J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Me neither.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Question for today: If MLK wanted people to be judged by "their character rather than the color of their skin," then does that imply that he'd be against Affirmative Action?
Discuss......
I see MLK month is in full swing...
![]()
![]()
:Caution! this thread may be tallied:
![]()
The conspiracy fantasy is heavy here.![]()
Well, I don't really have one, just suspicions. More likely Ray killed King for the same reasons any of millions of racist whites might have.
What ever happened to good old fashioned crazy?
But they didn't, only Ray did. Was he a lone wolf, or was he paid?
I wonder if the people that are pissy about today are ALL for the Columbus Day
I wonder if in MLK History Month if they'll explore his many plagiarisms or five year association with the Commie pervert Bayard Rustin, or his association with Commie Stanley Levinson, or Commie Jack O'Dell. Just wonderin'.![]()
I don't care that he was a terrorist. Wanting to overthrow your government is a natural reaction.
What bothered me about Mandela was that he was a Communist and Socialist. He wanted to nationalize the banks and gold mines. That's why he sucked.
Pat Buchanan's nativist-paleocon magazine The American Conservative, where I have sometimes seen articles about how life in post-Apartheid SA sucks and even some blacks miss the old days, has only this to say about Mandela:
Mandela Practiced Magnanimity In Triumph
By Noah Millman • December 6, 2013, 12:00 PM
The tributes to Nelson Mandela are coming thick and fast, as well they should. Rather than add my own to the list, though, I’d like to suggest that we take those commendations to heart.
Mandela is being praised for two qualities more than anything: his firmness and determination through decades of struggle for justice, and his extraordinary magnanimity in victory. Neither quality is particularly common, and both are highly praiseworthy—but they are particularly extraordinary in combination.
And we are most likely to applaud the half of that combination that we can most easily see applying to us. So, those who thirst for justice are more likely to look up to his tenacity and uncompromising pursuit of right. And those who fear revolution are more likely to praise his eagerness to reach out to his former oppressors and integrate them into his new South African order.
All of which has an unfortunate way of turning Mandela against our current opponents. Of telling those in power: will you really jail another Mandela if he comes among us? And of telling those who would overturn the established order: I can’t listen to you unless you promise to be as forgiving as he is if you win?
It would be nice if we did the opposite.
So, for example, there’s a substantial conservative record of support for the South African apartheid government during the Cold War, on the grounds that it was an ally against Communism and that the ANC had ties to Communist movements. Now could be a time for liberals to point to that record and demand its disavowal, and for conservatives to demand magnanimity and understanding for their prioritization of anti-Communism over anti-racism.
But given the scale of the anti-Communist victory, wouldn’t it be more in tune with the moment for conservatives to be magnanimous, and say: you know, it’s entirely understandable why the ANC sought Communist support. Indeed, it’s entirely understandable why many groups fighting oppressive structures and regimes accepted or even sought the support of Soviet-backed groups during the Cold War. What looked like the most important moral question from the perspective of Washington would not have looked like the most important moral question from the perspective of Transkei, or any number of other places. So maybe, now that the Soviet Union is dead and buried, we should stop harping on ties to Communists as some kind of unforgivable sin, in this case and in general.
Just a thought.
Learn, Carnevil9.
Or Confederate Memorial Day, if they are from the South.
Celebrating losing a war? Kind of dumb
There are some who think the South won the war.
They won what?
They lost their Confederacy.
They lost their slaves.
States rights were lessened.
What did they win?
The Union lost 360000 dead and 275000 wounded
The South lost 260000 dead and 100000 wounded.
Emancipation cost the South nuthin, in fact planters lost financial responsibility for all the unproductive old folks, kids, and women. The South traded slavery for the Convict Lease System that made most blacks felons and available for rented labor. Rental fees were cheap, and much less than buying a slave. In 1820 a mediocre slave cost 300-1000 dollars. After emancipation planters rented them for 125 a year. The lease system lasted till around 1925. And if the black got sick or old or crippled, you traded him for a young one.
Politically the value of a black went from 3/5ths person to a full person, so the Souths representation in Congress increased.
You can justify any way you want, the South still lost, and have cause harm to states rights due to it.
Again, why celebrate Confederate Memorial Day when Memorial Day's first incarnation was to Remember BOTH sides.![]()
Keep telling yourself that till you believe it.
I'm sorry that your ignorance has blinded to the truth, but you don't know the truth behind Memorial Day, and it's evident, or you wouldn't bring up Confederate day. Does the north have Union Memorial Day? No!
The Union lost 360000 dead and 275000 wounded
The South lost 260000 dead and 100000 wounded.
Emancipation cost the South nuthin, in fact planters lost financial responsibility for all the unproductive old folks, kids, and women. The South traded slavery for the Convict Lease System that made most blacks felons and available for rented labor. Rental fees were cheap, and much less than buying a slave. In 1820 a mediocre slave cost 300-1000 dollars. After emancipation planters rented them for 125 a year. The lease system lasted till around 1925. And if the black got sick or old or crippled, you traded him for a young one.
Politically the value of a black went from 3/5ths person to a full person, so the Souths representation in Congress increased.
I've studied the Civil War/Reconstruction for 54 years.