Surprise, surprise!

Socialists will blame their failures on anyone and insult everyone for the failure of socialism.

so what it the Democrat party's stance against anti-lynching laws, their Jim Crow laws, or that all the KKK grand dragons were democrats that shifted voting patterns to Republicans. (who the KKK targeted) ???

Gee, I wonder if the idiot doing the "study" is a democratic. It's astonishing that anyone thinks such a study could possibly be unbiased.

Ten out of the last thirteen KKK members notable in American politics were democrats. The last congressional member who had KKK associations was a democratic, Robert Byrd.

The purpose of the above fraudulent "study" is to spoon feed imbeciles a grotesque caricature of republicans to obfuscate the principal on which that party stands. The NAZI's did the same to the Jews in Germany in the 1930's.

The more that racist attitudes diminish from one generation to the next, the more convoluted the manufacturer of racism needs to be,.. as this idiotic "study" demonstrates.

The political far left clearly does not want their indoctrination victims to become curious or motivated enough to seek to learn what conservative principles actually are,.... so they build their emotionally charged caricature to ward them off, fearing they will discover that conservatives make rational sense.

Race and abortion are hot buttons the elite employ to keep the dimwit masses locked in Hegelian dialects while they continue construction of Nimrod's Tower of Babel. The penis worshipers have always ruled and now they have engineered ways to lock the world into serfdom despite the vassals speaking over 60,000 different languages. They issue gold-backed currency in new democracies then slowly replace the local gold currency with debt-based fiat which is mathematically impossible to repay. Thus the world will be enslaved

I wonder if ....

Claude Allen
Herman Cain
Condoleezza Rice
Ben Carson
Lynn Hutchings
Alan Keyes
Colin Powell
Condoleezza Rice
Tim Scott
Michael Steele
Thomas Sowell
Clarence Thomas
Scott Turner
J.C. Watts
Alan West
etc,...

...would buy into the fraudulent narrative that republicans are racist. The list of black republicans continues to grow, exposing that intellectual corruption with each day.

USA democrats are currently trying to instigate WWIII with Russia, so I would not say they are liberal except in superficial ways

The racism of lowered expectations, government dependency, and the perpetual racial victimization industry implicit in liberalism has done more harm to black Americans than the KKK could ever have dreamed possible.

The klan is another example of a xian terrorist organization.

"They targeted African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities.
Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. The goals of the KKK included, from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman." From 1915 Klansmen conducted cross-burnings not only to intimidate targets, but also to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the ritual of lighting crosses was steeped in Christian symbolism, including saying prayers and singing Christian hymns."

-Based on the judicious interpretation of what is in fact codified bigotry. Religions all make such movements inevitable.

Based upon the timline, As the Democrat Party's terrorist wing (the KKK) began to increase their terrorism against Republicans, who unlike the Democrat party's platform, has always been against Slavery and and Racism....Black Republicans like Martin Luther King (who was also a 2nd Amendment supporter) displayed non-violent protest against Democrats.

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. 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.Dr. King was fighting the Democrats like Bull Connor, member of the DNC, who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs.
People could see the kind of people Democrats really are so began to migrate to the Republican Party and away from the racist Dems.

If the Republicans just paid for their Bush Wars, we could give all blacks good jobs, and ourselves a few trillion dollars into our savings, instead of the World's Biggest Bad Debt.

No president in history has increased the national debt more than Obama, who in his first four years has increased the debt more than Bush did in eight years, and Bush had two wars,.... voted for by democrats. Not that I think you care for facts.

... The purpose of the above fraudulent "study" is to spoon feed imbeciles a grotesque caricature of republicans to obfuscate the principal on which that party stands. The NAZI's did the same to the Jews in Germany in the 1930's.

"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans."

Now defend the "Southern Strategy", Noumenon.

Putin's game of NovoRossia is going to fail, and he will not last as Vlad the First, Czar of All the Russias.

Glad you know the future, gkam. Did you know that in history nations that have all the gold are the world's most powerful?

You literally can't imagine losing a war, and that affects your thinking in ways that are hard to imagine. So, once committed you keep on trying to achieve victory even when the only rational decision is to withdraw. ESCALATION has always worked for you. in the past ESCALATION has never caused you loss, and so it's the only thing they know how to do. And when ESCALATION does not give you the victory you expect, then you'll be left with nothing at all! You are giving away your gold for nothing, and so cozying up to utter destruction

For all you education and experience you claim, you are a willful IDIOT who has no business predicting what our president will achieve or who time will favor

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Why do Democrats hate blacks? Democrats keep them in poverty, they kill them before they're born, they import criminal aliens to keep them unemployed, they encourage behaviors in them to keep them unemployable with an extremely high likelihood of winding up in jail or dead. They ridicule any who try to improve themselves and especially those that think for themselves.

Democrats, the KKK, the socialist, the communists and Planned parenthood all working to keep the blacks down all in order to enrich and empower themselves. They distort history so that low informational people think the KKK and Republicans are linked at the hip, when the truth is that the republicans freed black people and the KKK and Democrats have and still are linked at the hip.

when the truth is that the republicans freed black people

Yes, by using force to assert the dominance of the federal government over states' rights. Considering that the current Republican party is now trying to tear down the federal government, it is obvious to everyone but morons like you that it's the same party in name only. Go read some history books.

when the truth is that the republicans freed black people

Yes, by using force to assert the dominance of the federal government over states' rights. Considering that the current Republican party is now trying to tear down the federal government . . .

Political parties are like biological organisms. They only do what's necessary to survive and prosper. The ones that don't die off. If one party had control of legislative and executive branches it's unlikely there would be much movement towards reducing the size of the government. Big government means lots of politicians, lots of politics - the succor and nourishment of political parties.

That's not to say we wouldn't hear lots of lip service to reducing size. And as history has taught us, a shell game obfuscating and shifting funding and resources around.

the republicans freed black people

Yes, by using force to assert the dominance of the federal government over states' rights. [...gibberish...].

You've been spoon fed a propagandized myth,... and it was washed done with your confusion over the difference between 'state rights' and 'state sovereignty'. The south seceded from the union, to defend slavery, not to "uphold states rights".

"A power to destroy the government itself [is not a power reserved to the states]" - Abraham Lincoln

Only after the war, did 'states rights' come into play, and that concept was only used by democrats as an effective means of resistance against federal gov efforts to end segregation and discrimination, ..to protect Jim Crow laws. The proof is that even after big gov liberal democrats came to power in the '30's,, "state rights' was still used for that purpose, which is in conflict with big gov ideology.

Republicans limit federal gov to protect the constitution for ALL.

Political parties are like biological organisms. They only do what's necessary to survive and prosper.

I wouldn't be that cynical. There is a clear distinction between ideologies, as long as one accounts for the fact that some terms have only contextual meaning in era and origination, and not all representatives of an ideology act as it's embodiment.

For example, liberals try to maintain that because the NAZI's were "right wing" they're to be equated with American "right wing", despite the fact that American conservatives are for limited gov, while the NAZI's was the party that took the previous socialist party to its natural conclusion, gov control.

Even the term "liberal" is supposed to mean "for liberty",... despite that the "progressive liberals" invented big gov, which was post civil war, ...so it is a lie that Lincoln was a big gov guy. He was a constitution and Declaration of Independence guy.

Big government means lots of politicians, lots of politics - the succor and nourishment of political parties.

It aslo means billionaires like Buffet, Gates, Soros, ...can buy access an push their agendas, AND make special deals for themselves.
This is NOT a critique of capitalists but of socialism.

