We need a thread about politics.....

[Anonymous]

Politics is not important. many things in life are needing more attention than the politics. like the food and the house and the planet.



The child are needing it too.

I am not political myself Chickenfeets.

[Romero]

trust me it is only the sick western nations that promote the gay agenda in their schools and teach sex ed to kindergarten kids

So what's at the root of all of this concern? What kind of salacious details will Chicago's youngest students be receiving, thanks to the new sex ed guidelines? What does Obama want to force kindergartners to sit through?



According to Chicago Public Schools' chief health officer, Stephanie Whyte, kindergartners and first-graders will learn about anatomy, healthy relationships, and personal safety. The teachers for those grades will design lesson plans around topics like "my body," "good touch vs. bad touch," and "living things that reproduce."



Despite the recent round of fear mongering over "kindergarten sex ed," comprehensive sexual health classes are not actually controversial among parents — especially since age-appropriate guidelines ensure that kindergartners don't receive the same information as high schoolers. Pediatricians and psychologists encourage anatomy classes for young children, particularly so kids can learn the correct words for their genitalia, as an important way of teaching bodily autonomy and helping to prevent sexual crimes.



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/03/2566341/chicago-sex-kindergarten/">//http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/03/2566341/chicago-sex-kindergarten/

[Obvious Li]

trust me it is only the sick western nations that promote the gay agenda in their schools and teach sex ed to kindergarten kids

So what's at the root of all of this concern? What kind of salacious details will Chicago's youngest students be receiving, thanks to the new sex ed guidelines? What does Obama want to force kindergartners to sit through?



According to Chicago Public Schools' chief health officer, Stephanie Whyte, kindergartners and first-graders will learn about anatomy, healthy relationships, and personal safety. The teachers for those grades will design lesson plans around topics like "my body," "good touch vs. bad touch," and "living things that reproduce."



Despite the recent round of fear mongering over "kindergarten sex ed," comprehensive sexual health classes are not actually controversial among parents — especially since age-appropriate guidelines ensure that kindergartners don't receive the same information as high schoolers. Pediatricians and psychologists encourage anatomy classes for young children, particularly so kids can learn the correct words for their genitalia, as an important way of teaching bodily autonomy and helping to prevent sexual crimes.



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/03/2566341/chicago-sex-kindergarten/">//http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/03/2566341/chicago-sex-kindergarten/

why are you progressives so obsessed with teaching 5 year olds how to put on a condom or the proper names for their genitals.....WTF is the matter with you people...are you schooling them for action in grade 6....WTF

[Wulf]

Everyone should contribute......



Me first.....please comment on any or all of thes points below...



12  Rules For Being A Liberal





There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules. There are actually quite a few rules liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don't even consciously know they're following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you'll know them better than they know themselves in some ways.



1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.



2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don't include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, "This is a racist country," or ",This is a mean country," they certainly aren't referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it's meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.



3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned: There's an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It's not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It's not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It's not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.



4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don't pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It's like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.



5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal "Christian" or "Jew" is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that's simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.



6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: " Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization."



7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don't work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn't work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the "Saving Women And Puppies Bill" than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.



8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism: Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That's because right and wrong don't come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that.



9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn't work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people's lives. There's nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.



10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don't like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they're conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren't going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal doctrine.



11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it's a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don't "logic" someone out of a position that he didn't use "logic" to come up with in the first place.



12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: There's one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it's based on ideology, not religion.

This is brilliant, obvious but brilliant nonetheless.  :)

[Wulf]

trust me it is only the sick western nations that promote the gay agenda in their schools and teach sex ed to kindergarten kids

So what's at the root of all of this concern? What kind of salacious details will Chicago's youngest students be receiving, thanks to the new sex ed guidelines? What does Obama want to force kindergartners to sit through?



According to Chicago Public Schools' chief health officer, Stephanie Whyte, kindergartners and first-graders will learn about anatomy, healthy relationships, and personal safety. The teachers for those grades will design lesson plans around topics like "my body," "good touch vs. bad touch," and "living things that reproduce."



