival of that business. I didn't mean to dismiss the evil of that extortion. But I believe I hAve made my case that it is not terrorism.

Doc the tie-in of that welfare to terrorism by the NAACP went over my head. Could you connect the dots for me little more please

I apologize for spelling and GrAmmer. Am dong this on iPhone without my cheaters.

I'm the last guy who would criticize spelling or grammar of you or anyone else...I don't have them at work and can't put them on.

The tie ins would be the welfare bums on average have no respect for the property of others..because everything has been handed to them... None have ever had to do an honest days work and struggle to make ends meet before they saved enough to buy anything.
As a result they have way too much free time on their hands...and when they aren't breeding.....they are scheming...and when they finish scheming..they start stealing.

We know from the IT guy that worked for the prosecution that got fired....Trayvon had pictures of piles of stolen Jewelry with him in it.....he was thrown out of school over drugs and burglary tools.

We also know from erased texts...Trayvon was a fighter....

The NAACP is in support of this behavior when its directed at non-blacks... And terrorist doesn't require stuff that goes boom to terrorize people.

And what has been happening to the people that actually are residents of that gated community..is they have lived in fear of the welfare bums down the road who wait for them to leave to rob them. And in Zimmermans case...to be assaulted in their own community.

Mike in general, I agree with the argument you have been making comparing the NAACP to the KKK of the last century. I also think you'll agree that not every guy who joined the Klan also bombed a Sunday School or burned a church or lynched a black. Many were leading Democrat lawmakers who want us to forget their past while they blame us for a past which never was. My ancestors did not own slaves and I do not feel white guilt. But some of the rhetoric of the KKK leadership encouraged and enticed and inflamed some members to go to extremes. I think the same could be said about Hamas leaders who preach hatred and denounce Jews without actually putting on a suicide vest and blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace.

I went through South Los Angeles a couple years after the Rodney King riots which were partially fueled by the rants of race hustlers in the NAACP leadership. It looked like Hiroshima after the Atomic Bomb. It looked far worse than your average terrorist attack. There are many other examples, including a lot of violent black on white crime which is done by black criminals who feel justified because organizations like the NAACP are constantly telling them they are oppressed and kept down by the white devil. The elderly white lady who was shot in the head and killed in a gang initiation murder after Sunday Mass a few years ago near here, in a gang initiation killing... and her family, just might feel that the NAACP shares more than a little responsibility for the hatred that motivated a young black to do this. There are many ways to advance terror without actually putting on a mask and beheading somebody.

My immediate-across-the-street-neighbor was burglarized two months ago. I am not terrorized. I am vigilant. I am also vigilant when I get in my car and take a trip, short or long. I watch for cars at stop signs pulling out in front of me. I watch for their face so that I know they looked my way. On a two lane highway I watch the oncoming driver closely to see that his head is up and above the steering wheel and I check to see if he is going in a straight line in his half of the road.

Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter. He was not convicted. He is a free man. The Feds, if they file, will lose too. There is just too much certainty that Martin was straddling Zimmerman when he was shot.

If I had a concealed carry gun with me and was assaulted I would use it, whether I was on a sidewalk or in a park or following a suspicious person who was walking down the sidewalk in my neighborhood or I was walking my dog. Despite Zimmerman's ordeal he was found not guilty. I will take my chances despite the best efforts of the NAACP's racist advocacy for prosecution of whites that shoot black in self-defense.

Advocating that a white person be convicted for murder after a self-defense shooting of a black person is racist since the NAACP did it just because the shooter was white and the deceased was black. But it is not bombing someone's children because they are black children. It is not the moral equivalent of lynching a citizen because he is black citizen.

I wish we could come up with a phrase to describe that minority of blacks whose culture we despise. The gangsters, drive-by shooting, robbing, dealing drugs, assaulting, burglarizing, witness-intimidating. Most of their victims are black. Most blacks are not them.

I am not in terror. I am not in terror of someone invading my home. It could happen, I have made some preparations, but I do not think about it all the time. My neighbors and I watch each others houses, know who is out of town and if they have made arrangements to have work done in or around their house.

I am not in terror of carjacking. It could happen. I have made some preparations. But I practically never think about it when I am driving. I am not in terror.

I hope I am never assaulted. I hope I never have to shoot someone. But if those two things happen they happen. That is not terror, just life. Doc I think you wrote earlier "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." And that is Zimmerman's story in a nutshell.

My reference to "cheaters" meant the cheap off-the-shelf glasses that Walmart sells. I can hardly see the small letters on my Iphone without them.

Thought you mean spellchecker.....I can spell pretty good...but I can't type worth a damn.

And since its not a English test...I don't spend a lot of time proofreading.

Keith if there are three hundred million of us and 10% are black then that is thirty million people. There are going to be some criminals in that thirty million. Some of those criminals are going to do some really horrendous crimes. Blacks are imprisoned at about six times the rate of whites.

If you leave out Hispanics and Latinos whites make up 45% of the prison population and blacks make up about 55%. So I have about the same chances of being assaulted or robbed by a white as a black.

When I see a black man he is about six times more likely to assault me than when I see a white man. But the odds that either assaults me are miniscule. Just like the odds that any one on-coming car comes into my lane for a head-on. I am vigilant but know it is unlikely. I am not in terror of either catastrophe.

For the NAACP to be a terrorist organization they have to commit terrorist acts - lynching of innocents, bombing of innocents, murder of innocents. They don't so they are not.

And I think arguing that the NAACP is the equivalent of the twentieth century Klan immediately closes off the chance that someone we are trying to get to see that the NAACP is racist will ever listen to us, ever listen to us, ever listen to us.

We need for the nation to see the racism of the NAACP. Arguing that they are terrorists like the Klan is not only wrong it is counter-productive.

Mike, I think you are correct and you have stated your case eloquently.

Overstating the case does a disservice to the argument.

It's not often I disagree with Keith's usually well-stated positions but I find I must this time. But it's a matter of degree. I understand his point clearly and have sympathy for the position. But I think it is too much of a leap to call the NAACP a terrorist organization. I think it weakens the argument that they are racist.

It's really not too tough to look up. Across the nation, you are correct, but in reality, if a dozen or so of the worse cities in America and their riff raff could be banned, that black crime rate would plummet.

There is significant community and national enabling of the problem. It is politically incorrect to even mention it. It's easy to figure out the demographics of those places.

When the president commented about treyvon, he had a message to the violent protesters, and we know where these various locations are. There was no mention of being held responsible for criminal activity, only that it might dishonor trey's memory.

To me holding to the literal reading of those percentages is a way to willingly ignore the reality of crime. If it's just a numbers game, we should immediately start releasing black criminals from prison till their numbers reflect their population percentage in society.

I don't live in terror either, but I think it's because of choices. Take a look at the mess detroit is in, and yes I'm implying that there's a huge racism problem with the community and the politics there. I don't think it needs to even be slightly racially related. An awful lot of black folks had to have picked up and left to drop the population from over two million to under seven hundred thousand.

It's those thinking folks of any persuasion that are the reason that you and I don't live in terror each day. I wonder if it could be said that George Z. lives in terror.

