MLK would have been against using race to hand out covid treatments, and against needing to get permission from HR to hire whites. he’d have been against colleges having no. white forms and jon white graduations. he wanted to ignore race and see character.

that’s about as far away from today’s democrat agenda as you can possibly get.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow your desperate

Using Inmates as Guinea pigs is acceptable to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not as guinea pugs. the testing has already been done, there are human uses for Ivermectin, starting before covid.

It’s approved by the FDA for human use here in the US. look it up. tell
me if i’m wrong.

It’s a demonstrable lie to say it’s just for horses. it’s widely accepted for human use,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another episode of everything thing is equal
I should call you DR Spin

This medication is used to treat certain parasitic roundworm infections. Curing parasitic infections

Fringe Doctors’ Groups Promote Ivermectin for COVID despite a Lack of Evidence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you're drinking your own pee, then urine a cult.

Colin Kaepernick vilified and Kyle Rittenhouse championed speaks volumes about race issues in this country.

I mentioned how only the freedom they agree with does the Right yell freedom. of course it was dismissed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think Rittenhouse was stupid. But even stupid people
have the right to self defense.

Jon Stewart recently bashed the national anthem, and he’s also getting attacked from the right. What color is john stewart? is racism the reason the right is attacking him, Einstein?

when a black person is criticized,,all you see is race as the reason. no thought about what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your usual deflection, and then blat about the latest victimization trending on your social media.

Just what horrible thing did Colin Kaepernick do?
Lie about being vaccinated?
Plausibly accused of rape?
Or, the horror, he took a knee during the national anthem.
No problem with seditionists, wrapping themselves in the flag or using the flag and the pole to attack police officers?🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You brought up those two guys, I explained why those two guys got treated the way they did, you call it "deflection", because I clobbered you.

Every time you and Wayne lose, its deflection and false equivalency. Conservatives have never been right about a single thing in the history of mankind. Not once, not ever, Because life is exactly that simple.

Did anyone on the right ever say that Kaepernick doesn't have the right to say what he has said? Has anyone on the right said the government should punish him for what he says?

He has the right to say what he wants, and we have the right to criticize him for it. We all have the right to free speech.

You were dismissed, because what you said was absurd.

He has the right to say what he wants, and we have the right to criticize him for it. We all have the right to free speech.

so you really think that's all that happened :faga::faga::faga:




Colin Kaepernick was villainized and ridiculed for kneeling during a song.

by Conservatives


A bar used Colin Kaepernick's jersey as a doormat

for exercising his constitutional right and is being villainize

Republicans Are Still Running Against Colin Kaepernick
On the campaign trail, conservatives run ads that have turned the former NFL quarterback into a favorite punching bag.

Republican candidates across the country, from Tennessee to Pennsylvania, who have incorporated the anti-player protest sentiment into their campaigns.

Many of these same people whom you claim " have the right to criticize him " many the same people who Support what happened on Jan 6th ..... I am confused?

I said he was criticized. You can't refute that, by showing examples of how he was criticized.

When pampered zillionaires complain about what a horrible country we have, they will get mocked.

How dare those ……. get uppity

Don’t they know their place
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again, if jon stewart gets the same criticism, then how can you conclude its about race?

Pete, here’s something you obviously aren’t aware of…it’s actually possible to be both black, and very stupid. it’s also possible to be white and stupid.

why do you assume that pointing out ones stupidity, is racist? especially when white people
who do the same things, get similar criticism?

Answer - you’re also stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently you equate a late night comics monologue with a nonviolent protest or is anyone who disagrees with you stupid?

Since your latest MiniTrump heroe is pushing legislation to make sure it can’t occur, can you please define “white discomfort”?

Is teaching slavery as part of US history, “white discomfort”?

Is being required to interview female and minority candidates “white discomfort”

Is teaching about the abuse of the USDA loan program “white discomfort”?

Is telling an employee not to call a colleague “boy”, or a racial epithet, “white discomfort”?

Is Hispanic workers talking Spanish amongst themselves, “white discomfort”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you discomforted by being white? You could fix that by feeling that you are black. Then you would have the black privilege of tapping into white privilege without having white discomfort.

"Is teaching slavery as part of US history, “white discomfort”?"

Nope. As long as its taught accurately (which side fought for it, who fought against it), and as long as we don't tell white kids hundreds of years later, that they have any responsibility for it.

