Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[Treeshepherd]

I like how Unkotare thinks I'm a troll when all he does is spam threads telling liberals to go fuck themselves and ranting about how much he hates education. Keep entertaining us, jester.

You're not a troll. You're just myopic, and your statement that Liberalism is neutral makes no sense. The only man who is neutral is the man who is apolitical and has no opinion on anything. Your idea that conservatism is bloodlusty is equally myopic. Both parties are warmongers. It just so happened that it was politically expedient for the minority party to make hay by criticizing the Iraq invasion during the last decade. I don't know if you've noticed, but the defense budget has not been reduced since the Bush years. Obama's 2015 defense budget asks for $495 billion. The Bush defense budget of 2008 ( while we were still in the midst of the Iraq war ) asked for $481 billion.

 

[GreenBean]

I like how Unkotare thinks I'm a troll when all he does is spam threads telling liberals to go fuck themselves and ranting about how much he hates education. Keep entertaining us, jester.

A few months ago - when I was more active on this forum he made some very good posts and points - perhaps he's worn down a tad from bickering with sniveling imbeciles a/k/a liberals.

 

[Pogo]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Liberalism today is not about equality under the law. It's about equality of outcomes.

So, if one minority group is not getting enough fireman's jobs under a neutral system, the liberal desires to cheat, in a way, by changing the rules to make it easier for that particular minority group to get firefighting jobs.

Of course, that's not at all neutral. It's not about equality under the law. It's about equality of outcomes, which must by definition include severe biases.

That's not "Liberalism". That's leftism.

 

[Pogo]

Here's a statement from LBJ which shine some light on the issue for you ...

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we've got to do something about this; we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. for if we don't move at all, then their allies [The Republicans] will line up against us and there will be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there will be no way of putting the brake on all sorts of wild legislation, it'll be reconstruction all over again " - Lyndon Johnson

Once again ---- link?

Once again ---- didn't think so.

We'll be back to turn the knife later. I know that's what you want.

You must be a Masochist Little fella - I guess your woulds have healed from our last run in - want some new ones ? come and get em !

• These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
  • Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Source: Goodwin, Doris Kearns (1977). Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. New York: New American Library. p. 155. ISBN 0451140826. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 18:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sam, why don't you all let this ****** bill pass?
  • Said to Senator Sam Rayburn (D-TX) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Source: Dallek, Robert (1991).Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******.
  • Said to an aide in 1965 regarding the appointment of Thurgood Marshall as associate justice of the Supreme Court. Source: Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.
  • Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. Source: Kessler, Ronald (1996). Inside the White House. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 33.ISBN 0671879197. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.71.178.55.131 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikiquote

Your first link doesn't go to a citation; it goes to a page about a book. The next three are (a) off the topic; (b) out of their context, and (c) in at least one case, unconfirmed hearsay.

 

[Pogo]

MLK jr was a life long Republican as was Martin Luther King Sr.

Horseshit.

“I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” --- MLK, 1958

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy." -- MLK Autobiography, Ch. 23

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights".[54]
-- Wiki MLK page -- note the "Dixiecrats" he mentions are the very people we're talking about when we note the Southern Democrats turning Republican.

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[55] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[56] --- Wiki Page, ibid

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states." --- MLK III, son of MLK Jr

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"Now what are some of the domestic consequences of the war in Vietnam? It has made the Great Society a myth and replaced it with a troubled and confused society. The war has strengthened domestic reaction. It has given the extreme right, the anti-labor, anti-Negro, and anti-humanistic forces a weapon of spurious patriotism to galvanize its supporters into reaching for power, right up to the White House. It hopes to use national frustration to take control and restore the America of social insecurity and power for the privileged. When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events. [Applause] " -- MLK on Ronald Reagan (who made his first political splash with a speech for Goldwater), addressing the National Labor Leadership Assembly for Peace, November '67​

Now I don't really care what his political party was; that's his business. What I have to wonder is, how do dishonest lying hacks like you figure you can get away with just making shit up that can be so easily obliterated? Are you, I dunno, some kind of masochist?

