Do Black lives really matter?

[tac]

You can't look at a media outlet today without someone commenting on the 'Black lives matter' issue commanding attention in the country. You see signs posted every where in most leftist cities proclaiming the fact, politicians being attacked if they disagree, but do black lives really matter to the left?

How many times have we seen the leftist media ignore black on black crime statistics, especially in the predominately black communities where black on black crime statistics are staggering? Chicago comes to mind, where black on black murders are an every day occurrence. Yet the most staggering statistic is in the abortion rate for black babies. A statistic that is largely ignored by not only the media, but by the black community.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, "The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety." How can the "Dream" survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.

source

MLK was murdered almost 50 years ago, but what he said then is relevant today. What would he say today if he say that the rate for black abortions today was over 35% of all pregnant black women? That figure is from 2009!

It becomes readily apparent to anyone with a functioning neuron in their brain, that the only black lives that matter are those that can be used for political gain, or those that further the leftist agenda.

The black community will start a riot at the drop of a hat when a black is killed by a white person, but are mute when faced with black on black murders of the black abortion rate. Why? Maybe because the black leaders are silent?

[zewazir]

.... And the Black leaders are silent because they care even less about their black supporters than the white liberals do.  It's all about power, money, and limelight. And if tomorrow they find they can make more use of "poor white trash" for their purposes, then "Black Lives Matter" will be tossed out like week-old sliced tomatoes.

[Dori]

Yes black lives matter, just as much as any other life.

The current "black lives matter" slogan is stupid empty verbiage.  They only like to chant those words when one of them gets killed by a police officer.   They are quiet as a mouse when blacks kill other blacks. 

There have been almost a hundred murders in Baltimore ever since the Freddie Gray death.

[tac]

All lives matter regardless of skin color.

[supsalemgr]

All lives matter regardless of skin color.

You are absolutely correct. However, the race industry does not agree with us. It keeps them going.

[zewazir]

All lives matter regardless of skin color.

When politicians say that, they are required to apologize.

[kroz]

When politicians say that, they are required to apologize.

Especially if they claim that unborn lives matter!!!   

[tac]

When politicians say that, they are required to apologize.

That's because they have cajones the size of raisins.

[red_dirt]

That's because they have cajones the size of raisins.

This attention to black people is probably overdue. Since the 1960's, a lot of Americans had kind of forgotten about the black people and their individual concerns. My opinion is that Barack Obama, with his Black White House, has more than made up for any deficiency in that area over the past eight years.  He has also introduced us to the softer side of Islamic Jihad, like we needed that.
This is another way of saying, "See you later, Barack. Thanks for the effort.  Now, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

[zewazir]

What is over due is a society that does not pay attention to skin color when it comes to laws and policies. Some forms of individual racism will ALWAYS exist, even when shoved into the background. We are, after all, dealing with human beings, and some human beings will continue to pass the poisons of racism to the following generations no matter what we try to do about it.

But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Assistance for the poor needs to help the poor, not help the blacks or Hispanics or whatever other "special" class the liberals want to enslave. We need to get rid of any law or policy which gives any type of unequal consideration due to race, creed, or gender.

The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. For 60 years now the dims have managed to keep a significant percentage of blacks cooped up and dependent, trading the plantations of the old South for the projects of so-called civil rights. Th democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.

Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white.  "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Every time the liberals put race in their policy, they piss on Martin Luther King's grave.

[tac]

What is over due is a society that does not pay attention to skin color when it comes to laws and policies. Some forms of individual racism will ALWAYS exist, even when shoved into the background. We are, after all, dealing with human beings, and some human beings will continue to pass the poisons of racism to the following generations no matter what we try to do about it.

But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Assistance for the poor needs to help the poor, not help the blacks or Hispanics or whatever other "special" class the liberals want to enslave. We need to get rid of any law or policy which gives any type of unequal consideration due to race, creed, or gender.
racists
The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. For 60 years now the dims have managed to keep a significant percentage of blacks cooped up and dependent, trading the plantations of the old South for the projects of so-called civil rights. Th democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.

Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white.  "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Every time the liberals put race in their policy, they piss on Martin Luther King's grave.