That's not to say we wouldn't hear lots of lip service to reducing size. And as history has taught us, a shell game obfuscating and shifting funding and resources around

Obfuscation of facts is the key weapon in politics as the above "study" demonstrates,... ultimately harming both sides,.. the idiot doing the study above now has effectively stopped some from objectively considering republican ideas, based on an emotional fallacy. Barakn has already been victimized evidently.

LOL u(lo)sers barakn, jsdarkdestruction, Estevan57, Vietvet think they can take over the entire world with no money. Just cruse around the Bering Straits for thousands of kilometers and mafia won't jack your ships loaded with booty. Europe short on energy because Russia found better deals with easterners paying 50% more. China able to supply Europe with products shipped as fast as NY to LA. USA has divested itself of industry. 80% of USA slaves work in service industry. Well soon they can get to work fighting pirates at the North Pole

Political parties are like biological organisms. They only do what's necessary to survive and prosper.

Then so is the 'intellectual'. Nobel winner Hayek wrote an essay discussing why the 'intellectual' lets himself be co-opted by state power supporting and justifying all sorts of vile atrocities.
http://mises.org/...sm_4.pdf

MIT's Gruber lied about Obamcare to sell it to stupid voters. Stupid voters are the ones who trust 'experts' like Gruber and Mann and ....
It's too bad institutions like Brandise, MIT and Harvard can no longer be trusted to be objective with their research.

LOL u(lo)sers barakn, jsdarkdestruction, Estevan57, Vietvet think they can take over the entire world with no money. Just cruse around the Bering Straits for thousands of kilometers and mafia won't jack your ships loaded with booty. Europe short on energy because Russia found better deals with easterners paying 50% more. China able to supply Europe with products shipped as fast as NY to LA. USA has divested itself of industry. 80% of USA slaves work in service industry. Well soon they can get to work fighting pirates at the North Pole

The USA could crush Russia's economy without even meaning to.

LOL u(lo)sers barakn, jsdarkdestruction, Estevan57, Vietvet think they can take over the entire world with no money. ... Europe short on energy because Russia found better deals with easterners paying 50% more. China able to supply Europe with products shipped as fast as NY to LA. USA has divested itself of industry. 80% of USA slaves work in service industry.

The USA could crush Russia's economy without even meaning to.

Russia precipitated your 2008 crash, Neurotard. But since your a conservaturd why don't you listen to an insider who shows that 16 USA intelligence agencies are predicting the USA implosion: https://www.youtu...ia1Mw9Vw

Now since you yanks bribed the Dutch, Belgium wants it's gold back too Neurotard. Where you hiding it, big rich guy??? Well put some pennies in VietVet's cup so he can save USA with downvotes. He should have a PhD on losing military strategies

Russia precipitated [USA's] 2008 crash, [Noumenon]

How did they do that?

Russia precipitated [USA's] 2008 crash, [Noumenon]

How did they do that?

Russia liquidated all of its Fannie/Freddie holdings in 2008, after acquiring $65 billion of the recollateralized debt obligation AAA Moodie's junk notes earlier that year. "The bonds in which we have invested have not incurred losses but instead have made us more than a billion dollars in the last six months," Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin was quoted as saying by Ria Novosti news agency.

But really I doubt most Russians will sign up with your Whore of Babylon unipolar club even if you stopped imposing economic terrorism today

Why do Democrats hate blacks?... they import criminal aliens to keep them unemployed

This is how the mind of a racist like freethinking works. It assumes that black people would be content with the low-wage, menial jobs currently performed by illegal immigrants.

I just found out that I wanted to take over the world!
I think I will, but leave out Russia. That country is in the economic toilet.

http://www.forbes...in-foot/

http://www.xe.com...;view=5Y

http://finance.ya...983.html

http://www.thegua...le-falls

http://www.abcact...-in-2015

http://www.thegua...stronger

Wow, there are a vast number of people here (interestingly it's those who scream that it's all a liberal/socialist conspiracy) who don't know much if anything about 20th century US political history.

Before the rise of the Progressive movement around 1900, the Democratic Party was the dominant conservative party in the country, in the 19th century sense of the word: opposed to classical liberalism and a free market (the central pillars of 'modern' conservatism) and devoted to tariffs and machine politics. However, in the latter years of the 19th century, the originally Big Tent-nature of the Republican Party shrunk to a narrow base of big business and the financial sector. This led to the break between Theodore Roosevelt and the GOP. In the period 1913-1932 the Democratic Party was looking for a new electoral position, but it was difficult - they managed to take over the progressive elements in the north, but remained the Conservative party in the south (continued in next post

In the South, the GOP had been marginal and remained far more liberal than in the North, essentially maintaining two different political systems - one in the North and, in a modified form, on the West Coast and one in the South and some of the Heartland. This schizoid coalition of left and hard right began to fall apart during the New Deal (just think of the FDR - John Nance Garner conflict), but it didn't collapse completely because FDR characteristically played to what his audience wanted to hear and national mass-media were still marginal. This changed after WWII, and between the Truman and Johnson-administrations a shift of Southern conservatives to the GOP took place. When Johnson, a Texan, turned out to be a true northern Democrat and launced civil rights legislation far beyond anything FDR, Truman or Kennedy had done, the GOP used this fact in the 1964 and 1968 elections (Southern Strategy) to co-opt racist votes and destroy the Democratic hegemony. (continued in next post)

Those racist-liberal politicians that remained in the South were quickly ousted or converted to the new racist-conservative format the GOP introduced in the south (while remaining fairly race-neutral in the north...for a while). The Nixon-election, with a Republican carrying the South, concluded a shift that had taken over half a century.

Back to the article here: a point the authors seem to have missed is that the White Citizens' Councils contributed far more than the KKK, which was usually little more than a tool in the hands of the WCCs. The WCCs merged seamlessly into the political establishment after the period of Massive Resistance, whereas the KKK remained marginal and became ever more marginalized after it felt itself forced to associate with neo-nazi groups.

Charles Barkley, is from Alabama.
Condoleezza Rice is from Alabama.
'Racist' AL?

@ryggesogn2:

Unable to comprehend both the facts that situations can change in 50-60 years and that exceptions don't negate the basic pattern? If 100 people apply to a company, 50 white and 50 black, to fill 50 jobs, and the company hires 48 white people and 2 black people, that proves decisively that there is no racism in said company? Is that really the point you are trying to make?

the republicans freed black people

Yes, by using force to assert the dominance of the federal government over states' rights. [...gibberish...].

You've been spoon fed a propagandized myth,...

Republicans limit federal gov to protect the constitution for ALL.

Clearly, YOU are buying into a myth. The GOP, from the Civil War to World War I, was a BIG GOVERNMENT party that nonetheless gradually espoused ever more conservative political views. You are trying to perpetuate the lie that big government = liberal, which is patently untrue as proven by the political history of the late 19th century.

Whichever party is responsible, the social structure of the black family has been destroyed by the welfare state. 70% of black births are to single mothers and people think that black poverty is due to discrimination. Government "welfare" programs have enslaved the blacks by giving them a sense of entitlement and some black leaders have enslaved them by saying that "white man" is the root cause of their poverty so why even try.

You do realize that the holes in that reasoning are so big that you could fit the entire Old South in them?