Despite the recent round of fear mongering over "kindergarten sex ed," comprehensive sexual health classes are not actually controversial among parents — especially since age-appropriate guidelines ensure that kindergartners don't receive the same information as high schoolers. Pediatricians and psychologists encourage anatomy classes for young children, particularly so kids can learn the correct words for their genitalia, as an important way of teaching bodily autonomy and helping to prevent sexual crimes.



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/03/2566341/chicago-sex-kindergarten/">//http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/03/2566341/chicago-sex-kindergarten/

why are you progressives so obsessed with teaching 5 year olds how to put on a condom or the proper names for their genitals.....WTF is the matter with you people...are you schooling them for action in grade 6....WTF

It's all part of the progressive indoctrination process disguised as looking out for the welfare of the children. It may seem ridiculous to you or I but there is a method to the lefty madness.

[Obvious Li]

"This is brilliant, obvious but brilliant nonetheless. :)"



why thank you ..i thought so too....at ACC the hits just keep comin atcha...stay sharp... :ugeek:

[Anonymous]

Reading, grammar and math are overrated anyway. Grade one students need to know about protection.

[Obvious Li]

Reading, grammar and math are overrated anyway. Grade one students need to know about protection.

Hmmmmm...i will be sure and drop the 2013 version of "Debbie Does Dallas" in your little ones christmas stocking......can't start "teaching" the little ones soon enough.....oh sorry i though you were Homero...hahaha.. :mrgreen:

[Wulf]

Reading, grammar and math are overrated anyway. Grade one students need to know about protection.

Hey, in some inner city locations in the US by grade 5 they are fucking the teachers in the bathrooms. Can't start with the bith control too early ya know.  

[Anonymous]

Reading, grammar and math are overrated anyway. Grade one students need to know about protection.

Hmmmmm...i will be sure and drop the 2013 version of "Debbie Does Dallas" in your little ones christmas stocking......can't start "teaching" the little ones soon enough.....oh sorry i though you were Homero...hahaha.. :mrgreen:

I forgot to add the rolling eyes to my post OL.

[Obvious Li]

Reading, grammar and math are overrated anyway. Grade one students need to know about protection.

Hmmmmm...i will be sure and drop the 2013 version of "Debbie Does Dallas" in your little ones christmas stocking......can't start "teaching" the little ones soon enough.....oh sorry i though you were Homero...hahaha.. :mrgreen:

I forgot to add the rolling eyes to my post OL. [/quote





i know where your commin from baby.....no eyes needed......except for me of course... :mrgreen:

[Anonymous]

Hmmmmm...i will be sure and drop the 2013 version of "Debbie Does Dallas" in your little ones christmas stocking......can't start "teaching" the little ones soon enough.....oh sorry i though you were Homero...hahaha.. :mrgreen:

I forgot to add the rolling eyes to my post OL. [/quote





i know where your commin from baby.....no eyes needed......except for me of course... :mrgreen:

Western liberals are so driven by ideology. I am not that impressed with Western conservatives either though. :?

[Obvious Li]

this is sorta politics...at least it reflects the state of the states these days....



Zimmerman



July 15, 2013



The Zimmerman affair warms the cockles of a curmudgeon´s heart.  Never have I seen such sprawling, cacophonous, indignant ignorance and frightful stupidity as that being exhibited by the American public. We are doomed.  I am delighted.



Has there ever been such focused inattention as the case has produced? Nothing of importance is noticed, and everything lacking it is. The crucial fact to come out of the whole adventure—crucial, and therefore utterly overlooked--was that  Rachel Jeantel, a prosecution witness and black girl aged nineteen years, can´t read. The grim implication of this fact is confirmed by the illiteracy of tweets from blacks regarding the case. "Ima kill dat dumass cracker be racis." Here we see as neatly displayed as if in a jewelry box why so many young blacks will go nowhere in the remaining fifty years of their lives. They can´t read, or barely can. In a fading techno-industrial civilization—I use the latter word frivolously—this consigns them to a life on charity. Is this not of more note than who started what?



No. The educational disaster that will leave Rachel and millions of her confreres in meaningless lives on welfare pales in importance compared to the question: Did Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman have the proper racial attitudes? This is what exercises the vast endocrine boobitry howling with empty-headed rage and self-righteousness.