NAACP is not a terrorist organization....they are race hustlers who make money off the terms "racist" and "racism"...to that effect they NEVER want divisiveness between blacks and whites to ever be healed; the golden goose would die. The New Black Panther Party on the other hand, may very well be a terrorist organization as they routinely advocate violence against whites. The NAACP petitioned for Holder (former Black Panther in college)and the DOJ to investigate Zimmerman for civil rights violations. The NBPP morons put a bounty on Zimmerman's head and called for his death. NAACP protesters don't bother me much....NBPP thugs on my street would have me locked and loaded.

I'll bet the rate of crimes committed by blacks is greater than that.



As long as you stay in your bubble that might hold true.



If you have a car wreck that's called an accident.

You saying that Eric Holder was a former Black Panther ?

James and Mike, I didn't call the NAACP a terrorist organization.
I merely made the accurate point that some of their rhetoric results in riots, assaults on whites, and a simmering hatred and mistrust.

As GaryW states above, they are also race hustlers who make a comfortable living by perpetuating divisiveness. If a Hamas leader or Mosque leader preaches hatred that incites acts of violence, we often say they are leaders of terrorist cells or organizations even though they never themselves actually plant a bomb on a jet or blow themselves up in a crowd. If we can call these leaders terrorists, it's not much of a stretch to call Al Sharpton a terrorist. Other groups like the NBPP step it up a few notches, but they are never criticized by the NAACP nor are they indicted for conspiracy to commit hate crimes.

Zimmerman has a target on his back, and not only do these groups not care... they put it there. He was found innocent after a trial by jury, but he is not free. The NAACP encouraged protests of his not guilty verdict which came from our Constitutional Court System. They are violating his Civil Rights by not respecting his acquittal. Although he was acquitted, the government still will not return his personal property, his gun.

I've related the story of the elderly lady not 25 miles from me who was shot in the head by a black guy in broad daylight in her car after leaving Sunday Mass. This apparently was a gang initiation murder rather than a robbery because her purse was left on the seat. A co-worker several months ago showed me the bullet scars on his neck where he was shot by a black guy after his friends' truck broke down in a black neighborhood. He was shot again in the buttock as he ran for his life. This also was not a robbery. The black guy simply pulled out a gun and shot him. He told me he knew the black guy was going to shoot so he turned away as he saw him pulling back the hammer. The bullet went in near his adams apple and came out on the side of his neck without cutting any major artery or vein. The NAACP and Obama do not condemn these black on white hate crimes. Never. If the black criminal is caught, you never see the Justice Dept. investigating or prosecuting these as hate crimes or Civil Rights violations. Apparently you can do a hate crime or violate the Civil Rights of a black, a gay/lesbian/transgender person, an Indian, or a Hispanic... but not a white person... especially a white male.

I don't really worry that we'll never convince folks like nca225 or King that the NAACP and Obama, et al are racists, because no amount of evidence will ever sway them. I just call it like I see it with no sugar coating.

Misunderstood your point Keith. I thought you were making the argument that the NAACP is a terrorist organization. Sorry.

I agree with you that the NAACP is a racist organization.

I also agree that hate crimes are frequently committed by blacks against whites and those crimes go unheralded in the mainly liberal media outlets and by the current occupant of the bully pulpit.

I think "Bull*&^%"pulpit is a tad more accurate here, lads!!

What no one talks about is that class trumps race as major burden of the United States. The race divide is on everyone's lips but less so on why we starve social programs on grounds we can no longer afford them, why no taxes are good taxes, smaller government is better and wealth should trickle down to the bottom like oats through a horse.

Hundreds of billions are provided in bailouts to banks and auto companies, governments "shrink" while they add millions of private contractors to do public works, the rich lobby successfully for lower taxes while the middle class pays more while getting less, corporate tax cuts are proven not to stimulate capital spending by businesses, and we prattle about black welfare queens!

One solution to promote greater job opportunities and reduce poverty from Gates, Buffet, the Vatican, the Anglican Church and others endorsed by 40 countries is opposed fiercely by the financial sector; Canada shot it down at the G20 two years ago. It's a financial transactions tax (FTT), a fraction of one per cent on all transactions of stocks, bonds, futures etc.

But the banks have more influence than the working classes which paid from their pockets to put them back on top again. It's comedy if not for such miserable consequences of corporations owning the media to sell a generation on what's good for it, driving a wedge between the middle class and the poor---as we read here---so the middle class will identify with the wealthy.

Starved social programs?

2008- 28.2 million enrolled in SNAP(food stamps)
2012- 47.8 million enrolled in SNAP

Here in PA, from fiscal year 2002-2003 to fiscal year 2011-2012, public welfare spending rose 52% ($17.9 BILLION to $27.2 BILLION). Of the total operating budget for the state of PA, that's 43% spent solely on public welfare.

Two notes of a personal nature to illustrate the abuse of the welfare system-

Several years ago, my 34 year old neighbor got his 19 year old live-in girlfriend pregnant. Rather than marry her and add the child and her to his insurance policy (which would have increased his out of pocket costs), she chose to add herself and the baby to the public welfare rolls. Two months later, he bought a $10,000 dollar motor for his boat. A year later, he bought a 4 year old Toyota Tundra 4x4 and paid cash for it. All of this was freely related to me by him. No speculation on my part.

My 44 year old alcoholic/drug addict sister-in-law applied for SSI disability because she said she could not hold a job. Initially she was denied. Several months after getting a lawyer and appealing, she was granted disability and received a large lump sum of back pay the beginning of this past week. By Wednesday, she had bought herslf a Mercedes SUV...

Marcus

I'm not questioning the abuses, Marc. They're sickening. Corporate welfare bums are a big part of it. I'm not familiar with SNAP but guessing the Great Recession starting 2008 may have been a big part of it, too. The guilty have been identified---and reimbursed for their losses by the middle class.

No King you weren't. You said the programs were being starved. These entitlement programs are at an all time high with funding and enrollment, yet you still complain. Why don't you sing the praises of all who are being helped, or will it never be enough. What is your yardstick for success of an entitlement, everyone on welfare except the politicians.

How very appropriate that you should mention "oats through a horse", King. Your comments demonstrate your lack of honesty and once again show that the "Hope and Change" of your boy Obama is little more than smoke and mirrors.

We absolutely have not starved social programs here, and you know it. We have more people collecting more government freebies than ever before and even Republican proposals to merely slow the rate of growth are met with howls of indignation by Libtards who seem hell bent on turning the nation into one giant Detroit.

Nor have we shrunk government, even as we added millions of private contractors. A few years back, the number of people employed in non-productive government jobs surpassed the number of manufacturing jobs that largely supported them. In addition, as wages, benefits, and pensions in the private sector delcined in real terms, the opposite is true in the public sector.

Funny that King Pinnochio Brown mentions that the Hundreds of billions in bailout money enrich and reward large corporate and financial sector recipients... especially since those who were Obama campaign contributors like G.M., General Electric, and Goldman Sachs benefitted mightily. And despite what you intend to show, taxes have not been reduced for the wealthy under your boy. They were increased on those earning over $250k per year. Of course, the middle and lower classes who were promised that their taxes would not increase one dime will be paying for ObamaCare, which was argued by the Obama administration to be a tax during Supreme Court proceedings. And the poor and middle class are already paying the hidden tax of inflation due to Obama running the printing presses full speed as he creates monumental record debt.