Unfortunately politicians don't think that way. Does anyone think that LBJ wasn't paying attention to skin color when he rammed the Civil Right Act 1964 through CONgress?

[red_dirt]

What is over due is a society that does not pay attention to skin color when it comes to laws and policies. Some forms of individual racism will ALWAYS exist, even when shoved into the background. We are, after all, dealing with human beings, and some human beings will continue to pass the poisons of racism to the following generations no matter what we try to do about it.

But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind. Assistance for the poor needs to help the poor, not help the blacks or Hispanics or whatever other "special" class the liberals want to enslave. We need to get rid of any law or policy which gives any type of unequal consideration due to race, creed, or gender.

The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer. For 60 years now the dims have managed to keep a significant percentage of blacks cooped up and dependent, trading the plantations of the old South for the projects of so-called civil rights. Th democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.

Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white.  "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Every time the liberals put race in their policy, they piss on Martin Luther King's grave.

What did you find inaccurate?  I'll admit those comments were, by far, incomplete.  (I don't think the forum is equipped for a multi-volume, 10 megaword analysis.)

But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind.  Sounds good in practice. In reality, let's not confuse black with white. Two cultures. Two sets of values. When the Black Panthers declared war on the police, there was no implication that I would join in. In fact, after they win the war with police, they'll probably start on white men over 50 and all white women.

The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer.  When was black and white anything but divided? Sometimes I listen to recordings by Nat King Cole and Natalie, watch pre 1960 films, and think to myself, what fools the black and white are. They were actually beginning to assimilate. Of course they will tell you things were never good for them. Again, that leads us to Liberia.

The democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.  What in the world is that supposed to mean? I see zero exploitation of black labor. Black votes, maybe. But any city  Democratic machine liberal will tell you they have no answer to the race issue. Believe me, they have tried.

Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white.  On this we are in complete agreement.

[zewazir]

But when it comes to how we write the law, and how we implement policy, it all needs to be 100% color blind.  Sounds good in practice. In reality, let's not confuse black with white. Two cultures. Two sets of values. When the Black Panthers declared war on the police, there was no implication that I would join in. In fact, after they win the war with police, they'll probably start on white men over 50 and all white women.

As long as the government comes along promoting the ideal that different races need special consideration in the law, it will continue to promote the idea that the so-called protected classes cannot compete without that help. It promotes among the protected classes the idea that they are inferior, which in turn produces feelings of anger, which then turns into race hatred. Because the programs are promoted as trying to help protected classes achieve equality, those who promote those programs can then turn rhetoric against those who oppose race based programs, labeling us as the racists. But when push comes to shove, it is the federal government and their race based programs are the primary source of continued division between the races.  Supporting point: the military does not give any special consideration to anyone. Each soldier is expected to do their part, no excuses, and success is dependent on teamwork. The military also does not tolerate individual racism. The end result is people of all races working side by side, literally depending on each other for their very lives, even though the individuals come from those two (or more) divergent cultures you reference. The division between races is artificial, and deliberately maintained by government because it gives government more power.

The reason the demoncraps insist on focusing on skin color (and any other differences they can exploit) is because they are using it in the age-old strategy of divide and conquer.  When was black and white anything but divided? Sometimes I listen to recordings by Nat King Cole and Natalie, watch pre 1960 films, and think to myself, what fools the black and white are. They were actually beginning to assimilate. Of course they will tell you things were never good for them. Again, that leads us to Liberia.

There are many examples in which race relations were getting better. If that were not so, the movies you reference would not have been the box office successes they were. People of both races wanted to get along. There was still rampant racism up through the 60s, but there was (and still is) a larger movement which shed light on the evil of racism. Blacks were making progress in demanding equality in pay, while more and more whites joined in calling for equality. There was also resistance to accepting equality between the races, which in turn led to conflict, including violence on the part of both sides. (When has major social change NOT involved conflict?) Government forces saw opportunity in this strife, and have used it for the past 60 years to gain more and more power at the cost of liberty; on the one hand passing laws with the purported purpose of enforcing equality, forcing integration, while simultaneously assuring the gross affect of their programs would result in even more segregation via housing projects, even more race associated poverty via welfare programs, and even more racial tension with other race based programs such as "affirmative action". ALL these programs have the ultimate design of keeping blacks economically suppressed and dependent, which coupled with the "white privilege" rhetoric assures a dependable voting block; without which the democratic party would have lost power decades ago.