It's just ideological wishful thinking on your part. The right loves to blame "welfare" for everything - but conveniently ignores how the most "socialist" institution, from an economic point of view, is the US defense industry, which is kept unassailable (at $600 billion/year in all) by BOTH parties' corrupt congressmen....and is IDEOLOGICALLY supported by the GOP. No GOP president has done ANYTHING to tackle the out-of-control defense budgets and the pentagon's becoming a state-within-a-state since Eisenhower.

Big government means lots of politicians, lots of politics - the succor and nourishment of political parties.

It aslo means billionaires like Buffet, Gates, Soros, ...can buy access an push their agendas, AND make special deals for themselves.
This is NOT a critique of capitalists but of socialism.

The fact that **big capital** can buy itself laws and buy itself exemption from existing laws is "NOT a critique of capitalists but of socialism"? Do you even read the crap you write?

the most "socialist" institution, from an economic point of view, is the US defense industry,

National defense IS a legitimate function of the state.
Wealth redistribution is not.

out-of-control defense budgets

There is no such thing.

**big capital** can buy itself laws

That's how the FDA was created. The big five meat packers colluded to create a federal agency to regulate their industry. They could afford to pass on the costs. Their competition could not.
Socialism is state control of property. When GE or Solyndra or Musk can get some ABC agency to GIVE them plundered wealth, that is the state plundering private wealth for a political end.
DoD and other govts agencies can buy products and services needed for them to do their legitimate functions.
Ever wonder why the Transportation trust fund is always out of money? It is said fuel taxes are too low. But no one has anything to say about how corrupt the road construction business is.

Now we have Democrats trying to import cheap voters and crony businesses trying to import cheap labor by forgiving all those who broke the law entering the US.
While they did break the law, the law was not vigorously enforced and under the 'dear leader', the border is essentially just a line on the map that anyone can cross with impunity.
And anyone who wants the immigration laws to be enforced is called 'racist' by the socialists who are destroying the US.
Even Norway and Sweden are deporting Muslims who are causing trouble. The US is releasing criminal aliens onto US streets.

What runaway defense budgets?

"Commander in Chief Barack Obama and the Progressive Left have already cut our military budget by more than $850 billion over the next ten years. More than 50 weapons development programs and weapons systems have been cut, including the F-22 and major programs in our missile defense system. Obama cut another $500 billion form our military with his cleverly planned "Fiscal Cliff" scheme to raise taxes on everyone and to drastically and permanently cut both military and Medicare spending."
"General George S. Patton explained the problem Pacifism and public ignorance with exceptional clarity,

"It is certain that the two World Wars in which I have participated would not have occurred had we been prepared. It is my belief that adequate preparation on our part would have prevented or materially shortened all our other wars beginning with that of 1812. "
http://lubbockonline.com/

Quinn must be a socialist who wants the US be subsumed by socialism or a fool who has little regard for history.
But that is redundant.

If 100 people apply to a company, 50 white and 50 black, to fill 50 jobs, and the company hires 48 white people and 2 black people, that proves decisively that there is no racism in said company?

How could it be proven without direct knowledge of the mind-set of the hiring managers? It is in the companies best interest to hire the best qualified applicants, irrespective of race.

The same irresponsible and accusationary mush-headed liberal misanalysis of facts leads to complaints that police are targeting blacks since more blacks are injured and incarcerated police.

This allows liberals to obfuscate and avoid the core issues facing the black community so that their own policies are not exposed as categorical failures.

The pc presumption that blacks are as qualified as whites, or that they commit proportionally similar crime rates, is not backed up by statistical facts.

the republicans freed black people

Yes, by using force to assert the dominance of the federal government over states' rights. [...gibberish...].

You've been spoon fed a propagandized myth,...

Republicans limit federal gov to protect the constitution for ALL.

Clearly, YOU are buying into a myth. The GOP, from the Civil War to World War I, was a BIG GOVERNMENT party that nonetheless gradually espoused ever more conservative political views. You are trying to perpetuate the lie that big government = liberal, which is patently untrue as proven by the political history of the late 19th century.

As clear from my subsequent post (and actually from the context), I meant 'liberal progressivism' invented big gov. This is a fact. They invented the notion of a expansive gov with an 'evolving' constitution.

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal progressive, and their army of statisticians.

Some blacks (and whites and ....) in the US are too willing to follow the 'liberal'
lead and make excuses for their failures.
There will always be someone from a 'liberal' govt 'to help' 'right the wrong' and redistribute wealth.
This empowers 'liberals'. Provides a constituency of slaves that keep them in power.
When will these slave realize they are being used?
Maybe they will get a hint when millions of illegal aliens are more important slaves to the 'liberals'.

If 100 people apply to a company, 50 white and 50 black, to fill 50 jobs, and the company hires 48 white people and 2 black people, that proves decisively that there is no racism in said company?

By your emotionally driven assessment (in fact itself racist in its unfounded presumptions), the racist team owner Ronald Sterling would have had an all white team,... and their would be more whites in sports generally. Why not then,.... if it is untrue that it is in the owners/companies best interest to hire the best qualified applicants, irrespective of race?

Liberals would 'hoist themselves on their own petard' if the stepped outside their PC bubble and faced the hard facts. They're too disinterested apart from political advantage and too irresponsible and dishonest to do so.

,... which is to say, liberals are so ready to pull the race card as a political weapon at every opportunity, they have rendered themselves ineptly PC, least they get themselves ensnared in their own trap. The end result is non-existent honest analysis of facts wrt issues effecting minority's.

If 100 people apply to a company, 50 white and 50 black, to fill 50 jobs, and the company hires 48 white people and 2 black people, that proves decisively that there is no racism in said company?

How could it be proven without direct knowledge of the mind-set of the hiring managers? It is in the companies best interest to hire the best qualified applicants, irrespective of race.

--blah blah blah edited for reasons of length --

The pc presumption that blacks are as qualified as whites, or that they commit proportionally similar crime rates, is not backed up by statistical facts.

You can shoot holes in my story as much as you like, in fact I encourage you to do so - as the whole point of my parabel was to illustrate that **the reasoning I was mocking** was flawed for drawing conclusions that do not follow logically out of the facts. So you got that right, congrats! Just too bad you missed how my whole post was a criticism of rygg's falacious reasoning.

As clear from my subsequent post (and actually from the context), I meant 'liberal progressivism' invented big gov. This is a fact. They invented the notion of a expansive gov with an 'evolving' constitution.

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal progressive, and their army of statisticians.

You never heard of mercantilism and the era of absolute monarchy? That was a big government era if ever there was one! The expression "byzantine" for a bureaucracy, where did you think that came from? Not by any chance from Byzantium, a big government multi-ethnic state in antiquity? To say that liberal progressivism came up with big government all on its own is ridiculous, and to maintain that the right cannot be big government is ludicrous and counter-factual. Your problem is that you seem to be unaware of the existence of a world outside (and before) the US.

By your emotionally driven assessment (in fact itself racist in its unfounded presumptions), the racist team owner Ronald Sterling

- blah, blah, edited for brevity -

(Liberals) They're too disinterested apart from political advantage and too irresponsible and dishonest to do so.

This is getting seriously funny! So you, too, fail to realize entirely how my post lampoons rygg's own reasoning, despite it being expressed so clearly in the opening and conclusion of that very post you are failing to comprehend, and so you opt to shoot holes in it, thereby proving MY point - that rygg's attempted anti-liberal AL-jab doesn't add up at all. He assumes that by naming two succesful black people from Alabama, he disproves the existence of racism in Alabama. I mocked that notion by applying the exact same logic to a scenario that best reveals its idiocy, and you helped me do so!