Really. It isn't even make up shit Thursday.

All your quotes are from Clayborne Carson or MLK 3rd

Horseshit.
I quoted MLK III once and MLK Jr. himself several times, from speech transcripts (verbatim) and his own words in his autobiography, again verbatim, and every one of them linked. You quoted ---- nothing.

Carson is a left wing rabble rouser of the Al Sharpton school of thought - 99% of his King quotes were "invented" long after King was dead

MLK 3 is a slouch whose soul contribution to society is riding in on the coat tails of his dead father. The KIng family is not without it's intellectuals and Free Thinkers - take for instance Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican." Bergmann also said King "subscribed to Republican values" and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.

---- and right into a poison-the-well fallacy that tries to dismiss a direct relative and substitutes an indirect one. "Your son doesn't qualify but my nephew does".

Having it both ways: Priceless. And no reference at all from the man himself as I gave.

You're just digging yourself deeper here.

Fabricated quotes from left wing propagandists will never change the fact that King never registered for Democratic - he always registered Republican as far as who he voted for

Link?

Didn't think so.

- He only stated that had Kennedy lived he would have voted for him is he ran for reelection -which implies he didn't vote for him the first time around .

It does no such thing. In fact I already quoted above (from the autobiography) that King himself writes that he in fact did vote for JFK (and I quote, "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one."
It's right there upstairs dood. You're trying to go but it ain't going away.

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

--- and off to Ad Homistan when all else fails. You got schooled, son. You've been exposed as bullshit and yet you double down in a dyspepsia of delusion.

So my question remains open -- are you some kind of masochist?

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

MLK was a Republican - never a Democrat . He may have voted for JFK - but then so did a lot of Republicans - hell I even made the worst mistake of my voting career when I voted for Obama on hos first term - but that was before all the media suppressed data became available.

There's no evidence he was registered with either party but there are his own words noting that he had "always voted the Democratic ticket" (as of 1956), that he voted for JFK (1960) and would have taken the step of endorsing same in 1964 had JFK lived. So you're still blowing the proverbial smoke out your ass.

The question remains unmolested-- how does your tiny little mind expect to get away with bullshit so easily refuted....
..... little fella?

 

[Pogo]

I like how Unkotare thinks I'm a troll when all he does is spam threads telling liberals to go fuck themselves and ranting about how much he hates education. Keep entertaining us, jester.

You're not a troll. You're just myopic, and your statement that Liberalism is neutral makes no sense. The only man who is neutral is the man who is apolitical and has no opinion on anything. Your idea that conservatism is bloodlusty is equally myopic. Both parties are warmongers. It just so happened that it was politically expedient for the minority party to make hay by criticizing the Iraq invasion during the last decade. I don't know if you've noticed, but the defense budget has not been reduced since the Bush years. Obama's 2015 defense budget asks for $495 billion. The Bush defense budget of 2008 ( while we were still in the midst of the Iraq war ) asked for $481 billion.

Eisenhower told us about this on his way out the door.

 

[Pogo]

I like how Unkotare thinks I'm a troll when all he does is spam threads telling liberals to go fuck themselves and ranting about how much he hates education. Keep entertaining us, jester.

Bunko thinks everybody's a troll. That's because he does not own a mirror.

Which, if you look up what the word "unkotare" means, makes sense.

 

[GreenBean]

Horseshit.

“I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” --- MLK, 1958

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy." -- MLK Autobiography, Ch. 23

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights".[54]
-- Wiki MLK page -- note the "Dixiecrats" he mentions are the very people we're talking about when we note the Southern Democrats turning Republican.

