Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[orogenicman]

That is incorrect. I don't have to support what is already common knowledge. What? You didn't know that the Republican Party is run by old white guys? Huh. Take a look at the leadership, dude.

Republican National Leadership GOP

See much racial diversity? Now take a look at the rank and file members?

Again, see much diversity? I rest my case.

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "**** the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - **** the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

Since we weren't discussing taxes, non-sequitur. Nice dodge attempt, though.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope!!
I agree with helping them out of poverty by giving them a good education so that they can get good productive jobs and have freedom.
Same as the GOP
P.S. What you are spouting is the lefties lies about the GOP.
Guess What?
The Left lie to the voters too.

And under the various (liberal) civil rights acts of the last 50 years, many have received a good education and found productive jobs. But the poor are not some snap shot of people who you can help and that is the end of it. Until the social and economic conditions that create poverty to begin with are eliminated, you will always have this problem. And likely it will never be gotten rid of entirely. I believe most of it can be eliminated. So I guess I am a liberal, eh? Many Republicans and conservatives, particularly on this forum, just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. When half of the political leadership has this attitude, is it any wonder there are so many poor in this country?

The social and economic conditions that create poverty will never be eliminated.
History has proven that no matter what types of Governments are in place, it never fully eliminates poverty and the bigger the government, the less the masses have and the poorer they become.
You are seeing that right now as the Government grew over the last 50 years the less disposable income people have.
Even in cave man times there was the leader who had the best of everything and the rest just shared everything.
Capitalism is not perfect but it has proved to be the best system so far to get people out of poverty, not the government.

But the problem is that we not only don't have Capitalism, a Democracy, nor even a Republic. What we have is an oligarchy. And as long as the 1% defy the 99%, things will never be settled or get better for the vast masses of Americans.

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

They are referring to the rich lobbyists who are running and influencing Washington.

Lobbyists don't run Washington. They perform a constitutional function. The government we have is the government all the morons out there voted for.

 

[Mac1958]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

TSJ, I'd be interested in knowing in which kind of class this was taught to you.

.

 

[bripat9643]

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

Neither definition applies to the United States, or any democracy, for that matter.

According to a new Princeton study, it does. By the way, the U.S. is not a Democracy. You didn't know this? Huh.

The Princeton study is commie propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

The GOP is not to blame for getting the minorities votes for government goodies.
Heck who wants to work when you can do whatever you want all day.

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "**** the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - **** the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

Since we weren't discussing taxes, non-sequitur. Nice dodge attempt, though.

Then how is the GOP "*******" minorities and the poor? Are they locking them in the steerage of some sinking ship?

 

[orogenicman]

So what you are saying is that you agree with the "**** the minorities and the poor, they are just steerage" attitude of the GOP. Got it. You realize that that attitude was best express in the Movie "Titanic", right? And as I recall, that ship also went down.

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - **** the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

Since we weren't discussing taxes, non-sequitur. Nice dodge attempt, though.

Then how is the GOP "*******" minorities and the poor? Are they locking them in the steerage of some sinking ship?

Essentially, yes.

 

[orogenicman]

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

Neither definition applies to the United States, or any democracy, for that matter.

According to a new Princeton study, it does. By the way, the U.S. is not a Democracy. You didn't know this? Huh.

The Princeton study is commie propaganda.

And you have evidence that this is the case, right?

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal Dictionary:
=============================================
Stop organized plunder - **** the poor and minorities.

BTW, Titanic was a movie, and the ship didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

Since we weren't discussing taxes, non-sequitur. Nice dodge attempt, though.

Then how is the GOP "*******" minorities and the poor? Are they locking them in the steerage of some sinking ship?

Essentially, yes.

In other words, factually, no.

 

[bripat9643]

The term "oligarchy" is totally meaningless. It's one of those words liberals like to use because the audience can infer whatever they like to infer and liberals can demonize something without having to mention any facts.

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

Neither definition applies to the United States, or any democracy, for that matter.

According to a new Princeton study, it does. By the way, the U.S. is not a Democracy. You didn't know this? Huh.

The Princeton study is commie propaganda.

And you have evidence that this is the case, right?

Hmmmmm, duh, it was published by a couple of Princeton commie political science professors. That's all the evidence you need.

 

[TSJohnson]

Hmmmmm, duh, it was published by a couple of Princeton commie political science professors. That's all the evidence you need.

Are you more educated in political science than tenured, published political science professors?

 

[orogenicman]

BTW the Titanic was a real ship that sank primarily with the "steerage" still locked below deck while the rich were removed via lifeboats (many of which only had ten to twenty people on them - boats that were designed to hold up to 80 people).

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

Since we weren't discussing taxes, non-sequitur. Nice dodge attempt, though.

Then how is the GOP "*******" minorities and the poor? Are they locking them in the steerage of some sinking ship?

Essentially, yes.

In other words, factually, no.

When Republicans want to cut funding for welfare and other entitlements for the poor, it's pretty clear to the poor what they think of them.