"General George S. Patton explained the problem Pacifism and public ignorance with exceptional clarity,

"It is certain that the two World Wars in which I have participated would not have occurred had we been prepared. It is my belief that adequate preparation on our part would have prevented or materially shortened all our other wars beginning with that of 1812. "
http://lubbockonline.com/

The arrogant stupidity! To think that America had anything at all to do with the outbreak of the First World War is laughable, and its contribution to the start of the Second is extremely slim. May I remind you that before American combat involvement, both wars had been going for over two years? If you're going to tell others that they don't know history, you might want to learn a thing or two about the world outside the US before you open your mouth and look like an absolute fool again. To think George S. Patton's hindsight speculation constitutes proof! Now that is funny!

"The more the AAAS, and so the science community, is seen to line up behind one party, the less claim it will have to special status in informing difficult political and social decisions. Public regard for scientists remains particularly high, and for politicians, particularly low. Blurring the boundaries between these groups is not likely to redound to the benefit of politicians, but to the detriment of scientists."
http://www.nature...-1.16473

May I remind you that before American combat involvement, both wars had been going for over two years?

"However, was America to blame for the lack of speed in her military build-up? Whereas Britain had spent time in 1914 planning for war and creating 6 divisions for the European campaign, America was all but starting from the beginning. In peacetime, the American army only numbered 190,000 and they were spread across America. Now with the declaration of war, these men had to move to the eastern seaboard where many camps had to be built to accommodate them before they sailed across the Atlantic. French ports had to be greatly expanded to handle the influx of men and the French rail network in the region had to be expanded."
http://www.histor...ower.htm

"On July 18th, 1918, the French launched a major attack against the Germans from the Forest of Villers-Cotterêts. This attack included two American divisions - a total of 54,000 men. By August 1918, there were nearly 1,500,000 American troops in France. Germany could only muster 300,000 youths. The Allies were planning for a major attack in 1919 that would be led by 100 American divisions. Faced with such odds, the Germans had no choice but to look for a way out of fighting. This led to the armistice in November 1918 that itself led to the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919."
http://www.histor...ower.htm

After WWI, the war to end all wars, US forces withdrew from Europe, Germany rebuilt its military with new technology. Japan built up its military. The US and Allies did not.
In 1928 Billy Mitchel warned Japan would attack. He was court-martialed.

Want peace? Be prepared for war.
Quinn must not want peace.

"General Pershing's personal correspondence, magazine articles, testimony before
Congressional committees, and in speeches to private groups, he labored, "to keep the
Army's body and soul together and to stave off further manpower cuts." He also asserted
that no "blind belief in the benevolence of peoples will prevent wars," he called for
"reasonable preparedness." Further justifying his beliefs he pointed out that the Army
had been engaged in some kind of military operation every eighteen months of its
existence, and in a major war every twenty or thirty years. "Is human nature going to
change?" he asked, "Are conditions in the world any different from what they have been
in the last fifteen or twenty centuries? Are wars becoming less frequent or any less
severe?"7"
'ARMY DOWNSIZING FOLLOWING WORLD WAR I, WORLD
WAR II, VIETNAM, AND A COMPARISON
TO RECENT ARMY DOWNSIZING"

"Hudson Maxim wrote in Defenseless America that the citizenry
of the United States believed that the country as a whole was big enough and prosperous
enough to be safe. He felt the general population knew little or nothing about national
defense and believed a large standing Army was a menace to liberty.12 His thoughts on
our preparations for war at the time was prophetic to say the least:
This country must first be whipped in order to prepare sufficiently to prevent
being whipped. Therefore, our business at the present time is to pick our
conquerors. . . . If England does not give us a good, timely whipping, we are
going to be whipped by Germany or Japan, and the humiliation will be more than
is really needed to stimulate us for adequate preparation.13"
'ARMY DOWNSIZING FOLLOWING WORLD WAR I, WORLD
WAR II, VIETNAM, AND A COMPARISON
TO RECENT ARMY DOWNSIZING"

Democrats are racists.
Conservatives believe blacks are just as smart as whites and that all people should be judged according to their abilities, talents, and character.

Democrats believe blacks need to be exterminated which is why they support planned parenthood killing black babies at 5 times the rate of white children.

Democrats believe blacks have a lower IQ which is why they support removing educational standards for blacks, support special schools for blacks, etc.

Democrats believe blacks are not as driven or unable to be as qualified as whites so they support policies of quotas.

Democrats don't believe blacks can behave as good nor can they face the same consequences as whites, so cops need to treat black thugs with kit gloves. If a white thug beat up a cop, grabbed the cops gun, tried to charge the cop again and then got shot, that would be ok. But a black thug, oh you have to be careful.

If you want to see democrat racism full bore, be an outspoken conservative black person.

More black persons are killed by White democrat abortionists than are killed by any other causes.

More black persons are kept in poverty by White democrat policies than any other group.

Just ask yourself this question under the last 6 years of Democratic rule in the USA has the outlook for blacks improved?

This is getting seriously funny! So you, too, fail to realize entirely how my post lampoons rygg's own reasoning, despite it being expressed so clearly in the opening and conclusion of that very post you are failing to comprehend, and so you opt to shoot holes in it, thereby proving MY point - that rygg's attempted anti-liberal AL-jab doesn't add up at all. He assumes that by naming two succesful black people from Alabama, he disproves the existence of racism in Alabama. I mocked that notion by applying the exact same logic to a scenario that best reveals its idiocy, and you helped me do so!

My apologies. I was not following the discussion between you two and took your post as it stood,... so seemed like you were arguing that it would imply racism (after all many do make that exact claim).

"minority's" is not plural.

Thank you, I should have written "minorities".

...I write on my phone on the go, so I promise more work for you.

Just ask yourself this question under the last 6 years of Democratic rule in the USA has the outlook for blacks improved?

How can democrats ever make improvements for blacks, ...it would be defined as "racist" to even discuss the failure of the black subculture, according to liberals and the perpetual victim industry.

In the eyes of 'liberals' being opposed to them is most egregious and trumps race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.
A black woman from UT is attacked by feminists and the NAA(L)CP because she is a conservative Republican.

" give people money, or they will abandon their children, drop out of school, and refuse to get a job – even, as Cunha defends, burn down the property of their fellow citizens and attack police officers.

That's racial blackmail.

It's also nothing new. In his book, The Future Once Happened Here, Fred Siegel of the Manhattan Institute writes of the 1960s "riot ideology," the belief on the left that in the aftermath of race riots, "more money for the cities was essential – if not to halt riots, then to contain the still rising racial anger, which expressed itself in rising rates of often violent crime." That is why, for example, President Lyndon Johnson's attorney general, Nicholas Katzenbach, "warned of riots in 'thirty or forty' more cities if the Model Cities legislation providing funds for community renewal projects wasn't passed quickly." "
http://www.breitb...n-blacks

Leave it to the KKK to bring the resident conservatives out of the wood work.

Leave it to the KKK to bring the resident conservatives out of the wood work.

It is more than a little suspicious how some supposedly 'mainstream' conservatives feel the need to get into the defensive whenever the KKK is mentioned. Might their defensiveness stem from a little voice in the back of their minds saying "hey, those KKK-guys have a number of things in common with us, let's pre-empt that before a Liberal realizes the same thing!"