You, being a Libtard, of course think the solution is yet more taxes, this time a FTT. Even though this has been shown to be somewhat regressive since working poor often have a higher percentage of their net wealth in investment vehicles in their 401-k retirements than the very wealthy... but you Libtards never met a tax you didn't like. All the better to redistribute even more to welfare queens and Obama campaign donors and to enrich Obama Green Energy cronies.

And how very appropriate that you close with criticism of corporate owned media selling so much bullshit. I'm sure you're only talking about FOX while giving a total pass to the filthy liars at General Electric owned NBC and MSNBC.

The race divide is on everyone's lips here King, because that's the topic of this thread. Duh! Or are you just looking for any opening to spout your Liberal lies and bullshit? Or were you just hoping to turn the discussion away from your precious NAACP and their institutional racism? I seem to recall you recently saying that you would mostly be an observer here in Misfires... looking on with amusement at the "prattle" of us mere mortals, and only very infrequently blessing us with nuggets of your awesome worldly wisdom. It appears that was just another lie. If lies were dollars, you could pay our national debt.

I'm also taking the word of Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, who referred only today on NBC's Meet the Press to cuts to food stamp programs passed recently by the GOP-held House of Representatives.

SNAP- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Otherwise known as "Food Stamps".

To the best of my knowledge, corporate welfare has nothing to do with public welfare claims.

Public welfare rolls have increased over 140% since the mid 1990's. It started long before the events of 2007/08.

Marcus

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/it_on_y22owkLpsldSAjDVC9isjM

Food stamps are paying for trans-Atlantic takeout — with New Yorkers using taxpayer-funded benefits to ship food to relatives in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Welfare recipients are buying groceries with their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards and packing them in giant barrels for the trip overseas,



http://watchdog.org/96500/illinois-rewarded-for-misspending-only-52-million-on-food-stamps/

Illinois rewarded for misspending only $52 million on food stamps

Just more than 2 million people in the state, or 16 percent of the population, are enrolled in the federally managed SNAP. Washington D.C,. sent Illinois $3 billion for SNAP last year.
FOOD STAMP BOOM: Dabrowksi says IL has seen food stamp rolls grow by double digits.

FOOD STAMP BOOM: Dabrowksi says IL has seen food stamp rolls grow by double digits.

The numbers: 1.74 percent of $3 billion is $52 million. That’s a lot of taxpayer waste.

“The more people you add and the bigger the program gets, the more cumbersome it gets. The more difficult it gets to manage. And you have money being given away that shouldn’t be given away,” said Ted Dabrowski, vice President of policy for the Illinois Policy Institute.

Dabrowksi said Illinois saw its food stamp population jump 11.5 percent last year.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record-1...-populous-state

Record 10,978,040 Now on Disability; ‘Disability’ Would Be 8th Most Populous State


The record 10,978,040 total disability beneficiaries in May, included a record 8,877,921 disabled workers (up from 8,865,586 in April), a record 1,939,687 children of disabled workers (up from 1,936,236 in April), and 160,432 spouses of disabled workers.

May was the 196th straight month that the number of American workers collecting federal disability payments increased.

Congressional Black Caucus ?
You mean the Socialist Congressional Black Caucus"
King your not crazy enough to believe ANYTHING those
race-bating socialist say are you ?

As for the Congressional Black Caucus, shouldn't it matter that 67% of its current members were registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus in 2009? If you don't include the six freshmen that were elected in 2010, that number jumps to 78%. One of those freshmen is Lt. Col. Allen West (R-FL), who joined the caucus likely for reconnaissance purposes more than anything else, suggested there are 78-81 members of Congress who are registered with Communist Party USA. Being embedded with 29 registered socialists in the CBC might serve to lend his charge some credibility.

Socialists and Communists lie. It's part of the rule book (Obama lied about not being registered with a socialist party). The Congressional Black Caucus is dominated by confirmed, registered socialists. 67% of the current 43 members were registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus in 2009. Obama's ideological mentor, Saul Alinsky believed that ends not only justify the means but failure to use any means necessary is a sin (that would be a sin against Lucifer, apparently). Check out this excerpt from his book, Rules for Radicals:

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

Dave, you may have missed it, but if he wasn't aware of it, this kind of talk warms King's heart. He has mentioned that he has long time family ties to the communist party of Canada.

Corporate and public welfare are connected, Marcus: what falls as charity from government hands all comes out of taxpayers' pockets. The point I was making is that where there was once a sense of noblesse oblige in our so-called private enterprise system---privileges of the powerful entail responsibility---now no one complains when billions are given to the powerful corporate welfare bums but save their criticism for those in need, mostly deserving than not. Public welfare rolls are increasing everywhere and will continue to rise from the effects of deregulation, globalization etc but the blame for rust belts, crushing meltdown, sending jobs overseas should not be visited only on those unemployed on the streets. The Big Boys put the world economy in the ditch.

KIing, I'm not sure that is true. Lots of people complained about the bailouts. Lots of people complain about corporate welfare bums. So far, the complaints haven't been loud enough or persistent enough. But it's growing.

Our American friends may better be able to confirm this than I but isn't one of the issues on the agenda of the Tea Party reducing corporate welfare? But why would that matter? To those on the left and in the media, the Tea Party are just a bunch of selfish right wing wack-jobs.

Reminds me of the way Albertans are called rednecks here yet Calgary and Edmonton are among the most accommodating and diverse societies in Canada. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

No King, this is ideological lie. Social program entitlements come directly out of the taxpayers pocket and future. Your mischaracterization of corporate welfare is in truth tax incentive, or a slight decrease in tax rate, to encourage job creation. Your corporate bashing is at odds with your contention that the taxpayer pays. Do the entitlement folks create your revenue to pay themselves.

The GOP held House has also voted numerous times to repeal ObamaCare, but that hasn't happened either. For someone who is so worldly and well travelled, one would think you know we have a system which requires that laws pass our House and Senate, and then, unless there are enough Senate votes to over-ride a presidential veto, go on for signing by the executive branch before becoming law.

There have been no cuts to Food Stamps and you knew that. The program has expanded dramatically under Obama. The program is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse, It is one of a long list of reasons why our unsustainable defecits are ballooning. The Republican proposals, if passed, would not have left children starving. They would have cut fraud and slowed the rate of growth.

King knows all of this, but he would rather tell lies than admit the truth. King says this should all be civil, good-hearted discussion and "opinions without spite or spleen". Opinions are things like felt recoil and whether a 28" barrel swings better than a 30" barrel. When you come here day after day spouting outright lies... and you know they are outright lies... that's not civil discussion anymore. It's just being a liar.

Dishonesty is not civility.

States and provinces compete to get industry. They provide companies with grants, loans, monies for start-ups, marketing, innovation and productivity, training etc. I can't think of an industry that doesn't tap public money, one way or another. It's an incentive for companies to locate, as you say, but subsidization just the same. Mixed economies can't operate without it. Taxpayers now share risk traditionally borne by private enterprise. Canadians paid for every dry well the oil corporations drilled looking for oil off Atlantic Canada. It's hardly corporate bashing when it's public policy to reward corporate begging. Certainly not an "ideological lie."