Of course racism was involved in the shooting. The prosecution established this beyond doubt. Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker," "cracker" being a highly pejorative term for low-class whites living in decaying trailers in the pine barrens and Everglades of Florida. So Trayvon, a racist, didn´t like white people. So what? Most blacks don´t.



A measure of the limitless hypocrisy that pervades, that almost constitutes American political life is that Travon´s clear racial hostility—"creepy-ass cracker"—is ignored. Only whites can exhibit racial antagonism. Yet perhaps twice a week on the Drudge Report one encounters cell-phone video of young blacks seriously beating whites because they are white. Here you have to understand that racial attacks are not racial. The local police chief invariably says that race wasn´t involved, when in fact nothing else was, and the papers will speak of "teens."



But what persuaded me that humanity really did descend from monkeys, and would do well to ascend back to them, was the public´s near-perfect lack of grasp of anything involved in this national soap opera. From the vacant visages of over-coiffed network babes, from the empty minds and overhanging orbital ridges of anchor men, came a veritable Pacific of incomprehension. I was fascinated. Reasonable behavior is not very amusing.



For example, from these clouded minds there drizzled drastic drivel to the effect that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin. By this is meant that Zimmerman noticed that Martin closely resembled the young black males who had been burgling homes in the neighborhood, it being the duty of a neighborhood watch to notice exactly this.



But "profiling," whatever network marsupials may think they think they mean by it, assuming that they think at all, is not a crime, and Zimmerman was not charged with it. "Following" is not a crime, and Zimmerman was not charged with it. Having attitudes that CNN doesn´t like is not yet a crime. Second-degree murder is a crime, and that, and only that, is what Zimmerman was charged with. The rest is irrelevant.



As best I could tell, this was far too difficult a concept for the talking heads.



Or was it? My Mexican wife, having compared the testimony in the trial to what the American media were saying, commented that the latter seemed to be trying to start a race war. Granted, she is not qualified to comment on the case, as she is not an idiot. Despite this debility, she appeared to be on to something.



Watching as much of the television coverage as I could bear, I saw that Zimmerman was being heavily packaged as guilty—of exactly what not being specified—with the strong implication that should he not be convicted, it would constitute a racially motivated miscarriage of justice. The duty of the jury was not to try him, but to convict him.



The coverage was so craftedly witless and dishonest that it was easy to suspect a conspiracy. Stupidity beyond a certain point can only be a work of intelligence. It was certainly dangerous behavior. In the cities there are large black populations who get all their news from television. These can easily be incited to violence. In California, someone called Zulu Shabazz, of the New Black Panther Party, is indeed calling for a race war against whites. The strategic brilliance of declaring war on those who grow your food and sign you checks might be lost on Sun Tzu. Oh well.



I have known people in the media for the forty years in which I pulled my oar in the triremes of print. I can attest that the talking heads do not want to provoke war. They want to display their virtue by engaging in exhibitionism disguised as confession. As a Catholic does not question the divinity of Christ, so a journalist does not question the racial guilt of whites. For everything, probably to include sunspots. It would result in ostracism, and one has to go daily to the news room.



Zimmerman´s defense was self-defense. How many of those bubbling and fuming indignantly have read Florida´s statue on self-defense? It is online. How many of those emoting about who threw the first punch have read Florida´s case law on the question? For good reasons, it doesn´t matter who punched whom first.



(You don´t like my looks and spit in my face. I punch you in the nose. You pull a switchblade and lunge at me, whereupon I shoot you dead.  That´s legitimate self-defense, because I believed myself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, this being the threshold for use of deadly force. That I threw the first punch doesn´t matter.)



Anyone of sufficient intelligence—IQ 3 should do it--can see that race relations in America are bad and getting worse. However, to judge by commentary regarding Zimmerman, very few meet this demanding intellectual standard. People achieving a lesser standard, partial sentience perhaps, can see that until blacks    decide to essay literacy, even education, things will stay the same or deteriorate. The latter of course is the assured outcome. Why Mssrs. Jesse and Al don´t point this out to their constituents is, unfortunately, obvious, the purpose of race hustling being to profit the hustler.

[Obvious Li]

The NSA Admits It Analyzes More People's Data Than Previously Revealed

Philip Bump  Jul 17, 2013



As an aside during testimony on Capitol Hill today, a National Security Agency representative rather casually indicated that the government looks at data from a universe of far, far more people than previously indicated.