No, the KKK and the GOP are not the same, not by a long run. But it would be a credit to self-described conservatives if they could simply say "we reject the KKK and its interpretation of Christianity and conservatism" rather than trying pathetically to pin the KKK to the present-day Democratic party. That's as stupid as saying the GOP is the main big government party because Lincoln was perhaps the greatest big-government advocate in American political history.

No, the KKK and the GOP are not the same, not by a long run. But it would be a credit to self-described conservatives if they could simply say "we reject the KKK and its interpretation of Christianity and conservatism"

They can't because they sincerely don't.

we reject the KKK and its interpretation of Christianity and conservatism" rather than trying pathetically to pin the KKK to the present-day Democratic party.

Rejecting the KKK is a given, but it is much more fun tying the KKK to 'liberals' as it is always the 'liberals' who are doing the race baiting and are blatant hypocrites.
And quite likely, most 'liberals' here are not aware how some of their fellow 'liberals' were in the KKK and are quite racist.

And when the 'liberals' accuse conservatives of being fascist, it's amusing to point out fascism is a another form of socialism.

And when the 'liberals' accuse conservatives of being fascist, it's amusing to point out fascism is a another form of socialism.

It's amusing especially to observers, because it tells them that the person claiming fascism is a form of socialism is an idiot. Fascism arose as a conservative, right-wing REACTION to the rise of socialism. Hence it's a REACTIONARY ideology. Only a handful of simpletons maintain that, who evidently know nothing about, to name but a few examples, the suppliers of funds to the fascist movements of the early 20th century, the people and parties who helped them into power, the people who joined their ranks and the people who gave them public and private support. Hint: the military (particularly the officer corps), large industrialists, conservative Catholic political parties and cultural nationalists are not very likely to support socialism in any form, yet it was they who supported fascism in its rise.

The inventor of Fascism stated explicitly that is a form of socialism.
It is national socialism.
Regardless of who is controlling the monopoly of power: a king, a committee, a dictator, ...if that monopoly (e.g., a state) controls private property, it is socialism. Mises defined is quite well in "Socialism".
One denomination of socialist likes to claim their socialism is NOT like the other forms who murder, and assert the NAZI's were not socialists to make them feel better about themselves, or to sell their socialism to the ignorant.
But in the end, socialism is as socialism does, controls the lives and property of others.

Bastiat defined socialism quite simply as 'positive' law in The Law.
We now call it the Regulatory State where the legislator believes he knows best how you should live your life and passes laws that force you to live the way he thinks you should.
So we have laws banning soft drinks, light bulbs, toilets, .....all property one thinks one should be able to purchase as one choose.
But the 'liberal'/socialists knows better and must control the property you want to sell and buy. And when the individual opposes such laws, like selling untaxed cigs on a sidewalk, the police might kill you.
Socialism is as socialism does, control the lives and property of others.

It's a waste of time to ask you to think logically, but here goes:

The ANTI-SOCIALIST military and large industrialists helped the nazis rise to power. They didn't get a majority, so the CONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC centre-party started a coalition government with them. When the nazis banned all other parties, they still relied heavily on non-nazi CONSERVATIVES (like Hjalmar Schacht and Von Papen) for government functions. The vast majority of the army was non-nazi conservative, but supported the regime for being a defense against "the left".

And when they finally had absolute power, the nazis started by persecuting socialists and communists even before systematic persecution of the Jews was introduced. Anti-semitism was a rather broadly held view at the time, but was extremely marginal among left-wing groups and almost ubiquitous amongst (especially Catholic) conservatives.

You are simply an imbecile who knows nothing about history but can't resist opening his big far-right mouth

Say, rygg...if the nazis were such socialists...then how come the vast majority of the European resistance in occupied countries AND Germany itself came from communists, socialists and left-leaning Christians? And how come so many American CONSERVATIVES, like Strom Thurmond and Charles Lindbergh supported Hitler and the nazis?

It is amazing how the commentary here shows so clearly the way all logic and intellect goes out the window when there is any mention of the two major US political parties in a scientific paper. Basically the paper itself is ignored and instead, an all out war of words between ideologues ensues. The US political mentality is so completely domineering and dysfunctional it is a wonder the country runs at all.

"Psychology professor Dr. Blake Armstrong, who teaches at South Texas College in Weslaco, Texas, was caught on video comparing the Tea Party to the Nazis.

You've got to love the new "everybody-is-a-journalist" era.

To cover his tracks, Armstrong "told his students not to 'tell anybody' about his remarks — but one of his students had already started filming after he allegedly called Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) a 'bastard' for using the name 'Cruz' to win his election.""
http://eaglerisin...y-nazis/

When the nazis banned all other parties,

Socialist denominations despise competition. Socialism is all about power and control over the lives of others.

Basically the paper itself is ignored

No, it's not ignored. This discussion is applies as the 'liberals' in the US quickly accuse their opponents of being KKK when in fact, the KKK has much in common with modern 'liberalism'.

Strom Thurmond and Charles Lindbergh supported Hitler and the nazis

So did FDR.
They envied the power Mussolini and Hitler had over the state. There was even an old Star Trek episode where a professor admired the NAZIs for their quick rise to power from near utter defeat in a few short years.
There have been many 'liberals' in recent months who envied the Chinese dictators for their power to create and enforce laws without regard to a Constitution.
John Dingle just commented he laments the lack of compromise in Congress now. Funny how 'liberals' complain when people begin to stop compromising with evil.
"When you compromise with evil, evil always wins." Ayn Rand.

And when they finally had absolute power, the nazis started by persecuting socialists and communists

Because they were not national socialists.
Why did the Soviet socialists starve millions of their own? Why did the Mao socialists starve millions? Whey did Pol Pot murder so many?

You just make this crap up as you go along, don't you?

"Funny how 'liberals' complain when people begin to stop compromising with evil.
"When you compromise with evil, evil always wins." Ayn Rand"

Ah, like how the socialist Reagan compromised with evil in the form of Pinochet and Noriega? Or like how Eisenhower compromised with evil in the form of Batista? But then again, Eisenhower was a Russian spy...

You're just a sick man who will tell any lie to try and put the nazis in the left-wing camp, because you know full well that your ideas are very close to theirs, and you are afraid someone is going to pick up on that.

By your own (lack of) logic, the nazis were socialists because they called themselves "national socialists" (and let's disregard their own writings on why they chose that name...). So, logically, North Korea is a democratic country - they call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O'Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was "strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan.… America today literally asks for orders." The Roosevelt administration, she added, "envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.""
"it underscores his central argument: that there are surprising similarities between the programs of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler."
"In Berlin, Moscow, and Rome, "the enemy that was to be eradicated was the laissez-faire architectural legacy of nineteenth-century liberalism, an unplanned jumble of styles and structures." "
{This was real, classical liberalism.}
http://www.cato.o...oosevelt

Strom Thurmond and Charles Lindbergh supported Hitler and the nazis

So did FDR.
They envied the power Mussolini and Hitler had over the state. There was even an old Star Trek episode where a professor admired the NAZIs for their quick rise to power from near utter defeat in a few short years.

And when they finally had absolute power, the nazis started by persecuting socialists and communists

Because they were not national socialists.
Why did the Soviet socialists starve millions of their own? Why did the Mao socialists starve millions? Whey did Pol Pot murder so many?

As usual, you ignore the core of the post and latch onto some details, and STILL fail to discredit the point. Your FDR-remark is so laughable that I'm not even going to go into the subject, your "national socialist" explanation is just re-hashing the fallacious defense second-rate far-right minds have been trying for decades...and failing desperately at it, just like you.