You're right about not loud enough and persistent enough, as the protests were 50 years ago. All the jibber-jabber about the libtards and the Left gives me a smile because there's no Left left compared to 50 years ago of student movements, strong labour unions, Ralph Nader and consumer protests, Hey hey LBJ how many kids you killed today?

The GOPs problem with the Tea Party is sort of like Harper's when he became our Conservative prime minister, promising to build firewalls against "defeatist" eastern Canadians, and stopping the giveaways to industry. Reality set in with future elections to win; his "small, leaner" government became big government with deficits, as they did with presidents.

The GOP's Old Guard is as leery of the Tea Party as "the libtards." Changing demographics will shape future political platforms; they'll look a lot different from the last one. Even McCain came out today for a review of Stand Your Ground, eyes wide open to electorates of future years.

Does King really think that if Canadian, or American, oil companies never received any government subsidies or incentives, that the cost of dry wells would not be passed along to the customer? Do King and the other Libtards fools really think that if we soaked Exxon-Mobil or General Motors, or General Foods or Coca Cola with high corporate taxes, that the costs of those taxes would not be passed along to the consumer? It is regrettable that often companies take those incentives that were intended to create domestic employment, and use them to either invest in lower wage foreign operations or automation which reduces the need for employees. But it's the politicians who are to blame for not tying those incentives to levels of desired performance. It's both parties fault, but it is mostly the Democrats who have taken the easy path of placating the poor and uneducated masses they've helped to create, by merely transfering wealth from those who still work to those who don't care to work. Since they cannot possibly expect those still working to pay all of those monumental costs, they kick the can down the road and place the burden on our children and guarantee them a lower standard of living in the future. King thinks this is good and represents Hope and Change we can believe in.

As noted, King is a Socialist or a Communist, so his lies are meant to propagate his vision, which is a proven failure. If you look at what's happening in Chicago and other inner cities in the "hood", it's apparent that L.B.J. is still killing kids. And the NAACP is helping by worrying more about registering our guns than changing the culture of Nanny State Blacks... just to get back to the topic that King wished to steer us away from.

Notice that King keeps going back to the loser John McCain as a guiding light on the Second Amendment. McCain stabbed his constituents in the back in the recent failed Senate vote on Universal Backround Checks (which King initially advised us to accept rather than banding together with the NRA to fight). So it's no surprise that McCain would once again roll with the anti-gunners position. We're still waiting for the Great King Brown to tell us exactly what he contributed to the repeal of the Canadian Long Gun Registry, and what he's now doing to get Quebec to comply with the law. I'd be very surprised if any effort King made was anthing but concessionary to the anti-gunners. King was very critical of the NRA in the aftermath of Newtown, and it seems apparent that he'd like to see restrictions on our Second Amendment even though it should be no concern of his.

Buried in the middle, you make my case and propogate the ideological misleading falsehood. Maybe check your definitions. One is motivation, the other is taken out of the taxpayers' pocket and future.

All that 'hardly' corporate bashing does is make you feel good, but it doesn't offer any solution to income tax revenue. The only way to pay for your feel good entitlements, which you have not shown betters lives other than that of lib elite philosophers, is to collect taxes, borrow, or print money. Of the three, which source of revenue should be used, and can a lib elite manage their personal finances in a similar way to the current admin.

You really might thank the big bad corporations that stand quietly and politely to criticism like dubya does. Maybe you could swap in union for every time you use the word corporation. Do you think your bottom fifty-one percent designates a percentage of their entitlements to the secular liberal social engineers. Or, would a teflon pc rock star still be obliged to smooze with big ticket supporters.

HaHa, "no Left left"? All that's happened since is the Left got smart!

The protests from the sixties have their modern day equivalent in the Occupy movement.

Much more importantly the Left learned from their early ineffectiveness and have infiltrated the government bureaucracy. They became the professors at universities across North America, the teachers in every school. They man the payrolls of every government supported NGO, of which there are over 1.5 million in the US alone, pushing their agenda on the taxpayer's dime. How is that for welfare?

Regardless of what the GOP's problem with the Tea Party is, the Tea Party is a significant movement that is against corporate welfare.

And frankly, I am surprised at your oblique defense of it, as the region you come from in Canada, along with Quebec and Manitoba, are the poster children for welfare of every sort, corporate, personal and intergovernmental. And if you took any rational, evidence based look at it, you would know that the forty years of equalization payments and other taxpayer largess that has underpinned the economies of the Maritimes, Quebec and Manitoba, have been an abject failure. It has perpetuated bloated government and unsustainable industries while dis-incentivising people from taking needed step to create growth and opportunity.

The fact that GOP and Conservative led governments have continued this pattern speaks to the effectiveness of the left in lying to the general public about how welfare of any kind works....it's effectiveness and value. That's all.

Any way you cut it, Craig, our taxes are used as bait to attract, motivate, keep industries in communities and when the US, Canada, Mexico or China offers something better they often pack up and leave. Dozens of examples around here.

We live in an ostensibly private enterprise capitalist system---a myth commonly believed---although most of voting age know it's a mixed economy close to socialism without the discredited ownership of means of production.

Capitalists use their own money. Under our systems, they thrive or blow it through bad judgement or bad luck and, on the current evidence, taxpayers ante up to put them back in business again. State-managed economy.

I don't know how a "liberal elite" handles it financial affairs but if you're referring to individuals, liberals or conservative, it seems they do much better than governments, keeping in mind that, like Detroit, bad things happen.

The financial sector is "quiet and polite" under criticism, as you say. Who wouldn't? It can't get the grin off its face. It suckered regulators and government into fraudulent manipulation and stiffed taxpayers again.

Sorry to hear that in Canada those from Alberta are called "rednecks- ey?"-- That great province gave its name (from prince Albert I should guess, back when Canada was part and parcel of the British Empire) to two great songs, one written by a Canadian- no, not Neil Diamond, Ian Tyson's 1960's song-- "Four Strong Winds"-- the other was from America's prison based black Bluesman- Huddie Leadbetter- "Alberta, Alberta, where you been so long" Eric Clapton did a cover of this classic on his "Unplugged" session circa 1998-In July of 1988 I went with some TU pals to Calgary to fish to Bow River- loved it and would like to return, albiet wioth passport now- As Bobby Dylan sang- "The times, they are a changin'" sure nough!!

How you know all that stuff, Fox?

Canvasback was correct on reference to rednecks in Alberta; I'd guess that it's more of the past than now.

Alberta had a distinctively different cultural aspect 50-60 years ago, a Social Credit government of "funny money" and strong fundamentalist streak.

Now with-it, culturally very mainstream, taking a back seat to none anywhere. Recent catastrophic floods proved its magnificent cooperative spirit.

Calgary's great mayor is a man of colour, a Muslim and, always leads the gay parade as "mayor of all the people." Calgarians love him. No rednecks there!

Fox, I love your eclectic and wide ranging knowledge!