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[55] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[56] --- Wiki Page, ibid

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states." --- MLK III, son of MLK Jr

₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ₪ ​

"Now what are some of the domestic consequences of the war in Vietnam? It has made the Great Society a myth and replaced it with a troubled and confused society. The war has strengthened domestic reaction. It has given the extreme right, the anti-labor, anti-Negro, and anti-humanistic forces a weapon of spurious patriotism to galvanize its supporters into reaching for power, right up to the White House. It hopes to use national frustration to take control and restore the America of social insecurity and power for the privileged. When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events. [Applause] " -- MLK on Ronald Reagan (who made his first political splash with a speech for Goldwater), addressing the National Labor Leadership Assembly for Peace, November '67​

Now I don't really care what his political party was; that's his business. What I have to wonder is, how do dishonest lying hacks like you figure you can get away with just making shit up that can be so easily obliterated? Are you, I dunno, some kind of masochist?

Really. It isn't even make up shit Thursday.

All your quotes are from Clayborne Carson or MLK 3rd

Horseshit.
I quoted MLK III once and MLK Jr. himself several times, from speech transcripts (verbatim) and his own words in his autobiography, again verbatim, and every one of them linked. You quoted ---- nothing.

Carson is a left wing rabble rouser of the Al Sharpton school of thought - 99% of his King quotes were "invented" long after King was dead

MLK 3 is a slouch whose soul contribution to society is riding in on the coat tails of his dead father. The KIng family is not without it's intellectuals and Free Thinkers - take for instance Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican." Bergmann also said King "subscribed to Republican values" and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.

---- and right into a poison-the-well fallacy that tries to dismiss a direct relative and substitutes an indirect one. "Your son doesn't qualify but my nephew does".

Having it both ways: Priceless. And no reference at all from the man himself as I gave.

You're just digging yourself deeper here.

Fabricated quotes from left wing propagandists will never change the fact that King never registered for Democratic - he always registered Republican as far as who he voted for

Link?

Didn't think so.

- He only stated that had Kennedy lived he would have voted for him is he ran for reelection -which implies he didn't vote for him the first time around .

It does no such thing. In fact I already quoted above (from the autobiography) that King himself writes that he in fact did vote for JFK (and I quote, "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one."
It's right there upstairs dood. You're trying to go but it ain't going away.

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

--- and off to Ad Homistan when all else fails. You got schooled, son. You've been exposed as bullshit and yet you double down in a dyspepsia of delusion.

So my question remains open -- are you some kind of masochist?

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

MLK was a Republican - never a Democrat . He may have voted for JFK - but then so did a lot of Republicans - hell I even made the worst mistake of my voting career when I voted for Obama on hos first term - but that was before all the media suppressed data became available.

There's no evidence he was registered with either party but there are his own words noting that he had "always voted the Democratic ticket" (as of 1956), that he voted for JFK (1960) and would have taken the step of endorsing same in 1964 had JFK lived. So you're still blowing the proverbial smoke out your ass.

The question remains unmolested-- how does your tiny little mind expect to get away with bullshit so easily refuted....
..... little fella?

In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs

Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.

Pogo - Please note that I do applaud your cherry picking of the statement "always voted the Democratic ticket" [as of1956] ... MLK Never said that - and it would have been highly unlikely and out of character - he never publicly endorsed any party and it is extremely unlikely that a Black civil rights leader would have supported the party of Jim Crow in the 50s - Get a grip dude and come back to reality .

You cherry picked that quote from a so called Autobiography that King did not write - it was written and published after his death when the Al Sharptonesque rabble rousers were running amuk " We also know from his autobiography that he wrote to a supporter in 1956 that "in the past, I always voted the Democratic ticket."

Do you even know what Auto-biography means a opposed to biography - do you realize that the entire premise of the book is a joke ? wake up little fella !!!

 

[Pogo]

Really. It isn't even make up shit Thursday.

All your quotes are from Clayborne Carson or MLK 3rd

Horseshit.
I quoted MLK III once and MLK Jr. himself several times, from speech transcripts (verbatim) and his own words in his autobiography, again verbatim, and every one of them linked. You quoted ---- nothing.