Oh yeah, some badly edited remarks from a 1933 article by an American journalist are really going to prove your point...and clearly, you haven't done your homework either, because Anne O'Hare McCormick was a Roosevelt-supporter who regularly discussed policy with him. Better luck next time, and thank you for playing!

nazis were socialists because they called themselves "national socialists"

No.
They were socialists because they controlled private property.
The Fascists, like the 'progressives', discovered they didn't have to actually own 'the means of production' and all the headaches that entails. Rather they could pass laws and regulations that would force the everyone to do their bidding. There would be the facade of ownership, but no one would have real ownership over their property.
Just as Obamacare now essentially owns doctors. Doctors are quitting, cutting back on their services because Obamacare won't pay them enough.
"Whether retiring or fleeing, doctors are leaving health care"
http://www.report...lth-care

Socialism is about power.
"The dream of a planned society infected both right and left. Ernst Jünger, an influential right-wing militarist in Germany, reported his reaction to the Soviet Union: "I told myself: granted, they have no constitution, but they do have a plan. This may be an excellent thing." As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: "They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people," he said in an address to the People's Forum of Troy, New York."
"Intellectuals worried about inequality, the poverty of the working class, and the commercial culture created by mass production."
http://www.cato.o...oosevelt
Sounds just like the 'liberals' today.

The nazis didn't abolish private property, in fact, the large industrialists who helped them into power increased their private ownership of many resources. Government takeover of privately held resources in war time were hardly more expansive than in Britain. Or do you now want to claim that Churchill was a socialist, too?

You seem to have anticipated my factual disproving of your lie by covering yourself with the claim "there would be the facade of ownership, but no one would have real ownership over their property", thus negating any fact as a "facade". Your lack of knowledge of the situation in Europe during the early 20th century is not surprising, but your arrogance on the subject is. You're like a third-grader trying to tell a historian what history was really like, on the basis of some cartoon you once saw.

I suppose you also consider Mitt Romney a socialist, as Obamacare was based on his system.

Socialism is about power.
"The dream of a planned society infected both right and left. Ernst J�Ľnger, an influential right-wing militarist in Germany, reported his reaction to the Soviet Union: "I told myself: granted, they have no constitution, but they do have a plan. This may be an excellent thing." As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: "They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people," he said in an address to the People's Forum of Troy, New York."
"Intellectuals worried about inequality, the poverty of the working class, and the commercial culture created by mass production."
http://www.cato.o...oosevelt
Sounds just like the 'liberals' today.

Are you really going to try to make out that Imperial Germany on the eve of WWI was a socialist state? Really?

"In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as "Fascist means to gain liberal ends." He wasn't hallucinating. FDR's adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done "many of the things which seem to me necessary." Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, "If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere." She added that if she were younger, she'd like to lead "the Fascist Movement in the United States." At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, "The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.""
http://www.cato.o...oosevelt

The nazis didn't abolish private property,

No. They controlled it. Just as the FDA, the EPA and the Regulatory State controls property.

Imperial Germany on the eve of WWI was a socialist state? Really?

It was.
"Bismarck waged a lengthy political war on the free-trade classical liberals in Germany; "
""Bismarck wanted to make the workers feel more dependent on the state, and therefore on him." It was, above all, a political stratagem to create a dependent population imbued with an ideology of national collectivism. Bismarck confirmed that the purpose of his "State Socialism" was to generate the dependency, and thus loyalty, that a powerful Germany needed to dominate Europe:"
http://wiki.mises...Bismarck

I suppose you also consider Mitt Romney a socialist, as Obamacare was based on his system.

Obamacare is loosely based on the MA system.
But, yes, it is socialism.
Socialism is as socialism does.
While I voted for Romney in '12, I don't support him now for any office.
"The Road to Serfdom" was dedicated to socialists of all parties.

Why does anyone believe Romney is a conservative?
If you want to know who are the socialists of all parties, it is those who oppose Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions and other conservatives in Congress.

I'm really not going to bother any further. Anyone who argues that Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm were running a socialist country is so far out of the ballpark that any meaningful discussion is impossible. You are using such a weird (and constantly changing) definition of socialism that I'm seriously questioning whether you're being serious or just have a really bizarre sense of humour.

The welfare state is not socialism?
Income redistribution is not socialism?
" However Bismarck realised that socialism could not be defeated by harsh measures alone. He knew that policies were needed to improve the position of workers in Germany so as to erode support for the socialists. Williamson wrote that he wanted "to reconcile the working classes to the authority of the state."

In 1883 he introduced a measure that gave compensation to workers during illness.

In 1884 an Accident Insurance law was introduced to compensate workers injured at work. In 1889 an Old Age Pension scheme was introduced for workers over seventy.

Although he failed to curb growing SPD support the measures were very constructive and helped to improve the life of most ordinary Germans. They were twenty years ahead of Britain in the area of Social Welfare. As Massie noted "Bismarck had given the German working class the most advanced social legislation in the World."

"The creation of a large working class led to the growth of socialism. Bismarck saw the socialists as a threat to the social and political unity of the Reich and to Europe. He accused them of being un-German and greatly disliked the international nature of the movement. As Carr notes "Socialism like Catholicism had allegiances beyond the Nation state which Bismarck could neither understand nor tolerate"."
http://www.histor...sdom.htm

Bismark opposed international socialism as a threat to national power. But he implemented state socialism to appease the masses.
Compromise with evil and evil wins.

d (and constantly changing) definition of socialism

I have not changed the definition of socialism: state control of private property.
'Liberals' don't like this definition as it exposed them as socialists and put them in the same class as the murdering fascist and communists.
Socialism is as socialism does: controls the lives and property of others.

"Social policy was foremost national policy 1 and the social security system was primarily an instrument to lure the workers away from private and communitarian systems into the arms of the State. In the eyes of Bismarck it was the State that had created national unity and this agent was also needed in order to maintain the social unity by a system of mutual obligation between the State and its citizens. "
"But as foreseen early on by Adolph Wagner—who was one of the intellectual fathers of social policy and the author of the "law of increasing state activity"—the expansion of the state functions into the "social area" would change the character of the State and lead to a massive financial expansion of governmental activity. 2 He clearly foresaw also that the new "social epoch" would be the age of interventionism with governments actively "correcting" the capitalist process of production and distribution. "
http://mises.org/...bismarck

Civil Rights have been taken over by greedy, lawless, tax avoiding thugs like Al Sharptin and Jessy Jackson.

How about this Democrats, Progressives, and Civil Rights Fraudsters why don't you find a innocent black person who was minding his own legal business, who was being respectful to everyone, who is shot or beaten or harassed by a white police officer. It only seems you make up (in other words lie, lie again, repeat the lie again this time using catchy phrases Hands Up, Don't shoot) using career criminals, combative, thugs to be your poster child.

If Progressives and Democrats really care about black lives how about speaking about innocent black babies being killed at 5 times the rate as innocent white babies. Or innocent babies being murdered by thugs, or innocent hard working blacks being robbed, shot and killed by thugs.

Democrats are the most racists political party there is. They will do anything to keep blacks enslaved, impoverished, disenfranchise.

It is the Democrats that think Blacks are inferior, that instead of judging blacks on each individuals Character, Drive, Intelligence, and Motivation they want society to judge them as a whole on color alone.

"Democrats waged a culture war against the South, trying to force Southerners to stop "clinging" to their guns and to God. When you try to make it illegal for people to conduct their own affairs according to their conscience, you tend to lose their votes."
"White racism can't explain the GOP takeover of the South.