To be fair, King, the redneck label is in the past if you think of the past as the nineties and aughts. Certainly didn't go away at the end of the Social Credit ERA and the rise of Peter Lougheed.

In fact it blossomed in the nineties with the rise of Reform, most vehemently from the PC's of Eastern Canada, outraged that Westerners would have the temerity to complain about the ruling cartel of the Ontario/Quebec axis of power.

It's only changed recently with the final realization that demographics and the economy have been pushing the centre of power west. But you don't have to scratch very deep to find that redneck perception in places like Toronto and Montreal. It has been recently expressed to me by Liberal/Greens right here where I live in the bastion of Ontario liberal elites that is Port Hope.

Those who are used to power don't like to cede it.

Fox, speaking of the Bow, flyfishing and Clapton et al, I used to flyfish with a guy whose brother was Amos Garrett, a spectacular guitarist who counts Clapton among his occasional playing partners and who did my all time favorite guitar work on a song called Midnight at the Oasis by Maria Muldaur. Years ago he moved to Alberta and lives close to the Bow specifically to flyfish.

In my younger days I did a canoe trip, starting just below the falls on the Bow in the shadow of the Banff Springs Hotel and finished 24 days later in The Pas, Manitoba. 1100 miles or thereabouts in pre GPS days. Retracing one of the fur trading routes. And having lived in Banff for three years, I feel a special bond with that river.

I don't know how it is around your neck of the woods, but the US is known to have among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. 'Our taxes are used as bait' isn't so as you keep implying it is taken out of mouth of needy and redistributed to the hand of another. Very similar to how a prez and libs propagate falsehoods of better healthcare, or 'cut' taxes. Give one time token rebates and tell a nation things are better. Or, scale back a massive spending increase in entitlements and blame political opponents for taking food out of childrens mouths or punishing women in need.

Most of voting age will believe talking points that are repeated by liberal ideologs. If we know it's an economy close to socialism, you win, and the complaints are to mislead. If your complaints are genuine then maybe socialism isn't enough, and we get references to communism. Do 'bad things happen' if the private sector manages business, 'seems they do much better than governments'. Again, any way you cut it, the government doesn't create, it drains, and if you want funding for ideological entitlements, it would make sense to acknowledge where it comes from.

Let's cut it half-way, differing only from our ages in historical perspectives! Complaining about the Liberal "Natural Governing" Party, as it seemed for decades, isn't redneck to me. Anyone in any part of the country not complaining was brain-dead.

Redneck was more like Jack Horner and his rancher friend true-blue Tories in fist fights blowing off steam against anyone who didn't agree---and once just outside an arm's length from poking me in the Chateau Laurier during a leadership convention.

The Reform Party led by careful Preston Manning wasn't radical to me; it made sense to demand more accountability and less regional favouritism in making national policies, Trudeau's "It's not my job to sell your wheat," his insulting National Energy Policy; Reform seemed almost pious to me in retrospect.

Okay on Port Hope as Liberal bastion now that Farley is vacationing nearby at his summer home!

You make my point: we're all socialists now.

Intrinsically, in a mixed economy, there's no guarantee that one side will do better than the other.

Americans find it harder to accept this. I don't know why. What's gone are the days of Mellon, Carnegie, the financial and industrial barons and the notion of the US as a moral project stemming from the Enlightenment.

King, I agree about Jack Horner and you are making my point. Of course Manning and Reform's platform wasn't "redneck" He was too careful for that. But that didn't stop the PC's, Liberals, NDP and the Eastern media derogatorily using that term every chance they could.

I'm not talking about you here. I'm talking about the people who surrounded me when I lived in Toronto in the nineties and when I traveled there almost weekly from Winnipeg during the last decade until I moved again. They still have pulpits today. Do you ever read Heather Mallick in The Star?

While you may have had an enlightened view of the west and the leaders who came out of it over the last 25 years, you'd have to admit the East worked pretty hard to discredit them.

While we have gone off on a bit of a tangent here, to me it still relates to the original topic in that we see regularly the ideological left, using their support through the media, schools and NGO's, demonize those who disagree and frame the argument in terms of Rednecks or Racists. It is lies and those propagating it know it.

Yes, eastern chattering classes certainly demonized Albertans and they're still at it today for selfish and jealous reasons of power shifting west. I don't think any party has the copyright on demonizing or bullying; the conservatives attack ads are more prevalent, and effective, although I believe racist stuff is self-defeating. Not even racist, but remember the public blowback when the Tory cartoon ads mocked Chretien's crooked mouth, a birth defect?

You know my feelings about politics from our private correspondence. I don't denigrate those who want to contribute, to give it a go, to strengthen values but it's truly a punk's game. More so now with Harper as Trudeau running the country from the PMO, telling their supporters and MPs, as Trudeau did, "You're nobody 100 feet from Parliament Hill." I don't know why the country puts up with it. Or maybe not, just waiting quietly to kick him it out, as it did with Trudeau for the same reason.

King, you succeeded in hijacking this thread and steering it away from its original intent. One had to be devious and deceptive to accomplish that. You were certainly the man for the job.

Now tell us what you think about the NAACP and its' current course. Are they comparable to the KKK? Are they as racist as anyone in the U.S.? Are they creating racial divisiveness rather than promoting racial harmony? Do they respect our laws and the Constitution and our justice system?

Gentlemen, I suggest we get King back on topic since I feel his personal mission was to divert discussion away from his beloved NAACP.

Cut the crap King... dishonesty ain't civility!

That should stir the pot up pretty good.

Okay Keith, I'll set an example seeing as I was partially responsible for going off topic, although I did allude to my thinking about that in my last post.

I don't think much of the current NAACP and it's current course.
I don't think they are comparable as yet to the KKK of the first half of the 20th century. They are not yet terrorists.
The NAACP does create racial divisiveness. They use it as a tactic.
They do not promote racial harmony.
They have little respect for the laws, constitution and justice system of the USA, except in how those tools can be used to further the objectives of the NAACP.

Like most unions, a reasonable idea at the time of creation that has long since served it's purpose and now is the bully pulpit for radicals.

Thanks for getting us back on topic Boneheaddoctor. King will be back to try to steer the ship off course again. We'll just have to keep that from happening... won't we?

James, I did see that, and that's what gave me the idea that we ought to get back on topic and stay there. King can start a new thread about Canadian Prime Ministers and corporate subsidies if he likes.

Is it just me? I liked Sharpton a lot better when he was fat. Now he just looks weird. Waaaay too much skin on the fella. A bit Shar Pei-ish

Common problem with people who have lost a lot of weight...particularly after they get older.

Like Al Roker too.

I see Zimmerman emerged from seclusion, necessary because the race hustlers put a target on his back. He came out long enough to help rescue a guy whose pick-up truck overturned. No kudos from the NAACP for his act of humanity yet. I don't imagine that Obama will have anything positive to say either.

If Obama had a son....he probibly would have robbed those people.

That is incorrect. Most blacks are not robbers. Most sons of presidents are not robbers. So the probability is that he would not have robbed those people.

Black 17 year old in that town in FL....most likely a criminal. Or a totally terrorised victim of them.