"Is being required to interview female and minority candidates “white discomfort”"

No. But it's stupid.

White Discomfort must be White Privilege Lite :rollseyes:

Pete must be looking for a way to fire up the "Way Back" machine so he can go back in time so he can talk MLK into losing this line, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." in his I Have A Dream speech, because it's making it real hard for him to sell his racism agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That one line, MLK's most famous line, spits in the face of much of today's liberal agenda, which puts race above just about everything else.

So you were taught in school about how after emancipation and reconstruction came the Jim Crow era and the reason why it happened and the effects on the black population, how black property ownership decreased over the past century and why?

For the past twenty years to bid on federally funded projects I’ve been required to prove that I’ve solicited quotes from women and minority owned firms, never has been a hard task and the numbers of such firms have grown.
Must be construction firms are stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try another line

“Why is equality so assiduously avoided? Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?
The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class Utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"came the Jim Crow era "

like slavery, Jim Crow was also supported by democrats, and opposed by Republicans.

"For the past twenty years to bid on federally funded projects I’ve been required to prove that I’ve solicited quotes from women and minority owned firms, never has been a hard task and the numbers of such firms have grown."

I never said it was hard. I said it was stupid.

When I interview for a spot, and a perfect candidate comes along, I snatch him up, I don't want to say "please wait by the phone, don't interview anywhere else, I just have to go through the motions of interviewing people who have specific skin color and genitalia."

Sane people, don't think that someone's skin color or gender say anything about who they are. Rational people know, that things which we have no control over, do not define us.

Liberals disagree, because race is everything. Dividing people into little boxes based on race and gender, is crucial to democrats. Republicans could care less.

Pete' everything you need to know is in that sentence from MLK that TDF quoted, and it shows how asinine liberalism is on the subject.

I can't help but notice that for all liberals claim to care about blacks, liberalism doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot of good in black urban areas. i lived outside of New Haven for 24 years, worked in downtown Hartford for 15 or so years. Those cities are declining rapidly. Liberalism has been a Holocaust for blacks, the only statistic you need to look at which explains everything, is rate of fatherlessness. Which conservatives want to address, liberals want to ignore.

I really, really can't wait to see what happens with Hispanics in November, and what the liberal reaction is. Let's see liberals celebrate open borders if Hispanics are no longer a reliable democrat voting block. That may be a pipe dream of mine, but the VA results and recent polling suggest a rightward shift among Hispanics.

Here’s a line for you

“I contend that the cry of “Black Power” is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim
Everything you need to know about systemic racism and that it exists is contained in how that quote from MLK is used.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Pete, I'll go by the quote I posted, that one speaks to me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MLK 3rd has explained it more than once, “Yes, we should judge people by the content of the character and not the color of their skin — but that is when we have a true, just, humane society where there are no biases, where there is no racism, where there is no discrimination,” Martin Luther King III said. “Unfortunately, all of these things still exist.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope, still didn't change my mind, sticking with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. Ignoring race, is racist, that's what he's saying.

We were quoting MLK, not his son. MLK, who is a national hero, asked us to try and forget about race when judging people.

By definition, it cannot be racist to ignore race and focus on a person's character.

Racism, by definition, involves treating people differently, according to race.

MLK is your hero?
Just how many of his beliefs do you support?

This one, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Or this one, “ Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.”
— The Three Evils of Society, 1967
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From this quote, the 3rd doesn't seem nearly as mentally sharp nor as linguistically competent as his forebear. I don't recall senior expressing a desire for utopia, except in his Christian heaven. Judging people by the content of their character is dependent on personal biases followed by a judgmental discrimination as a result of those biases.

I don't think MLK wanted us to wait for some perfection of man before "racial justice" could be achieved. I suppose that he knew there would always be evil expressing itself in the mass of humanity. I guess that, if he was not a hypocrite, something approaching that perfection would be required for entry into heaven (and that not many would get there), but not be necessary in a just, earthly, society.

I think the "justice" he sought was in the legal, cultural, and societal makeup of the nation in which he dreamed that his "four little children will one day live in." He did not expect everyone in that society to be righteous. I believe, contrary to the 3rd's desire, "all these [evil] things [will always] exist."

his work on civil
rights makes him a hero.

