Another thing Sleeve and I probably agree on...

[einhander]

Sleeve, the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist so people cN ignore tax obligations.

Such perversion of our constitution being chucked around like a scrotum on a trampoline in here...

[frankenbeemer]

Sleeve, the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist so people cN ignore tax obligations.

Such perversion of our constitution being chucked around like a scrotum on a trampoline in here...

A demonstrably false statement, as our revolution was prompted by confiscatory taxes.

[einhander]

The difference is he consented to pay his. Those that started the war were arbitrary.

That's pretty important.

[frankenbeemer]

There are some differences. Top of the morning to you.

[BraveUlysses]

Don't feel bad, that's his go to response when he's on his period.

Thanks for yet another great post! Truly we are indebted to you for your positive contributions to this thread.

His statement was a strawman fallacy, it deserves no further discussion. It took him 13 posts in this thread to actually provide any basis for his criticism of the BLM.

Now I do not intend to speak about what the 'negro' thing is doing to the situation, but it was either a come-up for character assassination, or just another dumb farmer that aint skilled in pickin' werds.

I do however know, I know a lot of them that can't carry a five minute long conversation without bumping into the PC Alarm, but they are some of the hardest working, true, and honest to a fault people you'll meet.

Too bad this guy basically defines the word moocher while he unironically bemoans black people for being welfare queens.

Nice job apologizing for his comments though, really.

[ParsedOut]

Truly we are indebted to you for your positive contributions to this thread.

I call strawman on you! Strawman!

[frankenbeemer]

His statement was a strawman fallacy, it deserves no further discussion. It took him 13 posts in this thread to actually provide any basis for his criticism of the BLM

You're mistaken, there's no strawman in my statement. It was intended as a sarcastic comment to broaden the argument, not a refutation.

[frankenbeemer]

Too bad this guy basically defines the word moocher while he unironically bemoans black people for being welfare queens.

That was a good one, made me laugh. It's much closer to a strawman than any of my comments, however.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Too bad this guy basically defines the word moocher while he unironically bemoans black people for being welfare queens.

Nice job apologizing for his comments though, really.

It's OK, I wouldn't expect a Coastie to understand how people actually work in the heart of the country, you are digging too deeply into his limited vocabulary. I bet I could find 100 examples of Barack Obama screwing the pooch when it comes to phrasing.

And, it looks like clever editing, akin to the Breitbart/Shirley Sherrod debacle.

[BraveUlysses]

It's OK, I wouldn't expect a Coastie to understand how people actually work in the heart of the country, you are digging too deeply into his limited vocabulary. I bet I could find 100 examples of Barack Obama screwing the pooch when it comes to phrasing.

Why does it matter how "hard he works"? It has nothing to do with making outright racist statements.

Nor does it matter where I'm from (ps you're still a 'coastie').

It's not a screw up on phrasing when someone 'wonders out loud' about whether or not the descendents of slaves are better off now than they were during slavery.

He doubled down on it today so I guess you've got that going for you:

In a press conference Thursday, Bundy defended and repeated his comments but emphasized he was merely "wondering" whether African-Americans were better off as slaves.

"And that's a question I put before the world: Are they better, or were they better then? I'm not saying I thought they should be slaves, or I wasn't even saying they was (sic) better off; I'm wondering if they're better off," he said.

Bundy said he questions whether those living under government subsidies are living as slaves to the state, but denied he held racist views.

"I might not have a very big word base or vocabulary, I guess, but let me tell you something: When I say slavery, I mean slavery...Slavery is about when you take away choices from people, and where you have forced labor," he said. "You think that's what I'm about, America? If it is, you're sure wrong, because I don't believe in any type of that stuff."

[Farbin Kaiber]

^You are reading it with the wrong eyes, He is saying everyone is becoming slaves to the government, and if you can't see that, your Stephen Colbert glasses are on too tight.

[mrsleeve]

The difference is he consented to pay his. Those that started the war were arbitrary.

That's pretty important.

someone is unfamiliar with the stamp act and its intention to put people out of business it seems

[Farbin Kaiber]

It's not a screw up on phrasing when someone 'wonders out loud' about whether or not the descendents of slaves are better off now than they were during slavery.

Right?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/jackson-suggests-welfare-has-been-worse-than-slavery/article_257b8879-1564-5dde-928c-37713a2cd9c1.html?mode=jqm

Jackson suggests welfare has been worse than slavery
BY MARKUS SCHMIDT Richmond Times-Dispatch | Updated 9 months ago

At a Juneteenth event in Newport News, E.W. Jackson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said slavery did not destroy black families, but government welfare programs launched in the 1960s caused them to deteriorate.

Speaking before a small crowd Wednesday at King-Lincoln Park, not too far from where the first African slaves entered the Colonies, Jackson referred to his great-grandparents, who were slaves and sharecroppers in Orange County.

“I am a direct descendent of slaves. My grandfather was born there to a father and a mother who had been slaves. And by the way, their family was more intact than the black family is today,” Jackson said.

“I’m telling you that slavery did not destroy the black family, even though it certainly was an attack on the black family. It made it difficult,” he said.

Juneteenth marks the day in June 1865 when enslaved blacks in Texas learned that the Civil War was over and that the Emancipation Proclamation was in effect.

Democrats began circulating a video of Jackson’s speech late Wednesday.

“The Cuccinelli-Jackson-Obenshain ticket cannot go a week without dividing and offending Virginians with their extreme rhetoric,” said Charniele Herring, chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party.

“This Republican ticket’s preoccupation with comparing things to slavery is insulting, as is E.W. Jackson’s dangerous suggestion that legislation in the 1960s was somehow worse for African-American families than slavery,” Herring said.

Jackson claims that new welfare programs created in the 1960s caused the deterioration of black families.

“The program that began to tell women, ‘You don’t need a man in the home, the government will take care of you,’ (and) that began to tell men, ‘You don’t need to be in the home, the government will take care of this woman and will take care of these children,’ ” he said.

Jackson was referring to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, which attempted to address the nation’s problem of hunger by providing another means-tested program for the poor, the disabled and single-parent households, in the form of food stamps.

“In 1960, most black children were raised in two-parent, monogamous families,” Jackson said. “By now, by this time, we only have 20 percent of black children being raised in two-parent, monogamous families with a married man and woman raising those children. It wasn’t slavery that did that, it was government that did that, trying to solve problems that only God can solve, and that only we as human beings can solve,” he said.

Shawn Utsey, chairman of the Department of African-American Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, said Jackson may not have been far off the mark with his assessment of the relative impact of slavery on families, but that he was oversimplifying things for political purposes.

“There is some merit in what he was saying about the resilience of blacks during and after slavery,” Utsey said. “However, it is difficult to transpose a contemporary definition of a family unit back in time and apply it to a group of people for whom that definition didn’t exist.”

A mother and father and husband and wife were not a reality under slavery, Utsey said.

“So it’s suspect to take the definition of a family of today, a mother and father who are in a long-term relationship and raise children, and apply that retroactively to make an argument,” he said.

mschmidt@timesdispatch.com

[Vedubin01]

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/132699-black-marines-letter-refutes-left-wing-media-narrative-cliven-bundy-racist/

[einhander]

someone is unfamiliar with the stamp act and its intention to put people out of business it seems

Read my post, habibi.