Like most places NOT along the mexican border...most of the crime isn't Innuit immigrants.

Please give some source, study, or survey as proof a black seventeen year old in that town would have a better than even chance ("most likely") of being a criminal.

I would assume that if President Obama had a son that son would not be from that town but from Chicago.

Someone had a previos quote where blacks are like 5.3 times more likely to commit a crime.......if Blacks are even only 20 of the population....that totals to over 100%. And I'm willing to bet blacks are way more than 20% in Safford FL if they have projects.

Safford Florida has TWICE the crime rate as is average for the entire USA.

http://www.usa.com/sanford-fl-crime-and-crime-rate.htm


Safford is 40% black who are over 5 times more likely to commit crimes than white people....simple do the math to see odds are if there is a crime...its a black person committing it there.

http://www.movoto.com/neighborhood/fl/sanford/32771.htm

That is not correct.

If blacks were five times more likely to commit robbery than whites and 1 in 1000 whites were robbers then five in 1000 blacks would be robbers.

The number would have to be 501 blacks in 1000 for the theoretical son to be "most likely" to be a robber. That would mean that 100 out of 1000 whites would need to be robbers. Neither ratio is anywhere near those numbers.

Most whites aren't robbers. Most blacks aren't robbers. A black is much more likely to be a robber than a white but a black is likely not a robber.

We are discussing the odds that a theoretical black son of Obama would be a robber. Not what the odds are that a crime committed in Safford was committed by a black.

So when one sees a 17 year old black walking out of WalMart or McDonalds or the park the odds are that he is not a robber. Most blacks are not robbers. Most blacks are not criminals. Blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites but that does not mean that most are criminals.

I don't think you've spent much time in areas that the populations are overrepresetned by blacks. Because the crime rates are always higher there than neighboring areas that aren't. Sometimes significantly higher.

The higher the ratio of blacks to whites in a neighborhood the higher the crime rate. That is because blacks are more likely to be criminals than whites. If the percentage of blacks was 25% in one neighborho0d and 75% in another then it is likely the black majority neighborhood would have about three times the crime rate of the black minority neighborhood. But a black in either neighborhood is most likely not a criminal.

THat isn't true around here.....just because they haven't been caught yet and convicted doesn't mean they aren't running around committing crimes.

Well, like the laws of physics, the laws of statistics are true everywhere, Texas or Virgina.

And the odds are that the 1/3 of the male black population that either is in prison or has been to prison is the same proportion of the black male population that are criminals. That leaves 2/3 of the black male population that aren't criminals. And then there is the female black population which has a lower rate of criminality than the male population.

So, again, the odds are that if Barack Obama had a 17 year old son he would not have robbed those people.

Odds are that if Barack Obama had a son, he'd probably be a Liberal Socialist Democrat politician... so he'd be fleecing taxpayers in some income redistribution scheme.

Still no word from NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Holder, or Obama on Zimmermans random act of kindness!

No doubt!

I saw Zimmerman's random act of good citizenship on Fox News at lunch. Got back to the office and googled and could find no mention of it anywhere else. Searched the New York Times. Reminds of the coverage of the indictment and trial of that murdering abortion doctor.

wonder if ob will have a comment regarding George stopping to help four people escape from a rolled over suv?

I think you're a hundred percent correct, and the chance would be zero to me. But, didn't the man himself say in Mar. '12, if he had a son, the boy would look like Treyvon. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe the odds are, it's a duck. Not a guaranteed certified duck, but he said it when he didn't have to, so it must have been important to him.

And you never met people that have committed crimes that never got caught?

Knowing Owebama....he will be accusing Zimmerman of causing the accident.....

Criminals commit crimes over and over. That is why they are criminals. People who commit crimes over and over get caught. About one third of the black male population is either in prison or they have been in prison. They are criminals. The other two thirds are not.

If President Obama had a 17 year old son that son would most likely not have robbed those people.

Really? He's nothing but a con artist....and last I checked...being a con artist is illegal. Unless you are the messiah of a political party.

Notice how he hasn't redistributed a dime of his wealth yet....

Never the less, if Barack Obama had a 17 year old son, the odds are that son wouldn't have robbed those people.

YOu got nothing to back that up....this is after all a man who smoked dope with convicted domestic terrorists...by his own admission.

Law abiding people don't get chummy with terrorists and Marxists.

Most 17 years old blacks are not robbers. Most of the sons of presidents are not robbers.

It is most likely that if Obama had a 17 year old son that son would have not robbed those people in that upside down SUV.

Sad part is they all look alike....

And most all blacks are racist because it's been pumped in their head all their life by their parents, friends, Churches and Racist organizations like the NAACP.

I interviewed a president of a southern white college who told me the white laws are there to keep blacks in their place. C'mon, I said. "Read it for yourself," he said. "It's in St. Paul's letter to the Esphesians." What's pumped in heads is about even on both sides, and consequences of not hoisting it aboard bears more heavily on the blacks. Nurturing an instinct for safety isn't racist, Fox. It's survival.

Yes King- if it is in the Bible it must be correct.

You are treated according to how you portray yourself.

Dress and act "gangsta" and you get treated as a threat and rightfully with suspicion.

Dress like a human..and behave like one..and you won't be viewed with the same suspicion.

And that ISN'T a racist thing....it applies equally to all ethnic groups.

+1

That's it, doc. Thanks.

Before you believe that there is some foundation for "white laws (which) are there to keep blacks in their place" within St. Pauls Letter to the Ephisians, you really ought to read it for yourself:

http://biblescripture.net/Ephesians.html

This is why I said several days ago that everything King says ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Absolutely EVERYTHING! In my opinion, he's a pathological liar, because he has no shame or remorse when caught in his many lies. He just moves on to tell another whopper. If you call him out on his dishonesty, he'll make you out to be the bad guy. This is disturbing behavior.

Here's a timely line from St. Pauls Letter to the Ephisians, Chapter 5;
"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."

King actually went one full day yesterday without telling any lies here. That's probably because he made no posts yesterday.

The left exists on lies,look at Holder,Obama, Lerner,Clinton-both of them,Susan Rice, Reid ("Romney did not pay any taxes",Poco Hontus Warren,Weiner,Spritzer the press and on and on

A Nation of Liars

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/lying-in-the-age-of-obama/

I hope Weiner gets the nod for the 2016 campaign- look at all the great Veep combos he'd have "on the table" (1) Weiner-Holder (2) Weiner-Spritzer (3) Weiner-Lerner (4) Weiner-Rice-- aaaah yes!!!!

And imagine if that ever happens the market for a bumper sticker with "I'm a" or "Grab my" to put on people cars in front of those bumper stickers.

Here you go King. I've brought this back to the top, so you can't just stay away for a couple days and hope your lies just fade from everyones memory. Always glad to help. You're welcome!