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

ming wanted us to ignore race. obviously you disagree. that’s your right. just be honest and i afraid and admit it, you want to focus intently on race.

economic status is more important. i don’t mind funding effective programs to help poor people. but not by race. a wealthy black family doesn’t need my help more than a poor white family. do you disagree with that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’ve obviously never read MLKs I had a dream speech or you wouldn’t quote just part of one sentence.

https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/12270...n-its-entirety
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s a good typo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last night on the dishonest Tucker show went on and on how mask don’t work

Then showed clip after clip of medical professionals saying CLOTH mask don’t work then Moved to Seee they Lied to you since the beginning of the pandemic
And now Biden send a mask out that wont work anyway..

Feeding His gullible audiences with misinformation

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporar...ailure-report/


And from a different article.
Earlier this month, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) declared that the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Although it is premature to declare an outright and absolute victory, it’s great that policymakers at the highest level of government recognize that our social safety net programs are working.

But if we are to continue to reduce hardship and promote mobility from poverty through access to good jobs, work and other means, we have to understand the nature of poverty today. It's important that we draw the right lessons from the past so we don’t underestimate our current challenges and cede our hard-won progress in the War on Poverty.

Let’s start with the good news in the CEA report: material well-being in the United States has improved considerably. The poverty rate has also declined over the last few decades, although you wouldn’t know it if you looked just at the official poverty rate, which has not fluctuated greatly since the 1960s, ranging from 10 to 15 percent.

The official poverty rate draws a threshold based on food consumption patterns from the 1950s and considers only pretax cash income as available resources. Consequently, the official poverty rate understates both the needs of today’s families and the resources available to them. In fact, two of our largest sources of support to low-income families—the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—don’t count in our official poverty measure.

Recognizing the limitations of the official poverty measure, the Census Bureau developed a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) in 2009 that better captures needs and resources.

When researchers extended the SPM back in time, they found that the poverty rate dropped from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012 and to about 14 percent in 2016, more accurately capturing poverty’s downward trend than does the official poverty measure. In addition, without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.

Limitations of a consumption-based poverty rate
The “too good to be true” news from the CEA is that the poverty rate declined from 30 percent in 1960 to just 3 percent in 2016 when applying a “consumption-based” poverty measure, which measures what a family consumes instead of how much income it earns. A consumption-based poverty measure has some merit. After all, a family with no income but substantial assets would be considered “income poor” but could be consuming at comfortable levels.

Because there is no official measure of consumption-based poverty, the CEA relies on the work of economists Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan. To develop a consumption-based poverty rate, Meyer and Sullivan need accurate data on consumption and a meaningful standard for how much a family needs to consume to have a minimally adequate standard of living. Some scholars have expressed concerns about the data Meyer and Sullivan use to construct their consumption-based poverty rate.

Those concerns aside, the consumption-based poverty rate from Meyer and Sullivan that the CEA cites is indexed to 1980, an arbitrary threshold that might understate the hardship and need families experience today. Using this measure allows the CEA to suggest that poverty isn’t much a problem in the US today.

Drawing a meaningful threshold for consumption-based poverty is a challenge—for example, when the authors equate the consumption and official poverty rates in 2015 and then apply their techniques backward, they find that nearly 40 percent of Americans were poor in 1980, and nearly 60 percent were poor in 1960. Those levels are too high to be a meaningful indication of overall hardship in those years. Similarly, the 3 percent figure touted by the CEA for 2016 is too low.

Further, crossing a given consumption threshold does not mean you have the power and control over your resources and life to not be “poor.” Exposing yourself or your children to a potentially abusive situation just to have a roof over your head or trading sex for food or income might keep you out of consumption poverty, but you are still poor.

The role of antipoverty programs
Although it’s too soon to declare the War on Poverty over, it is important to recognize the progress we have made and the important role our antipoverty programs such as SNAP and EITC have played in that success. Use of a consumption-based poverty measure should neither lead to a misguided belief that the War on Poverty has been won nor justify making major changes—however well intentioned—to safety net programs that risk cutting people off from the very programs that have kept them out of poverty.

Well-designed reforms that help recipients overcome their barriers to work, supplement and support their efforts to work, and recognize that some recipients will be limited in the amount and type of work they can do can help us make even more progress against poverty.

Paul in Jims world view

If there is any poverty then any program which try’s to stop it has failed

It’s the same with Covid , cancer , education , mask , vaccines,

Unless these changes or ideas are made by the GOP then they are considered benevolent and worthily of the effort to irradicate them

Like voter integrity laws , Tax cuts , Jan 6th , Trump himself , Abortion