 

[orogenicman]

Oligarchy Define Oligarchy at Dictionary.com
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Oligarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control
"Rule by the few, often seen as having self-serving ends. Aristotle used the term pejoratively for unjust rule by bad men, contrasting oligarchy with rule by an aristocracy. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling class, which tends to exercise power in its own interest. The term is considered outmoded today because “few” conveys no information about the nature of the ruling group."

Neither definition applies to the United States, or any democracy, for that matter.

According to a new Princeton study, it does. By the way, the U.S. is not a Democracy. You didn't know this? Huh.

The Princeton study is commie propaganda.

And you have evidence that this is the case, right?

Hmmmmm, duh, it was published by a couple of Princeton commie political science professors. That's all the evidence you need.

Wrong. It's all the evidence YOU need. I need a bit more. Adding to your unsubstantiated claim with more unsubstantiated claims doesn't help your argument.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Like "Hate, Gay and Racist" the world Liberal, as used by the Left is a misnomer.

There world literally conveys: 'A proponent of Individual Liberty', when in fact, the lowly "Liberal" stands in abject opposition to individual liberty; as common, garden variety Leftists.

Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal.

But such is the nature of subjectivity... .

 

[Pogo]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Like "Hate, Gay and Racist" the world Liberal, as used by the Left is a misnomer.

There world literally conveys: 'A proponent of Individual Liberty', when in fact, the lowly "Liberal" stands in abject opposition to individual liberty; as common, garden variety Leftists.

Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal.

But such is the nature of subjectivity... .

Indeed. You just rendered a fairly accurate definition of the term and then proceeded to declare by personal fiat that it somehow means the opposite of what it means in spite of its own definition.

Must be interesting in your head.

 

[GreenBean]

Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

You are an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal. That's why you don't understand why you are filled with "liberal bias." It's actually "authoritarian leftist bias."

I am a libertarian, we are the true liberals who actually don't practice bias in government. Government should provide basic services that aren't doable any other way, police, military, that sort of thing, then leave us alone. No bias.

I'm not though. I'm generally opposed to authority, especially self-granted authority. However, I recognize that we need a government given authority by mutual consent to enforce our rights and ensure that no interest becomes too powerful and no person gets left behind. Equality and freedom are the hallmarks of liberalism and so I'm proud to accept the title of liberal.

Equality and freedom are the hallmarks of liberalism and so I'm proud to accept the title of liberal.

Beg to differ ... Ignorance and enslavement are the hallmarks of American Liberals. Liberals are a bumbleclot of narrow minded short sighted people who can't see past the ends of their noses.

They seek to create equality - they create and feed slovenly ethics and enslavement to entitlement.

They create division and strife and feed and bolster the divisions that permeate our society. They enable the ignorant and greedy to parasitize the productive and generous to the point where their productivity and generosity is worn thread bare. They open the gates to the fortress and allow our enemies to flood into the encampment to slaughter us - they are a twisted, ignorant and foolhardy lot those Liberals

Right. That would explain why the democratic party is composed of people from all walks of life while the GOP is composed primarily of old white guys. The fact is that you so-called conservatives are deathly afraid of multiculturalism, the idea that multiple ethnic groups can live together and get along, create a new peaceful world where people of all races and creeds can be successful. How else to explain your xenophobic statement, above?

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

Quite frankly - I resent that remark - I'm not white and I pay much more than my fair share - Lets just say , if it wasn't for productive people paying all the bills the Democrat Parasite agenda would be DOA

 

[GreenBean]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Like "Hate, Gay and Racist" the world Liberal, as used by the Left is a misnomer.

There world literally conveys: 'A proponent of Individual Liberty', when in fact, the lowly "Liberal" stands in abject opposition to individual liberty; as common, garden variety Leftists.

Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal.

But such is the nature of subjectivity... .

Indeed. You just rendered a fairly accurate definition of the term and then proceeded to declare by personal fiat that it somehow means the opposite of what it means in spite of its own definition.

Must be interesting in your head.

Curious as to how your convoluted logic came to that conclusion ?? He appears to be right on the money and summed it up with "Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Like "Hate, Gay and Racist" the world Liberal, as used by the Left is a misnomer.

There world literally conveys: 'A proponent of Individual Liberty', when in fact, the lowly "Liberal" stands in abject opposition to individual liberty; as common, garden variety Leftists.

Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal.

But such is the nature of subjectivity... .

Indeed. You just rendered a fairly accurate definition of the term and then proceeded to declare by personal fiat that it somehow means the opposite of what it means in spite of its own definition.

Must be interesting in your head.

Curious as to how your convoluted logic came to that conclusion ?? He appears to be right on the money and summed it up with "Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal."

LOL! Yeah it did... It couldn't help himself.

 

[GreenBean]

All your quotes are from Clayborne Carson or MLK 3rd

Horseshit.
I quoted MLK III once and MLK Jr. himself several times, from speech transcripts (verbatim) and his own words in his autobiography, again verbatim, and every one of them linked. You quoted ---- nothing.