Chris Inglis, the agency's deputy director, was one of several government representatives—including from the FBI and the office of the Director of National Intelligence—testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this morning. Most of the testimony largely echoed previous testimony by the agencies on the topic of the government's surveillance, including a retread of the same offered examples for how the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had stopped terror events.

But Inglis' statement was new. Analysts look "two or three hops" from terror suspects when evaluating terror activity, Inglis revealed. Previously, the limit of how surveillance was extended had been described as two hops. This meant that if the NSA were following a phone metadata or web trail from a terror suspect, it could also look at the calls from the people that suspect has spoken with—one hop. And then, the calls that second person had also spoken with—two hops. Terror suspect to person two to person three. Two hops. And now: A third hop.

Think of it this way. Let's say the government suspects you are a terrorist and it has access to your Facebook account. If you're an American citizen, it can't do that currently (with certain exceptions)—but for the sake of argument. So all of your friends, that's one hop. Your friends' friends, whether you know them or not—two hops. Your friends' friends' friends, whoever they happen to be, are that third hop. That's a massive group of people that the NSA apparently considers fair game.

For a sense of scale, researchers at the University of Milan found in 2011 that everyone on the Internet was, on average, 4.74 steps away from anyone else. The NSA explores relationships up to three of those steps. (See our conversation with the ACLU's Alex Abdo on this.)

Inglis' admission didn't register among the members of Congress present, but immediately resonated with privacy advocates online.

The hearing was far more critical of the government than previous hearings have been. Members of the House from both political parties had strong words for the agency representatives, often focused on how the letter of the law had been exploited.

Ranking Minority Member John Conyers (MI): "You've already violated the law in my opinion."

Rep. Jerry Nadler (NY): "I believe it's totally unprecedented and goes way beyond the statute."

Rep. Ted Poe (TX): "Do you see a national security exemption in the Fourth Amendment? ... We've abused the concept of rights in the name of national security."

The author of the Patriot Act, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, reminded the government that the act was up for renewal in 2015. The provisions for phone metadata collection, he warned, have "got to be changed ... otherwise in a year or year and a half you're not going to have it any more."

Inglis' admission isn't likely to help the effort to convince members of the House that the surveillance programs should be kept as is. Neither will a response offered by DNI counsel Robert Litt. Asked by committee chairman Bob Goodlatte if the government really thought the massive collection of phone records could be kept from the American people, Litt replied, "Well, um, we tried."

The audience chuckled.

Update, 1:10 p.m.: Another bit of news. The longstanding question of whether or not phone metadata collected by NSA includes geolocation data has been answered. "We are not collecting that data," Inglis said, "under this program."

[Renee]

this is sorta politics...at least it reflects the state of the states these days....



Zimmerman



July 15, 2013



The Zimmerman affair warms the cockles of a curmudgeon´s heart.  Never have I seen such sprawling, cacophonous, indignant ignorance and frightful stupidity as that being exhibited by the American public. We are doomed.  I am delighted.



Has there ever been such focused inattention as the case has produced? Nothing of importance is noticed, and everything lacking it is. The crucial fact to come out of the whole adventure—crucial, and therefore utterly overlooked--was that  Rachel Jeantel, a prosecution witness and black girl aged nineteen years, can´t read. The grim implication of this fact is confirmed by the illiteracy of tweets from blacks regarding the case. "Ima kill dat dumass cracker be racis." Here we see as neatly displayed as if in a jewelry box why so many young blacks will go nowhere in the remaining fifty years of their lives. They can´t read, or barely can. In a fading techno-industrial civilization—I use the latter word frivolously—this consigns them to a life on charity. Is this not of more note than who started what?



No. The educational disaster that will leave Rachel and millions of her confreres in meaningless lives on welfare pales in importance compared to the question: Did Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman have the proper racial attitudes? This is what exercises the vast endocrine boobitry howling with empty-headed rage and self-righteousness.



Of course racism was involved in the shooting. The prosecution established this beyond doubt. Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker," "cracker" being a highly pejorative term for low-class whites living in decaying trailers in the pine barrens and Everglades of Florida. So Trayvon, a racist, didn´t like white people. So what? Most blacks don´t.