The best explanation comes from the mouth of President Obama himself. Speaking to San Francisco donors in 2008 about white voters in the Midwest, Obama lucidly expressed his low opinion of all non-rich voters in flyover country: "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.""
"Democrats have made it clear that they are willing to use government to impose their morality on others. Through the courts, the Left has banned prayers at high school football games and forced states to remove the Ten Commandments from public grounds."
http://www.washin.../2557157

"The raceaholics want Americans to fear that the burning crosses and lynchings will return as soon as the evening sun goes down.

Raceaholics wear fact-proof vests, which facilitate their addiction."
"Senator Tim Scott (R., S.C.) just got elected with 61 percent of the vote and 84,000 more ballots than his Republican Palmetto State colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. (In 2010, interestingly enough, Scott defeated the son of former segregationist Strom Thurmond in a Republican primary.) Utah's Mia Love and Texas's Will Hurd also are black Republicans just elected to Congress."
http://www.nation...page/0/2

"The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism-Fichte, Robertus, and Lassalle-are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. While theoretical socialism in its Marxist form was directing the German labor movement, the authoritarian and nationalist element receded for a time into the background. But not for long. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealistic youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine. "
http://lamar.colo...ism.html

"The ideals which Plenge expressed so clearly were especially popular among, and perhaps even derive from, certain circles of German scientists and engineers who, precisely as is now so loudly demanded by their English and American counterparts, clamored for the centrally planned organization of' all aspects of life."

http://lamar.colo...ism.html

Sounds just like the AGWites and other 'liberals' on this site.

It is amazing how the commentary here shows so clearly the way all logic and intellect goes out the window when there is any mention of the two major US political parties in a scientific paper. Basically the paper itself is ignored and instead, an all out war of words between ideologues ensues. The US political mentality is so completely domineering and dysfunctional it is a wonder the country runs at all.

That's WHY it runs....

It is amazing how the commentary here shows so clearly the way all logic and intellect goes out the window when there is any mention of the two major US political parties in a scientific paper. Basically the paper itself is ignored and instead, an all out war of words between ideologues ensues. The US political mentality is so completely domineering and dysfunctional it is a wonder the country runs at all.

That's WHY it runs....

More exactly, control of the conversation is handed to banksters and followers of Nimrod

Why do white democrats support Planned Parenthood? Because they're racist and Planned Parenthood kills 5 times more black babies than white.
Why do white democrats support never shed a tear for a black baby killed by thugs? Because they're racists and black babies mean nothing to them.
Why do white democrats support against school choice for blacks? Because they're racists and they like dumb black people.
Why do white democrats support illegal aliens immigration? Because they're racists and they want to keep blacks impoverished.
Why do white democrats support policies that destroy black families? Because they're racists and it's far easier controlling blacks if they don't have a solid family.
What do white democrats think of black people? Read their own racist emails http://variety.co...1377767/

Why do white democrats support blacks acting like thugs to police officers? Because they're racists and they don't really mind when blacks are shot by cops.
Why do white democrats support black rioters? Because they're racists and rioters destroying their communities keeps black communities impoverished, it destroys black opportunities, it increases the racial divide.

A vote for a democrat is a vote for a racist political party.

Why do black leaders support a culture of criminality and violence?

Why do they support music that glorifies the worst aspects of the culture?

Why do democrats insist on removing all traces of God from the US?

Cavuto interviewed a black reverend who was from Alabama. He was very critical of the race hustlers, especially Jackson and Sharpton who extort money, ostensibly to help blacks, but it never trickles down.
Another interesting point he made was why do blacks need to be led?
His parents trained and educated him and let it known that when he was 18 he was out and on his own.
'Liberals' need followers and victims or they just fade away.

Nothing has done more to harm black society that progressive welfare programs. Just in case you are wondering why they were instituted a saying an uncle said to me pretty much sums it up.

"There is a lot of money in poverty"

Another point made by the black preacher from Alabama, race hustling is being funded by white 'liberals' made to feel guilty by Sharpton, et al.
Amy Pascal and Sony will likely be blackmailed, in addition to being hacked.
The only way to stop this is to starve the beast.

You people are so damn insane that I don't even feel like humiliating you by exposing the stupidity behind your 'arguments'. Let it suffice to say that your frankly deranged world-view is sufficient explanation of why America elects conservatives who hold views that are so bizarre and beyond reason that no other civilized country would even consider electing them. Perhaps you should ask yourselves why it is that even hard-core European conservatives don't want anything to do with Republicans. Anyway, keep up the religious rants, the race-baiting and the conspiracy theories. Nothing I could possibly say will do more to discredit the Republican party and conservatism than your support of them. With your help, the GOP will continue on its track of being the party of old white men who complain a lot, thus ensuring that it will gradually die out and be replaced by something with a degree of reason and sanity.

"My memories of the black community growing up were centered on faith, family, education, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and for my family — service to the nation in uniform. Those ladies and gents are conservative principles and values — or as I was wrote here — classical liberal principles. "
"Sadly enough today, if you are a black American standing for conservative principles and values — which are the foundation of the black community and what were once its strength — you are a target.

It's white liberals who find themselves abhorring the existence of any minority that rejects their progressive socialist collective ideology and seeks to "think for themselves." "
http://allenbwest...ce-card/

Perhaps you should ask yourselves why it is that even hard-core European conservatives don't want anything to do with Republicans.

Why?

" it was the Great Society policies of a progressive socialist big government Democrat president from Texas named Lyndon Baines Johnson that began the decimation of the black family. It resulting in today's out of wedlock birth rate of nearly 72 percent — all because it was believed that rewarding a woman for having a child out of wedlock with a government check — as long as she kept the man out of the home — was a good thing."

"And therein lies the real racism about which the liberal media doesn't want a conversation — black success based on fundamental American liberty and freedom enshrined in conservative principles such as individual sovereignty and free market entrepreneurship. "
http://allenbwest...ce-card/

"The real conversation about race in America needs to be about why the progressive socialist left despises black success not wedded to its ideology? Even former NBA great, Charles Barkley has come under attack for speaking his mind about certain matters on race — the real conversation that needs to be had.

What sense does it make for the black community to enslave itself to one political ideology and invest all of its political capital there? It has only led to abject disregard.

And so I conclude this essay of my thoughts — the real racism has always come from one party in America: the Democrat party. And their 21st century " lynching" tactics and techniques are just the same but with better use of modern technology. "

You people are so damn insane that I don't even feel like humiliating you by exposing the stupidity behind your 'arguments'.

But yet you felt like typing in a bunch of baseless, vacuous, and over-the-top ad-hominems. Perhaps you watch too much Jerry-Springer?

Let it suffice to say that your frankly deranged world-view is sufficient explanation of why America elects conservatives who hold views that are so bizarre and beyond reason that no other civilized country would even consider electing them. [.....and it goes on like this.....]

Ohh yes, limited government, personal accountability, anti-social-engineering, advocation of liberty, free capitalism, respect for the constitution,.... that these concepts are bat-shit crazy to a gross smelly bed-wetting liberal [not ad-hominems but accurate descriptions], is proof that the later that no civilized country should ever elect them to office.

The racism of lowered expectations, government dependency, and the perpetual racial victimization industry implicit in liberalism has done more harm to black Americans than the KKK could ever have dreamed possible.

If there was ever such a thing as an 'intelligent KKK' member, he would have rather become a liberal, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Good luck on that sinking ship. We won't miss you when you're gone.

