T Nation

Liberals - Worst Sort of Racists

Suppose you did’t want black people, for the most part, to get an education and rise out of poverty. Pay them to NOT get an education.
The typical way that most groups rise is to get an education and adopt middle-class values. Liberals decided that they didn’t want that.

They knew that if, under the cover of benevolence, they paid off the black community, they’d have a captured pool of voters.

They knew that paying people to have a minimal existence would decimate the black family (most black kids are born out of wedlock).

It may even be the case that powerful people wanted a captive group, mired in poverty, who’d spend much of their money on drugs. Who benefits from the billions siphoned off from the black community via the drug trade? (Didn’t one of the Arkansas troopers report that Clinton had an airstrip where he imported his goods? The trooper has since disappeared.)

The Great Society program and the Welfare State, insofar as these were designed to keep black people down, are some of the most racist acts ever perpetrated on an uncomprehending public.

To be continued…

April fools? It’s still April…

“You’re travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of meanness and callousness but of idiocy; a journey into a desolate land whose boundaries are that of pure stupidity - Next stop, the Headhunter Zone!”

[quote]pookie wrote:
“You’re travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of meanness and callousness but of idiocy; a journey into a desolate land whose boundaries are that of pure stupidity - Next stop, the Headhunter Zone!”[/quote]

So it has no boundaries?

[quote]grew7 wrote:
pookie wrote:
“You’re travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of meanness and callousness but of idiocy; a journey into a desolate land whose boundaries are that of pure stupidity - Next stop, the Headhunter Zone!”

So it has no boundaries?[/quote]

I was actually giving the guy more credit when I thought he was just a troll.

Hey, I have a novel idea (and no I don’t mean about writing a book dumbass), let’s villify liberals and liberalism by equating negative outcomes from old troubled initiatives with their actual ideals as if that is what they intended.

Come on, can we get a little bit past such childish antics?

[quote]grew7 wrote:
April fools? It’s still April…[/quote]

Nope, just a plain old fool.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Suppose you did’t want black people, for the most part, to get an education and rise out of poverty. Pay them to NOT get an education.
The typical way that most groups rise is to get an education and adopt middle-class values. Liberals decided that they didn’t want that.

They knew that if, under the cover of benevolence, they paid off the black community, they’d have a captured pool of voters.

They knew that paying people to have a minimal existence would decimate the black family (most black kids are born out of wedlock).

It may even be the case that powerful people wanted a captive group, mired in poverty, who’d spend much of their money on drugs. Who benefits from the billions siphoned off from the black community via the drug trade? (Didn’t one of the Arkansas troopers report that Clinton had an airstrip where he imported his goods? The trooper has since disappeared.)

The Great Society program and the Welfare State, insofar as these were designed to keep black people down, are some of the most racist acts ever perpetrated on an uncomprehending public.

To be continued… [/quote]

It may be time to turn off the talk radio for a while…

That reached a level of stupidy I didn’t know existed.

I just can’t wait to see how the other conservative members try to defend this guy.

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
That reached a level of stupidy I didn’t know existed.

I just can’t wait to see how the other conservative members try to defend this guy.[/quote]

He should have been called out as a troll months ago. I’m wondering what is taking everyone else that long to figure it out. The only thing that bothers me is that he apparently deals closely with children on a daily basis. I fear for the future.

I think you have to give Head Hunter?s hypothesis some credence. I do not believe there is any malice intended though .But the results are the same. I agree to the point of Clinton, I do not believe he would do such a thing no more than believe Bush Lied.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think you have to give Head Hunter?s hypothesis some credence. I do not believe there is any malice intended though .But the results are the same. I agree to the point of Clinton, I do not believe he would do such a thing no more than believe Bush Lied.[/quote]

Do you actually know what his hypothesis is? He isn’t talking about effects, he is talking about intent.

Maybe you should watch Blue’s Clues a bit more to quicken up those wits.

Dont know what part of ohio your in ,but in the part thats near me,the wealthy conservatives that own our car dealerships ,fortune 500 companies county govt etc. are the supposed good citizens that have had ties to drugs and corruption.Take off your BLINDFOLD!! WAKE-UP

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Suppose you did’t want black people, for the most part, to get an education and rise out of poverty. Pay them to NOT get an education.
The typical way that most groups rise is to get an education and adopt middle-class values. Liberals decided that they didn’t want that.

They knew that if, under the cover of benevolence, they paid off the black community, they’d have a captured pool of voters.

They knew that paying people to have a minimal existence would decimate the black family (most black kids are born out of wedlock).

It may even be the case that powerful people wanted a captive group, mired in poverty, who’d spend much of their money on drugs. Who benefits from the billions siphoned off from the black community via the drug trade? (Didn’t one of the Arkansas troopers report that Clinton had an airstrip where he imported his goods? The trooper has since disappeared.)

The Great Society program and the Welfare State, insofar as these were designed to keep black people down, are some of the most racist acts ever perpetrated on an uncomprehending public.

To be continued… [/quote]

Do you actually believe this, or are you just trying to be provocative?

This was a little insane but I have often wondered why LBJ who is one of the most crooked SOBs ever forced the Democrats to change their ways regarding race relations.

They went from being the most racist party to friends of the blacks at his urging.

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
That reached a level of stupidy I didn’t know existed.

I just can’t wait to see how the other conservative members try to defend this guy.[/quote]

He has been called out multiple times for his bizarre love of Ayn Rand’s dumb philosophy and other odd stuff.

Do I think that the welfare state has exacerbated the plight of minorities instead of ameliorating it?

Yes.

Do I think it was created to intentionally keep minorities from improving their lives for racist reasons?

No.

Hmmm…not one lib on here even tried to dispute my hypothesis. Vroom came close, so give him credit. Guys, namecalling is not an argument.

Isn’t it just plain terrible when someone says: “The Dems did all of this, not to liberate the black man, but to keep him down.” ?

My hypothesis is that the welfare state, so precious to libs, is a trick. This was stated by Malcolm X (whom I greatly admire. Ever him excorciate the black leaders who play along with the white man?) Vroom states that I’m condemning the welfare state because of outcomes. True. Treating my fellow citizens as cattle by manipulating them is highly offensive.

Since liberals are allegedly much more intelligient than conservative, isn’t it possible that the current outcome of the welfare state – the illiteracy, the teen pregnancies, a whole host of other maladies, was perpetrated?

The conclusion is one of 3 things: (1)liberalism is unworkable, simply by viewing the outcome or(2)liberals are stupid for not seeing where their policy was taking the country, or (3)liberals did all of this purposefully and knew the outcome.

Since LBJ, Ted Kennedy and so forth are so brilliant, I conclude that they knew precisely what they were doing.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
That reached a level of stupidy I didn’t know existed.

I just can’t wait to see how the other conservative members try to defend this guy.

He has been called out multiple times for his bizarre love of Ayn Rand’s dumb philosophy and other odd stuff.
[/quote]

Who is your favorite philospher, Zap?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The conclusion is one of 3 things: (1)liberalism is unworkable, simply by viewing the outcome or(2)liberals are stupid for not seeing where their policy was taking the country, or (3)liberals did all of this purposefully and knew the outcome.[/quote]

I would have to choose number one of the above three.

LBJ had the best of intentions with his “war on poverty” programs. They were a complete disaster, but I really doubt anyone would be that clever, and mean spirited to an entire segment of our population, and generations to come for political purposes…Okay, they couldn’t be that clever anyway.