Carson is a left wing rabble rouser of the Al Sharpton school of thought - 99% of his King quotes were "invented" long after King was dead

MLK 3 is a slouch whose soul contribution to society is riding in on the coat tails of his dead father. The KIng family is not without it's intellectuals and Free Thinkers - take for instance Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican." Bergmann also said King "subscribed to Republican values" and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.

---- and right into a poison-the-well fallacy that tries to dismiss a direct relative and substitutes an indirect one. "Your son doesn't qualify but my nephew does".

Having it both ways: Priceless. And no reference at all from the man himself as I gave.

You're just digging yourself deeper here.

Fabricated quotes from left wing propagandists will never change the fact that King never registered for Democratic - he always registered Republican as far as who he voted for

Link?

Didn't think so.

- He only stated that had Kennedy lived he would have voted for him is he ran for reelection -which implies he didn't vote for him the first time around .

It does no such thing. In fact I already quoted above (from the autobiography) that King himself writes that he in fact did vote for JFK (and I quote, "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one."
It's right there upstairs dood. You're trying to go but it ain't going away.

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

--- and off to Ad Homistan when all else fails. You got schooled, son. You've been exposed as bullshit and yet you double down in a dyspepsia of delusion.

So my question remains open -- are you some kind of masochist?

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

MLK was a Republican - never a Democrat . He may have voted for JFK - but then so did a lot of Republicans - hell I even made the worst mistake of my voting career when I voted for Obama on hos first term - but that was before all the media suppressed data became available.

There's no evidence he was registered with either party but there are his own words noting that he had "always voted the Democratic ticket" (as of 1956), that he voted for JFK (1960) and would have taken the step of endorsing same in 1964 had JFK lived. So you're still blowing the proverbial smoke out your ass.

The question remains unmolested-- how does your tiny little mind expect to get away with bullshit so easily refuted....
..... little fella?

In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs

Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.

Pogo - Please note that I do applaud your cherry picking of the statement "always voted the Democratic ticket" [as of1956] ... MLK Never said that - and it would have been highly unlikely and out of character - he never publicly endorsed any party and it is extremely unlikely that a Black civil rights leader would have supported the party of Jim Crow in the 50s - Get a grip dude and come back to reality .

You cherry picked that quote from a so called Autobiography that King did not write - it was written and published after his death when the Al Sharptonesque rabble rousers were running amuk " We also know from his autobiography that he wrote to a supporter in 1956 that "in the past, I always voted the Democratic ticket."

Do you even know what Auto-biography means a opposed to biography - do you realize that the entire premise of the book is a joke ? wake up little fella !!!

It's not in the bio, it's in a letter, in his own words, as previously posted, with his signature on it, addressed to Miss Viva Sloan of 379 Baldwin Street in Morgantown, West Virginia. And unlike you I can link directly to the whole thing.
The Papers of Martin Luther King: Rediscovering Precious Values. page 384.

Anything else, masochist?

 

[bripat9643]

Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

You are an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal. That's why you don't understand why you are filled with "liberal bias." It's actually "authoritarian leftist bias."

I am a libertarian, we are the true liberals who actually don't practice bias in government. Government should provide basic services that aren't doable any other way, police, military, that sort of thing, then leave us alone. No bias.

I'm not though. I'm generally opposed to authority, especially self-granted authority. However, I recognize that we need a government given authority by mutual consent to enforce our rights and ensure that no interest becomes too powerful and no person gets left behind. Equality and freedom are the hallmarks of liberalism and so I'm proud to accept the title of liberal.

Equality and freedom are the hallmarks of liberalism and so I'm proud to accept the title of liberal.

Beg to differ ... Ignorance and enslavement are the hallmarks of American Liberals. Liberals are a bumbleclot of narrow minded short sighted people who can't see past the ends of their noses.

They seek to create equality - they create and feed slovenly ethics and enslavement to entitlement.