All 'liberals' have is ad hominim given Quinn's lack of any cogent reply.

....Is it not suspicious why PC Liberals have defined "racism" so artificially pervasive and all encompassing, ...(even to the extent of 'Institutionalized racism') ,.... if it is not to perpetuate the fraudulent charge and guarantee that any actual discussion of cultural induced issues that plague the black community are discouraged by such threat, least they expose the colossal failure of liberal policies?

Good luck on that sinking ship. We won't miss you when you're gone.

The inherent incompetence of government and the 'liberal progressive' threat of loss of liberty, will always ensure a political market for conservatism.

Harlem in the 50s and before was vibrant area of NYC. By the time LBJ and the "Great Society" got through with it the place was a ghetto that no one wanted to enter. It is recovering now but the residents are complaining about gentrification.

I think that most of the so called "Police Violence" issues can be solved by taking this Chris Rock video to heart.

https://www.youtu...mtxXEGE8

But according to the insanity of liberals and their racial grievance industry propaganda, they want a society where it's not life threatening to a criminal thug to violently charge a police officer.

Their manufactured racial politics disarms the police, just as their gun control laws disarm law abiding citizens and gives the thug criminal the advantage. The racism of lowered expectations, lowers the bar of acceptable behavior at the expense of everyone else.

Interesting to see that you blame liberals for wanting to create a society where " it's not life threatening to a criminal thug to violently charge a police officer."

In Europe, where we have such a society, we've seen our violent crime rate drop from on par with the US (ca. 1870) to roughly a quarter of the US figure per 100 000 inhabitants. And that's *because* we've disarmed the general populace, by right of a vast majority of said populace embracing that policy. And hey - it worked, and how! Maybe you just don't like a peaceful society where murder isn't a daily fact of life?

In Europe, where we have such a society, we've seen our violent crime rate drop

Do you count the state sponsored murders of millions during the that time?
The first step for state murder is to disarm the sheeple.

peaceful society

Peace was only obtained by a heavy handed state that crushed liberty. It was thought that a strong, coercive state must be used to create a 'peaceful' society in the Balkans so the allies created Yugoslavia. When it collapsed, civil war erupted and much violence and murder. Are those included in your statistics?
Graveyards and prisons are usually quite peaceful.

Per capita crime rates are highest in Iceland, according to this data.
Sweden, UK, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Austria, France, even Switzerland all had higher per capita crime than the US.
http://www.nation...per-1000

"Bishop E.W. Jackson, a charismatic conservative leader, says in this exclusive video interview that he finds it "ironic" that Ogletree, whom he knows as a Harvard Law classmate, feels so victimized when he is "making a six figure salary."

Jackson calls it "preposterous" that people living in mansions, driving the best cars and eating the best meals would say race relations are worse now than it was for their grandfather. Calling this a "tragic, false message," he believes it comes as "a result of a kind of spiritual blindness.""
"Noting the progressive notion that truth, facts and law matter less than manufactured narratives by the cultural elites, Jackson says, "If truth doesn't matter, then the debate must end at the point of a gun, because might is what makes right. And that's a very dangerous way for our country to go.""
http://dailycalle...-family/

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Interesting to see that you blame liberals for wanting to create a society where " it's not life threatening to a criminal thug to violently charge a police officer."

In Europe, where we have such a society,...

BS. No society could maintain order if police were not permitted to defend themselves with deadly force.

we've seen our violent crime rate drop from on par with the US (ca. 1870) to roughly a quarter of the US figure per 100 000 inhabitants. And that's *because* we've disarmed the general populace, [...] And hey - it worked, and how!

Some 400,000 die every year in the EU due to obesity, which is far far more than the number of murders by guns. So then, extrapolating the liberal progressive mentality to it's logical conclusion, would require banning unhealthy foods and passing gov mandated exercise, or equivalent in tax/penalty coercion. Do you see how this leads to loss of liberty? There is an acceptable cost associated with freedom.

Maybe you just don't like a peaceful society where murder isn't a daily fact of life?

Although i'm not an American, I've resided there most of my life, and not only have I never witnessed a murder or even one getting shot, I don't personally know anyone who has either. If you compare equivalent demographics, the violent crime rate with a gun is similar in the USA and EU.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

now they represent an economical problem, source of social instability and brake of further progress for the rest of USA.

Only because of racist 'liberals'.
Blacks who immigrate from Africa, or Caribbean or Central and South America (who were also forced into slavery from Africa) do quite well in the US.
Liberia was a creation of Lincoln. A place where emancipated slaves from the US could return.
And don't forget, it was fellow Africans who sold their fellows to Arab Muslims for export to the Americas.
Australia was originally a penal colony for Britain. How many were forced to Australia?
Many whites were indentured servants (slavery) to repay their passage to America. Are they an economic burden?

Per capita crime rates are highest in Iceland, according to this data

The statistics may be misleading. Most of Iceland crimes are http://www.dailym...xes.html from horror movies only.

I provided data and a reference.
Quinn did not to support the assertion that Europe is a peaceful paradise.

Per capita crime rates are highest in Iceland, according to this data

The statistics may be misleading. Most of Iceland crimes are http://www.dailym...xes.html from horror movies only.

I provided data and a reference.
Quinn did not to support the assertion that Europe is a peaceful paradise.

https://www.unodc..._web.pdf

Violent crime is much more than homicide.
It includes rape, assault, armed robbery, ...
Quinn, you forgot to count the millions of democide victims in Europe from 1870.
https://www.hawai...RDER.HTM

You're going to call my statistics flawed after you post a link that counts pickpocketing in the same figure as homicide? Maybe you need to read my pdf a little further than the title. You might find it covers considerably more than homicide.

You're going to call my statistics flawed after you post a link that counts pickpocketing in the same figure as homicide? Maybe you need to read my pdf a little further than the title. You might find it covers considerably more than homicide.

Don't forget to count the all the Europeans murdered by the state from the 1870s.

Shall we also count all the native Americans killed by the United States in the 1860s and 1870s then? And all the civilians murdered by Confederate terrorist groups during the Civil War? Maybe you shouldn't talk so loud when you're clueless about history.

Shall we also count all the native Americans killed by the United States in the 1860s and 1870s then? And all the civilians murdered by Confederate terrorist groups during the Civil War? Maybe you shouldn't talk so loud when you're clueless about history.

First, you said 1870.
The war between the states was over by 1865.
I'm not referring to victims of war. I am referring to victims of the state. A state that murders its own citizens as Stalin did, as Hitler did. Genocides in the Balkins....
Your peace is the peace of a graveyard.

At least tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of native Americans were killed as a matter of policy by the laissez-faire governments of the mid-century US you so adore.

When the Confederate States of America deliberately and intentionally recruited terrorists to pillage and kill in the border states, that was very simply state terrorism. It's interesting how you keep trying to disprove Europe's relative peacefulness by pointing at events that happened 70 years ago, but maintain a rigid line in what you find chronologically admissible when you're being criticized. Does the word "hypocrisy" feature in your dictionary?

Must be racism:

"The nation's oldest black college, Cheyney University, one of Pennsylvania's 14 state-run universities, is on the verge of a financial meltdown that threatens its ability to continue operating, a state official said on Wednesday.

Cheyney's student body has shrunk by two-thirds, to about 1,000, since its 1983 peak, and its four-year graduation rate is just 9 percent. A quarter of students never receive a degree, and student loan defaults are high."
http://www.reuter...20141217