The democrats never gave up on keeping slaves, they just found a different way of doing it.  What in the world is that supposed to mean? I see zero exploitation of black labor. Black votes, maybe. But any city  Democratic machine liberal will tell you they have no answer to the race issue. Believe me, they have tried.

Dependency is the new slavery. The democratic machine (to use your terminology) no longer gives a crap about getting labor out of their slaves, because that type of labor is no longer needed.  But in keeping the black community dependent on government programs - programs which they threaten the evil racist conservatives will take away  from them - they have themselves a dependable voting block - ie: political power.  And political power, rather than getting rich off unpaid labor, is the new end game of the democratic socialist party.

Just once I would like to hear a news report that simply states a man (or woman) was involved with such-and-such event. No race, no color, no black v. white.  On this we are in complete agreement.

Bottom line: the VAST majority of strife between the races is artificially created by, and maintained by our benevolent and loving federal government. This is even more apparent under the leadership of the big O IN THE WH, and his race baiting buddies.

[red_dirt]

There are many examples in which race relations were getting better. If that were not so, the movies you reference would not have been the box office successes they were. People of both races wanted to get along. There was still rampant racism up through the 60s, but there was (and still is) a larger movement which shed light on the evil of racism.
Bottom line: the VAST majority of strife between the races is artificially created by, and maintained by our benevolent and loving federal government. This is even more apparent under the leadership of the big O IN THE WH, and his race baiting buddies.

Those are rational assessments, z-man. I find nothing to quibble, but copied only a few highlights just to save space.  I may be defensive, but I find the tone of this response rational, whereas the tempo of the original was a mite hyperbolic.
I spent some of the formative years in industrial Ohio. My friends'  Dads told me they rather enjoyed the black co worker. We can certainly understand that. The sense of humor is legendary. What they didn't like were the union agitators (professional Democrats) and the 90 day wonders -- bosses who were little more than brown noses and company stooges.  I'm sure little has changed.

Mind you, this was pre Kennedy/Johnson, kind of a golden era. Ripe for charlatans like King, LBJ, and the Kennedy brothers picking.  Well, you know what happened to steel and auto.  Later the public schools would crash.

No, the Democratic Political Machine is not some figment of my imagination. If you read your own words carefully, you'll see that you and I refer to the same thing, only our semantic choices differ.  The Democratic organization, since Wilson, coveted the power and position, but they had done nothing to produce it,  much less had they conditioned themselves to the open-ness and flexibility required to make it work. I mean, the open mindedness of a Henry Ford and John D Rockefeller. Hah! JDR, Junior dropped hundreds of millions on the Catholic Church, after the fortune had been established. He was not forced to. That was the ethic -- giving back to the people who made you rich.
Those same Catholics were encouraged to hate Capitalism. Go figure! So, my point is, as has been proven by psychology, it is those liberals, those famous open minded liberals, who are the true stiffs on the landscape. At the heart, they are fake.

I encourage you to continue structuring your thoughts, maybe start a blog, z-man. You have talent for it.

[zewazir]

No, the Democratic Political Machine is not some figment of my imagination.

I never said it was, nor intended to seem to imply.

You have a particular name for it, whereas I do not, which is why I said "using your term." It was an acknowledgement of a simple semantic difference rather than differing overall opinion.

Actually, if I were to start using a similar type label, I would probably call it the Federal Political Machine, since, in reality, all gains in power over the decades have invariably been used by both parties, regardless of which party was in power when the new authority was usurped.  I mention the democratic party as the primary instigator in the race war because they are the party which continues to promote the federal policies which are resulting in the racial divisions we see today. And it has been magnified by an order of magnitude since the O took office.

My original post, if seeming hyperbolic, was simply due to trying to describe a vastly complicated issue with vastly complicated history in less than a book sized entry. Sorry if I did so poorly.