Carson is a left wing rabble rouser of the Al Sharpton school of thought - 99% of his King quotes were "invented" long after King was dead

MLK 3 is a slouch whose soul contribution to society is riding in on the coat tails of his dead father. The KIng family is not without it's intellectuals and Free Thinkers - take for instance Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican." Bergmann also said King "subscribed to Republican values" and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.

---- and right into a poison-the-well fallacy that tries to dismiss a direct relative and substitutes an indirect one. "Your son doesn't qualify but my nephew does".

Having it both ways: Priceless. And no reference at all from the man himself as I gave.

You're just digging yourself deeper here.

Fabricated quotes from left wing propagandists will never change the fact that King never registered for Democratic - he always registered Republican as far as who he voted for

Link?

Didn't think so.

- He only stated that had Kennedy lived he would have voted for him is he ran for reelection -which implies he didn't vote for him the first time around .

It does no such thing. In fact I already quoted above (from the autobiography) that King himself writes that he in fact did vote for JFK (and I quote, "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one."
It's right there upstairs dood. You're trying to go but it ain't going away.

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

--- and off to Ad Homistan when all else fails. You got schooled, son. You've been exposed as bullshit and yet you double down in a dyspepsia of delusion.

So my question remains open -- are you some kind of masochist?

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

MLK was a Republican - never a Democrat . He may have voted for JFK - but then so did a lot of Republicans - hell I even made the worst mistake of my voting career when I voted for Obama on hos first term - but that was before all the media suppressed data became available.

There's no evidence he was registered with either party but there are his own words noting that he had "always voted the Democratic ticket" (as of 1956), that he voted for JFK (1960) and would have taken the step of endorsing same in 1964 had JFK lived. So you're still blowing the proverbial smoke out your ass.

The question remains unmolested-- how does your tiny little mind expect to get away with bullshit so easily refuted....
..... little fella?

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. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs

Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.

Pogo - Please note that I do applaud your cherry picking of the statement "always voted the Democratic ticket" [as of1956] ... MLK Never said that - and it would have been highly unlikely and out of character - he never publicly endorsed any party and it is extremely unlikely that a Black civil rights leader would have supported the party of Jim Crow in the 50s - Get a grip dude and come back to reality .

You cherry picked that quote from a so called Autobiography that King did not write - it was written and published after his death when the Al Sharptonesque rabble rousers were running amuk " We also know from his autobiography that he wrote to a supporter in 1956 that "in the past, I always voted the Democratic ticket."

Do you even know what Auto-biography means a opposed to biography - do you realize that the entire premise of the book is a joke ? wake up little fella !!!

It's not in the bio, it's in a letter, in his own words, as previously posted, with his signature on it, addressed to Miss Viva Sloan of 379 Baldwin Street in Morgantown, West Virginia. And unlike you I can link directly to the whole thing.
The Papers of Martin Luther King: Rediscovering Precious Values. page 384.

Anything else, masochist?

It's in a letter huh - okay so heres letters from viv sloan to mlk - where's the letter from mlk to sloan ??

Letter from Viva Sloan to MLK The Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change

And here is the only letter on file from mlk to Ms.Sloan

Letter from MLK to Viva O Dean Sloan The Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change

Here's another letter from Ms. SLoan

https://storage.synaptic.att.com/re...984000&signature=950tVOL/3l4d9nFVmzgBGr8myow=

So where's this signed letter ?? - you say it exists - lets have a look - perhaps you're right - there are hundreds of letters from MLK available and even one to the Viva Sloan in question - something about selling a house - but i can't seem to find the one you're talking about - If you can post a link to a letter with signature I'll concede your point untill then fukoff

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Indeed. You just rendered a fairly accurate definition of the term and then proceeded to declare by personal fiat that it somehow means the opposite of what it means in spite of its own definition.

Must be interesting in your head.

I did no such thing. What I did was to define the word, expressing the concept it represents. I then noted that the concept is taken by people to label themselves, despite their possessing nothing in common with the traits intrinsic to it.

That you people have nothing in common with the concept; that you reject the very objectivity that is essential to individual liberty precludes you from even recognizing the individual responsibilities that must be born with each and every right you claim... no responsibility, no right.

Now you can disagree, but ya can't do so and enjoy any sense of credibility... as the principles on which individual liberty rests are not negotiable.

Nature doesn't give a dam' about your needs... it provides you the means to reason and the rest is up to you. When you reject the individual responsibilities, you forfeit the correlating right. And that is truly all there is to it.

 

[bripat9643]

Irrelevant. It didn't sink because the GOP lowered taxes.

Since we weren't discussing taxes, non-sequitur. Nice dodge attempt, though.

Then how is the GOP "*******" minorities and the poor? Are they locking them in the steerage of some sinking ship?

Essentially, yes.

In other words, factually, no.

When Republicans want to cut funding for welfare and other entitlements for the poor, it's pretty clear to the poor what they think of them.

Yeah, it's clear that Republicans don't feel obligated to pay other people's bills. I don't get upset when other people don't want to pay my bills. If that makes the poor hate Republicans, then they have unmasked themselves as thugs.