I have not posted here in quite some time because I grew very tired of reading the B.S. and outright lies coming from the ultra liberals who are allowed to continue to infest this forum. Those who emailed me in private know that I'm basically disgusted with this whole liberal mess the Country is in, aided and abetted by a "mainstream news media", that regularly deals in lies and B.S. as well. Every now an then usually from an "independent source" like PJ Media a glimmer of the truth pokes through all the B.S. so I'm providing a link to this article. If these liberal jerks were White Conservatives and telling this kind of S**T the news media would be on their case 24/7!
White Laws? Ephesians? REALLY?? This MUST be from a version of the Bible I've never read.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/lying-in-the-age-of-obama/

Glad you're back, Jim. While I don't think of myself as an ultra liberal, you know as well as anyone that all are "allowed" here on an international board. It's not a conservative club. Dave gave us Misfires for our entertainment, no? As for St. Paul, the Letter or epistle was quoted to me by a southern US college president. I mentioned it because it was ridiculous. The Letter's existence is believed by many. Look it up. Regards, King

Holy Crap! Just when I think you gone over the top with your lies, you out-do yourself. I stated my opinion that you are a pathological liar, and you oblige us by giving more proof! Anyone could see that your mention of the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephisians was to advance your fictional athiestic notion that "white laws are there to keep blacks in their place" and these racist laws have their roots in the Bible. No one has questioned the letters existance. What was questioned was what you tried to assert was in its contents. I did look it up... you lied. Now you're back trying to cover that lie with another lie.

Did it really take you a whole day to come up with a ridiculous way to try to weasel out of your own words? It's not working. Who was this southern U.S. college president King? I really doubt if this interview ever even happened except in your own twisted mind. This was almost as disgusting as the huge lie you told us about your own father when you said he converted to Catholicism without believing in the ressurection of Christ, the Virgin birth, papal infallibility, or the Trinity. Do you remember that lie? It was in the "Puritan Metaphor" thread in post # 330954 on pg. 8.

I'm pretty sure you were hoping that filthy lie would slip into the archives, so I'll just be a nice guy and bring that back to the top too. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to come up with some cock-and-bull story to explain it.

And now I'll follow up with a little anecdote from my fictional imaginary resume in order to punctuate my post. Just like the master:

By the way, did I ever tell you guys about how I once interviewed Methuselah when I was an ace cub reporter for the CBC? I asked him what his secret to longevity was... and he said, "just lie about your age".

By the way King, it's interesting that you recognized yourself as one of the outright liars and liberal Bullshitters who prompted Jim to avoid this forum for a while. You only denied being an ultra-liberal.

Welcome back Jim! The lying Liberal stench isn't so bad here if you cover your nose with a maggot infested gut pile.

Beat ya to hit a couple days ago

Originally Posted By: Dave K
The left exists on lies,look at Holder,Obama, Lerner,Clinton-both of them,Susan Rice, Reid ("Romney did not pay any taxes",Poco Hontus Warren,Weiner,Spritzer the press and on and on

A Nation of Liars

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/lying-in-the-age-of-obama/

???????

Two Americans Enrolled in Food Stamps for Every Job Obama 'Created'

The White House has been touting the success of its economic agenda recently, claiming to have created 7.2 million jobs. But a look at the growing rolls of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) shows that for every job the administration says it created, two Americans have been added to the food stamp rolls.

In January of 2009, 32,204,859 Americans received SNAP aid, but as of April 2013, there were 47,548,694 Americans taking food stamps.

"That means that more than two Americans have been added to the food stamp rolls for every one job the administration says it has created," CNSNews reports.

Fifteen million more Americans have gone on food stamps since Obama took office in 2008.

Under Obama, 1.6 million more Americans are now collecting disability insurance, while 9.5 million workers have dropped out of the labor force altogether.

Well recognizing it is a step in the right direction keith. Now if we could only convince him that people can go to hell for telling a lie as well as stealing..........

Yup, I see five or six inflammatory prejudicial points here that are supposed to be accepted as fact. I do not suspect any presentation of facts will help, there is no enough.

Still, in general, we'll be told to be civil and reach across the isle, because the right is bad not factually wrong. The talking points are incrementally supposed to become the new normal through repetition. I think King knows the left will gladly accept small victories, and they know that some liberty that the right will claim as a victory, will only strengthen the lefts ability to be a lefty or become a rally point.

I still think the right has to work on media savy, rather than facts and common sense. The above quote would be a good example. Not in the sense of participation, but I'd disagree with the sentiment of Jim's walk away. There have been many different ways of expressing, know your enemy. I suspect Jim does though.

King, didn't you tell us ( about a thousand times) that you were a reporter for the CBC? Here is a list of past and present personalities associated with the Television and Radio arms of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation with names going back to the 1930's....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation_personalities

How did they omit a luminary like you???? Is this only the ones who had some importance or gravitas? Weren't you practically a Canadian Walter Cronkite? Oh wait, Walter Cronkite was deemed trustworthy.

Craig et al:
I came back of here long enough to provide a link to the article that IMO exactly points out the viscous lies coming from the current administration and IMO, more importantly, the reluctance on the part of the so-called "mainstream news media' to call them on these lies. Lying has become a way of life for liberals and that's apparent when you review their posts on this forum.
I have never had a problem with anyone whose opinion differs from mine as long as the opinion is intelligently stated and backed up with facts.
That is not what has happened in this section and we are confronted with more and more ridiculous and bizarre lies from those individuals with bankrupt ideas. Lying or insulting those who point out their lies is the only "defense" they have since they're far to spineless to ever admit the truth.
This culminated at least for me with the stated opinion that Ephesian's is a Biblical justification for "White Laws". I am reasonably familiar with the Bible; However I took the time to re-read Ephesian's again and nothing of that sort is in there.
IMO: Continuing any sort of dialogue with individuals posting such rot as fact is an utter waste of time.
When the collapse due to these lies and an administration which is totally incompetent comes as it's bound to it's going to make the situation in Detroit look like a picnic.
Jim

Welcome back Jim( I come and go here as well), but I but the link was already posted;

"Originally Posted By: Dave K
The left exists on lies,look at Holder,Obama, Lerner,Clinton-both of them,Susan Rice, Reid ("Romney did not pay any taxes",Poco Hontus Warren,Weiner,Spritzer the press and on and on

A Nation of Liars

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/lying-in-the-age-of-obama/ "

Hey, I'll post it too because it bears repetition.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/lying-in-the-age-of-obama/

I read this when Dave K originally provided the link. The only problem with it is that it barely scratches the surface. Several of us have spent quite a bit of time here putting a spotlight on the many lies of the liberal left. It's as easy as finding salt water in the ocean. I find them every bit as disgusting as Jim does.

I'm also pretty sure that sometimes we may provide a link or bit of information that isn't 100% accurate. That's easy enough to do when you get news from the internet or don't take some time to verify. But that's when you man up and admit you made a mistake rather than cover up a lie with another lie... followed by another lie... and another lie... That's the difference between being human and being mentally ill.