They create division and strife and feed and bolster the divisions that permeate our society. They enable the ignorant and greedy to parasitize the productive and generous to the point where their productivity and generosity is worn thread bare. They open the gates to the fortress and allow our enemies to flood into the encampment to slaughter us - they are a twisted, ignorant and foolhardy lot those Liberals

Right. That would explain why the democratic party is composed of people from all walks of life while the GOP is composed primarily of old white guys. The fact is that you so-called conservatives are deathly afraid of multiculturalism, the idea that multiple ethnic groups can live together and get along, create a new peaceful world where people of all races and creeds can be successful. How else to explain your xenophobic statement, above?

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

 

[bripat9643]

Argument to ignorance.

Nice try at avoidance. Again, prove me wrong.

No, I won't prove you wrong. Such a demand is logically invalid. You are making an argument to ignorance. I don't have to prove you wrong, you need to support your own position and prove it right. Otherwise, you are simply spouting bullshit.

That is incorrect. I don't have to support what is already common knowledge. What? You didn't know that the Republican Party is run by old white guys? Huh. Take a look at the leadership, dude.

Republican National Leadership GOP

See much racial diversity? Now take a look at the rank and file members?

Again, see much diversity? I rest my case.

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - fuck the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I won't prove you wrong. Such a demand is logically invalid. You are making an argument to ignorance. I don't have to prove you wrong, you need to support your own position and prove it right. Otherwise, you are simply spouting bullshit.

That is incorrect. I don't have to support what is already common knowledge. What? You didn't know that the Republican Party is run by old white guys? Huh. Take a look at the leadership, dude.

Republican National Leadership GOP

See much racial diversity? Now take a look at the rank and file members?

Again, see much diversity? I rest my case.

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Nope!!
I agree with helping them out of poverty by giving them a good education so that they can get good productive jobs and have freedom.
Same as the GOP
P.S. What you are spouting is the lefties lies about the GOP.
Guess What?
The Left lie to the voters too.

And under the various (liberal) civil rights acts of the last 50 years, many have received a good education and found productive jobs. But the poor are not some snap shot of people who you can help and that is the end of it. Until the social and economic conditions that create poverty to begin with are eliminated, you will always have this problem. And likely it will never be gotten rid of entirely. I believe most of it can be eliminated. So I guess I am a liberal, eh? Many Republicans and conservatives, particularly on this forum, just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. When half of the political leadership has this attitude, is it any wonder there are so many poor in this country?

Capitalism is the only thing that will eliminate the "social and economic conditions that create poverty."

 

[bripat9643]

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Nope!!
I agree with helping them out of poverty by giving them a good education so that they can get good productive jobs and have freedom.
Same as the GOP
P.S. What you are spouting is the lefties lies about the GOP.
Guess What?
The Left lie to the voters too.

And under the various (liberal) civil rights acts of the last 50 years, many have received a good education and found productive jobs. But the poor are not some snap shot of people who you can help and that is the end of it. Until the social and economic conditions that create poverty to begin with are eliminated, you will always have this problem. And likely it will never be gotten rid of entirely. I believe most of it can be eliminated. So I guess I am a liberal, eh? Many Republicans and conservatives, particularly on this forum, just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. When half of the political leadership has this attitude, is it any wonder there are so many poor in this country?

The social and economic conditions that create poverty will never be eliminated.
History has proven that no matter what types of Governments are in place, it never fully eliminates poverty and the bigger the government, the less the masses have and the poorer they become.
You are seeing that right now as the Government grew over the last 50 years the less disposable income people have.
Even in cave man times there was the leader who had the best of everything and the rest just shared everything.
Capitalism is not perfect but it has proved to be the best system so far to get people out of poverty, not the government.

But the problem is that we not only don't have Capitalism, a Democracy, nor even a Republic. What we have is an oligarchy. And as long as the 1% defy the 99%, things will never be settled or get better for the vast masses of Americans.

