OK. As I said before this tangent, your words still seemed soaked in privilege to me.
Maybe we can go back to you making a connection between the New Black Panther Patry and racism on the left?
A Mitt Romney and Condoleeza Rice ticket?
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
OK. As I said before this tangent, your words still seemed soaked in privilege to me.
Maybe we can go back to you making a connection between the New Black Panther Patry and racism on the left?
The extent of that connection is that the New Black Panther Party is rascist. They are clearly closer in ideology to the Democrat party then they are the Republican party. That is the extent of the connection.
They are not the cause of rascism any more than any other rascist group is. Simply a left leaning rascist group. That's it.
What part of their ideology is closer to the Democratic party than the Republican?
Keep in mind that this party is very far left. Farther then the general liberal population. Their disdain for capitalism and their desire for "communal wealth" Clearly that is not a conservative ideology.
I am currently not in a position to supply the proof of this. I can latter tonight if you wish or you can simply google them and find all you need to know.
The NBPP (New Black Panther Party) does not represent the left by any means but they are obviously not a right leaning organization.
It is, however, a facist ideology, and fascism is as much on the right end of the political scale as on the left.
Well, maybe you're having some fun with me, but that's OK. My beef with Obama doesn't center on his family life. His "success" is what I'd focus on. A community organizer cultivating relations with all sorts of politically-active extremists isn't what I call "financial success". It's the ties with Chicago establishment politicos that I think gave him the "usefulness" to some interests, and got him the little rocket to "success". He is not his own man, but utterly servile and dependent on . . . . . . um . . . . . others . . . . . that I deplore.
I see a critical difference between Obama and a certain black buddy I used to talk to a lot on the way to work and back. My buddy had actual ideals and actual principles, even if he was truly a marxist. Nobody could have "used" him.
But I can also see some "progressives" being very frustrated with Obama, for not doing well enough for them. I am so far thanking Obama for dragging his feet and not getting us into another war, and for actually bringing some of our troopes home like he promised.
I am also very impressed with some of his decisions in regard to more "local" issues, like promoting more competition in the Ag sector, to the dismay of some cartelists.
He's worth in the neighborhood of $10 million. Fromn what I recall, he had very little family money to work with. You don't think that is financial success?
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Yeah... and if it wasn't for liberal, Federal Reserve loving hypocrites like Gingrich. Maybe there would actually be some jobs to find.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Somehow I expected to the words "marxist" and "progressive" to end up in the same post here. Not too astonishing.
This news anchor is asking Wasserman-Schults (DNC chair) if a long Republican nomination process is good for Republicans. She uses that to just bash them. I love how in American politics nobody will ever say anything nice about the other side.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Debbie Downer is just like any other politician. That's the problem with this country. For the love of god or whatever you believe in or don't believe in..... Term limits need to be established to get rid of career politicians like Debbie Downer, Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Nancy Pelosi and the bunch.
That and do away with the lifetime pension and healthcare they get. Two terms and go back to private life and get a job.
That puts even more power in the hands of lobbyists and professional Congressional staffers.
Ban lobyists and each new representative should hire/bring their own staffers with them. They go when the representative goes. Put the votes on opposing years so that there is a bunch with two years under their belt when the "rookies" come in.
Donations and money spent should be capped. This is NOT the MLB, and whoever can spend the most wins. It's a joke.
Donations from corporations should be banned immediately. That is one area that I was proud to focus on during my campaign this year -- I didn't take a single penny from the businesses in the city, but everyone else did. Now those elected officials have a debt to repay to those businesses, at the expense of doing the right thing. It's worthless.
Donations from corporations should be banned immediately. That is one area that I was proud to focus on during my campaign this year -- I didn't take a single penny from the businesses in the city, but everyone else did. Now those elected officials have a debt to repay to those businesses, at the expense of doing the right thing. It's worthless.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I personally believe lobbying should be illegal. I am sure many lobbyists don't share my POV.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Good for you. I wish more would follow your example. You now actually answer to the people who elected you and not the business that pushed to get you elected. There should obviously be caps on all elections as well. Obama is supposedly going to have one billion dollars to use in order to try to get himself re-elected. How can we seriously elect a President that supposedly represents us when they have a billion dollars of political favors to repay?
I read the first link, and he was expressing that he goes out of his way to make whites feel comfortable around him by changing certain behaviors or making himself appear to be as absolutely safe as he can. I don't see how that applies in most areas of Oakland, other than the hills and the Piedmont's of the world. In that city blacks are the majority, and being white and having gone to areas like West Oakland I can safely say they don't change behaviors there. Why should they, they are the majority in those neighborhoods.
A lot of "progressives" are secretly cultivating a profession of believing in "Marxism", which they think justifies lying about their beliefs in order to achieve their actual purposes.
My buddy actually believed, in a religious sense, in the existence of inexorable natural principles which anticipates that people will change their natures somehow and stop calling stuff their own. It's a fantasy religion, but a human can believe it if he wants to, it just doesn't exist outside those believing skulls anywhere. It makes a great foil to work with in the hands of progressives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, British Agent Obama, and other fascists who think they are the chosen agents of change . My buddy actually believed the part about the future when there would be no government, and considered the regimes of communist Russia, China and Cuba "Statist" false-flag "communist". But our current CFR statists, whether marxist, progressive, fascist, or socialist or even "conservative", are all fluid "thinkers" with shifting ideals that conform to their backers' wishes. There may be factions with differing ideals for the future, but they all resolutely believe the future is theirs, not ours.
Fundamentally, they all consider the Constitution an obstacle to progress, and the people as a herd to be managed and directed, by appropriately serviceable media, education, and government authority. But they can variously laud the Constitution and the unfettered power of government simultaneously until the votes are cast. Anyone who stands in the muck of their cult of superior authority and considers it theirs to manage for their own purposes is fundamentally a different kind of being than an "American", at least in regards to their oath to defend the Constitution. Idiot, or Liar. but not someone who is serving the ideals once put forth in the Declaration of Independence or the various principles associated with human rights and limited government that is a servant not a master to the people.
We've always had regimes that took the world as theirs, and the people in it as theirs. The examples of places and times when human beings actually considered it their privilege to change their governments have been few. Usually the "change" has been short-lived and disappointing, because one way or another it seems there are always "interests" who contrive somehow to achieve inordinate impacts on the government for their own benefits.
But they always call it progress when they are achieving that special purpose. And, somehow, it always costs you something, when they do.
Then, very little will get done. There will be no one with experience, meaning no one who knows how to broker deals, find compromises, and bring people together. Instead of worrying aobut keeping their seat. Congresspeople will be worried about making sure they hav a living after Congress. When things get difficult, Congress will be able to do nothing.