Dave K and Keith:
Dave I'm sorry I missed your link. I haven't been reading much of the threads here lately.
As far as the blatant lying goes as detailed in that article don't hold your collective breaths waiting for one of the Libtard's here to try and refute any of it. It's difficult to refute the truth!
At best you may expect a "Biblical" explanation for the lack of morals and ethics exhibited by anyone on the left. I remain as disgusted as ever with this type of behavior and I'm even more disgusted with the "mainstream" news media for going along with it so I'll probably just go back to building my latest gun.
Jim

Jim, I'm confused by your reference to St. Paul's letter and "white laws." Memory is not what it used to be but please cite where I used the college president's quote as my "stated opinion" of the Letter being a justification for "white laws." I recall referring to laws to keep blacks in their place and cited the "ridiculous" words of the college president but that was his statement, his Biblical injunction, not mine. Don't look to Misfires for intelligent discourse. Dave put us in dunce caps off in a corner of our own, to rant and rave and knock ourselves out.

I interviewed a president of a southern white college who told me the white laws are there to keep blacks in their place. C'mon, I said. "Read it for yourself," he said. "It's in St. Paul's letter to the Esphesians."

Your quote. You posted it. I see no attempt on your part to refute it.

The truth of the matter is Blacks see everything through Black eyes as that Pastor pointed out in a video that's received wide circulation.
The bottom line here is Treyvon Martin was a 17 year old punk who decided to try and punch the hell out of someone who was in the position to retaliate. If he had just kept on walking like most sensible people would do when not in a comfortable environment he'd be alive today. I didn't want to get involved in these endless explanations of what a jury was able to see clearly. I am exiting this thread permanently as no facts or common sense has any effect on the liberal posting here and I don't care to waste any more of my time.

King, did you also mean that the statements by Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio were ridiculous as well? And how about your comments on "prattle about black welfare queens', the SNAP program, corporate welfare, starved social welfare programs, corporate ownership of the media, effects of deregulation, your statement that "we're all socialists now", middle class being snookered into identifying with the upper classes, etc., etc.?? Was that all posted because you thought it was ridiculous too?

After numerous posts sympathetic to the poor downtrodden black race, do you expect anyone to believe that you posted that supposed statement from the alleged southern college president because you thought it was ridiculous? You didn't say that when you posted it. You made no allusions to that. Everyone here knows that King the athiest was trying to tell us that some of the roots of racism can be found in St. Pauls Letter to the Ephisians. Did you really think you could get away with that? I suppose you did. Then, after years of whining about the "white laws" meant to keep the black man down, you attempt to come slithering back with an equally deceptive (and ridiculous) explanation for your lie. Why won't you tell us who that southern white college president was King? What do you have to hide, except virtually everthing?

Nice try King. You didn't fool anyone. Hey, tell us again how your Dad converted to Catholicism without belief in the ressurection... Ha ha ha, that was a good one! You really are pathetic.

I'm pleased to leave it as well, Jim---and Treyvon as only another reminder of the American curse---but it should be as clear to you as it is to me that I was quoting the college president, and it was not my "stated opinion" as you claimed:

"This culminated at least for me with the stated opinion that Ephesian's is a Biblical justification for "White Laws"."

Disgust with lying may be relieved if a lie is recognized for what it is---a statement we make knowing it not to be true---and not a difference of opinion. Members don't accuse others of lying when they err or differ in our other forums. Misfires is polluted by imputed motives. Pity.

'Imputed motives', are you equivocating fact backed curbing of liberties and crippling punititive taxation, with emotional belly aching over the merits of hundred plus year old shogun actions.

I prefer your example of a lie much better than your justification for lying. 'It's ok for the president to lie, because everyone does it'. I think, if I lie, tell me I'm lying, don't feel pity over opinions you don't like.

Good post. Not equivocating, Craig, declaring a difference of how we consider a member's error or difference of opinion in the serious forums i.e. it's an O grade or Elsie is better than Ithaca, from how we consider erring and differences of opinion in Misfires.

"If I lie, tell me I'm lying" makes sense if we are certain a person is saying something they know is not true (and how well they know the person) but to say a person is lying without having that information involves imputing motives, bad manners or ignorance. Or all three. Which is a pity.

Misfires differs from the courtesy and generosity that distinguishes this board. Manners break down quickly where there is no social discipline and sanctions, and why Dave shuffled us to the bottom of the list.

All of the above is a lie, of course, if a member believes with certainty that I know what I'm writing is not true. Who knows that? Only the arrogant or surpassingly ignorant.

Not trying to weasel in any last word, but.... I don't think all lies are acceptable as long as a person includes your disclaimer. Is there some point where the 'I didn't know' line can be called into question. How could subjective accusations of motivation, manners or ignorance be valid if someone could claim they were not aware of some etiquette. Particularly, the point of ignorance might be categorized as supporting evidence, not a pity.

You can have the last word any time! There's no disclaimer. Etiquette doesn't enter into it. I provided a definition of a lie. Lies should not be acceptable. The problem on Misfires is that some members say a person is lying if they erred or were of a different opinion.

Said just like a pathological liar would say it!





And here we have another lie, coupled with King's typical hypocrisy. And King knows as well as anyone that it's a lie. Misfires is merely the on the bottom of the list because its' focus has the least to do with firearms. That's why a number of us protested having gun rights issues sequestered in Misfires, and finally succeeded in getting a spot at the top of the DoubleGun Forum. Some of you may recall King's blatant attempt to sabotage that by violating Dave's rules there. Dave never said that Misfires would be banished to a lowly place because it is a place where manners break down and kindness and generosity are rare.

If Misfires is such a bad bad place, one wonders why King is such a frequent visitor and contributor... especially when he recently told us he would mostly watch from the sidelines. I guess that was just another lie.

I/we, who frequently find fault, error, and outrageous falsehoods in Kings posts aren't "imputing motives". We all have read his posts long enough to know his motives without prejudice. King is a liberal who does all he can to spread the leftist liberal line... even if that means stretching the truth or frequently shattering the truth.

King said above, "All of the above is a lie, of course, if a member believes with certainty that I know what I'm writing is not true." Those who are Catholic realized that King was telling a lie the moment we read the bullshit story he told about his father converting to Catholicism without believing in the ressurection. King told that lie in post #330954 in the "Puritan Metaphor" thread. He told it to cover up another lie. He still has not explained how one can convert to Catholicism without believing in the most basic tenet of that religion. Even being an athiest, he knows that. He chooses to dance away from it and hope it fades from memory. Not this time King.

It wasn't simply an error... or difference of opinion. It was a bold faced lie. Yet he conveniently ignores being called out on it and hopes to simply move on by characterizing anyone who questions his lies as being "arrogant or surpassingly ignorant". Oh, ever notice how it's OK when the Great King Brown imputes motives or engages in name calling? Do as I say, not as I do, eh King?

Cut the crap King. Dishonesty ain't civility. Neither is hypocrisy. "Pity" for you.

joe: now you should know that there is a vast difference between the kkk of the nineteenth century reconstruction era and the kkk of the twentieth century? or do you?

you may find this informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Hey King. Tell us how a converted adult Catholic who doesn't believe in the ressurection is just "way ahead of his time". Those of us who've been nowhere and done nothing are having a hard time grasping that.

How far ahead would that be? Are we talking about some point in the future when the anti-Christ appears and becomes pope or something???

Was that all a lie, or are you going to tell us those were also words from that imaginary Southern White College president? Did you ever interview a pope? How about St. Paul? I'd like to know what he was thinking when he injected racism in his letter to the Ephisians. Your vast insight would be interesting.