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

 

[peach174]

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Nope!!
I agree with helping them out of poverty by giving them a good education so that they can get good productive jobs and have freedom.
Same as the GOP
P.S. What you are spouting is the lefties lies about the GOP.
Guess What?
The Left lie to the voters too.

And under the various (liberal) civil rights acts of the last 50 years, many have received a good education and found productive jobs. But the poor are not some snap shot of people who you can help and that is the end of it. Until the social and economic conditions that create poverty to begin with are eliminated, you will always have this problem. And likely it will never be gotten rid of entirely. I believe most of it can be eliminated. So I guess I am a liberal, eh? Many Republicans and conservatives, particularly on this forum, just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. When half of the political leadership has this attitude, is it any wonder there are so many poor in this country?

The social and economic conditions that create poverty will never be eliminated.
History has proven that no matter what types of Governments are in place, it never fully eliminates poverty and the bigger the government, the less the masses have and the poorer they become.
You are seeing that right now as the Government grew over the last 50 years the less disposable income people have.
Even in cave man times there was the leader who had the best of everything and the rest just shared everything.
Capitalism is not perfect but it has proved to be the best system so far to get people out of poverty, not the government.

But the problem is that we not only don't have Capitalism, a Democracy, nor even a Republic. What we have is an oligarchy. And as long as the 1% defy the 99%, things will never be settled or get better for the vast masses of Americans.

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

They are referring to the rich lobbyists who are running and influencing Washington.

 

[TSJohnson]

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

 

[orogenicman]

That is incorrect. I don't have to support what is already common knowledge. What? You didn't know that the Republican Party is run by old white guys? Huh. Take a look at the leadership, dude.

Republican National Leadership GOP

See much racial diversity? Now take a look at the rank and file members?

Again, see much diversity? I rest my case.

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Nope!!
I agree with helping them out of poverty by giving them a good education so that they can get good productive jobs and have freedom.
Same as the GOP
P.S. What you are spouting is the lefties lies about the GOP.
Guess What?
The Left lie to the voters too.

And under the various (liberal) civil rights acts of the last 50 years, many have received a good education and found productive jobs. But the poor are not some snap shot of people who you can help and that is the end of it. Until the social and economic conditions that create poverty to begin with are eliminated, you will always have this problem. And likely it will never be gotten rid of entirely. I believe most of it can be eliminated. So I guess I am a liberal, eh? Many Republicans and conservatives, particularly on this forum, just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. When half of the political leadership has this attitude, is it any wonder there are so many poor in this country?

Capitalism is the only thing that will eliminate the "social and economic conditions that create poverty."

Yes because we see how well that has worked out.

 

[orogenicman]

Nice try at avoidance. Again, prove me wrong.

No, I won't prove you wrong. Such a demand is logically invalid. You are making an argument to ignorance. I don't have to prove you wrong, you need to support your own position and prove it right. Otherwise, you are simply spouting bullshit.

That is incorrect. I don't have to support what is already common knowledge. What? You didn't know that the Republican Party is run by old white guys? Huh. Take a look at the leadership, dude.

Republican National Leadership GOP

See much racial diversity? Now take a look at the rank and file members?

Again, see much diversity? I rest my case.

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - fuck the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

 

[bripat9643]

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

Neither definition applies to the United States, or any democracy, for that matter.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I won't prove you wrong. Such a demand is logically invalid. You are making an argument to ignorance. I don't have to prove you wrong, you need to support your own position and prove it right. Otherwise, you are simply spouting bullshit.

That is incorrect. I don't have to support what is already common knowledge. What? You didn't know that the Republican Party is run by old white guys? Huh. Take a look at the leadership, dude.

Republican National Leadership GOP

See much racial diversity? Now take a look at the rank and file members?

Again, see much diversity? I rest my case.

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "fuck the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - fuck the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

 

[orogenicman]

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

Neither definition applies to the United States, or any democracy, for that matter.

According to a new Princeton study, it does. By the way, the U.S. is not a Democracy. You didn't know this? Huh.