A measure of the limitless hypocrisy that pervades, that almost constitutes American political life is that Travon´s clear racial hostility—"creepy-ass cracker"—is ignored. Only whites can exhibit racial antagonism. Yet perhaps twice a week on the Drudge Report one encounters cell-phone video of young blacks seriously beating whites because they are white. Here you have to understand that racial attacks are not racial. The local police chief invariably says that race wasn´t involved, when in fact nothing else was, and the papers will speak of "teens."



But what persuaded me that humanity really did descend from monkeys, and would do well to ascend back to them, was the public´s near-perfect lack of grasp of anything involved in this national soap opera. From the vacant visages of over-coiffed network babes, from the empty minds and overhanging orbital ridges of anchor men, came a veritable Pacific of incomprehension. I was fascinated. Reasonable behavior is not very amusing.



For example, from these clouded minds there drizzled drastic drivel to the effect that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin. By this is meant that Zimmerman noticed that Martin closely resembled the young black males who had been burgling homes in the neighborhood, it being the duty of a neighborhood watch to notice exactly this.



But "profiling," whatever network marsupials may think they think they mean by it, assuming that they think at all, is not a crime, and Zimmerman was not charged with it. "Following" is not a crime, and Zimmerman was not charged with it. Having attitudes that CNN doesn´t like is not yet a crime. Second-degree murder is a crime, and that, and only that, is what Zimmerman was charged with. The rest is irrelevant.



As best I could tell, this was far too difficult a concept for the talking heads.



Or was it? My Mexican wife, having compared the testimony in the trial to what the American media were saying, commented that the latter seemed to be trying to start a race war. Granted, she is not qualified to comment on the case, as she is not an idiot. Despite this debility, she appeared to be on to something.



Watching as much of the television coverage as I could bear, I saw that Zimmerman was being heavily packaged as guilty—of exactly what not being specified—with the strong implication that should he not be convicted, it would constitute a racially motivated miscarriage of justice. The duty of the jury was not to try him, but to convict him.



The coverage was so craftedly witless and dishonest that it was easy to suspect a conspiracy. Stupidity beyond a certain point can only be a work of intelligence. It was certainly dangerous behavior. In the cities there are large black populations who get all their news from television. These can easily be incited to violence. In California, someone called Zulu Shabazz, of the New Black Panther Party, is indeed calling for a race war against whites. The strategic brilliance of declaring war on those who grow your food and sign you checks might be lost on Sun Tzu. Oh well.



I have known people in the media for the forty years in which I pulled my oar in the triremes of print. I can attest that the talking heads do not want to provoke war. They want to display their virtue by engaging in exhibitionism disguised as confession. As a Catholic does not question the divinity of Christ, so a journalist does not question the racial guilt of whites. For everything, probably to include sunspots. It would result in ostracism, and one has to go daily to the news room.



Zimmerman´s defense was self-defense. How many of those bubbling and fuming indignantly have read Florida´s statue on self-defense? It is online. How many of those emoting about who threw the first punch have read Florida´s case law on the question? For good reasons, it doesn´t matter who punched whom first.



(You don´t like my looks and spit in my face. I punch you in the nose. You pull a switchblade and lunge at me, whereupon I shoot you dead.  That´s legitimate self-defense, because I believed myself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, this being the threshold for use of deadly force. That I threw the first punch doesn´t matter.)



Anyone of sufficient intelligence—IQ 3 should do it--can see that race relations in America are bad and getting worse. However, to judge by commentary regarding Zimmerman, very few meet this demanding intellectual standard. People achieving a lesser standard, partial sentience perhaps, can see that until blacks    decide to essay literacy, even education, things will stay the same or deteriorate. The latter of course is the assured outcome. Why Mssrs. Jesse and Al don´t point this out to their constituents is, unfortunately, obvious, the purpose of race hustling being to profit the hustler.

This was spot on. I've been saying similar things about the state of ignorance, illiteracy and the racial attitude in the black community for years. It was also dead accurate about the media and the role it plays in society and race relations.



BTW, I'm very surprised Romero hasn't jumped all over this with shrill accusatory screams of racism. You know this kind of in your face truth about blacks and minorities in general burns his ass.