Orange Duce

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.archives.gov/education/less ... estead-act

By 1934, over 1.6 million homestead applications were processed and more than 270 million acres—10 percent of all U.S. lands—passed into the hands of individuals.

Why would the United States Government give anyone anything..... that is crazy talk... 1934 is ancient history.... nobody alive today benefitted from any of this.

As your link shows, the government's giving away of land goes back to the Revolutionary War. No surprise given that the land was stolen from Native Americans and could be given away freely. Over the years Republicans have been largely or exclusively credited with facilitating land grant colleges (especially agricultural schools) but the historical record shows it goes way back to the era of Washington & Jefferson and even before that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university

If the United States Government had honored its contracts back in the late 1800's, the country would be much further along...

[Brooklyn]

If the United States Government had honored its contracts back in the late 1800's, the country would be much further along...

100% spot on.

[Brooklyn]

"We passed VA Choice," he [Trump] said, referring to a bill that allows veterans to seek health options outside the Veterans Affairs-run system ... "They've been trying to get that passed also for about 44 years," he added.

Problem is, that law was signed by Obama a few years ago: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... nder-obama

Thus, Trump begins his re-election campaign with yet another lie.

[jhu72]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

Just one more bozo spouting right wing talking points. He signals this in the first two minutes of his screed. He claims Karl Marx was an anti-Semite. He was no such thing, he strongly supported Jewish Civil Rights as members of the human race. Marx thought of all religion as "hucksterism", including Judaism, his heritage. Out of this, dimwit right wing blowhards make Marx out to be an anti-Semite. This is consistent with the lame argument Owens makes against reparations - and I am opposed to the reparations concept.

[Brooklyn]

Just one more bozo spouting right wing talking points. He signals this in the first two minutes of his screed. He claims Karl Marx was an anti-Semite. He was no such thing, he strongly supported Jewish Civil Rights as members of the human race. Marx thought of all religion as "hucksterism", including Judaism, his heritage. Out of this, dimwit right wing blowhards make Marx out to be an anti-Semite. This is consistent with the lame argument Owens makes against reparations - and I am opposed to the reparations concept.

Desperate hate filled right wingers typically make such accusations and projections. Recall that I was previously accused of anti-semitism on this forum even though I can name my Jewish ancestors in the Bible. As for reparations, I also cannot agree with the concept unless all parties involved in slavery are included such as the governments of Spain (which actually invented the abhorrent trade), other European governments, and the religious institutions that supported them.

[OCanada]

Religious illiteracy. Gorka is going around claiming some rabbis are not rabbis.

The Jewish Community is overwhelmingly opposed to most of the actions of the Administration.

[a fan]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

[jhu72]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

He is a Faux News contributor.

[youthathletics]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

The topic of this thread within the thread was identifying and name calling those that support Trump as "deplorables" (deserving strong condemnation and shockingly bad in quality)The point of his story and my post is not pre-1950 segregation, it is the ongoing and current state of affair for cities run by D's for umpteen years. Who can also be labeled, by definition as deplorable,

[Typical Lax Dad]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

Money is green.

[RedFromMI]

Although several women have accused OD of various forms of sexual assault, I am not sure actual rape was yet claimed:

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-t ... s-men.html

Author and accuser is a well-known writer and advice columnist...

Further commentary from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0d2696f39c

(Correction - Ivana Trump claimed and then retracted marital rape while divorcing DJT.)

[OCanada]

Rape has been alleged. At least three I am aware of. One was his ex wife who alleged marital rape. I believe it was his second. The documents can be found. One an underage girl at the time sort of surfaced during the campaign. Stories on that can be found too I think. This is the third I believe.

Trump denied ever meeting her. Like about 11,000 other times he lied. A photo has surfaced of the two of them.

Meanwhile stories are emerging to question the WH version of Iran.

[MDlaxfan76]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

The topic of this thread within the thread was identifying and name calling those that support Trump as "deplorables" (deserving strong condemnation and shockingly bad in quality)The point of his story and my post is not pre-1950 segregation, it is the ongoing and current state of affair for cities run by D's for umpteen years. Who can also be labeled, by definition as deplorable,

Hmmm, I didn't understand that you were just posting about another "deplorable" knucklehead saying dumb, right-wing things.

He's the one attacking the current Democratic Party for the segregationist past. It's a dumb argument. One of several misguided arguments he makes. The segregationists and their children switched to the GOP during the late 60's, 70's, and 80's.

I do think there are "deplorable" people within cities who are out for their own power and wealth rather than the benefit of the people they serve. Many of these are Democrats. Some are African Americans. One party domination breeds corruption. I also think that racist redlining (and even worse) are the progenitors of persistent poverty in cities. But not the only factors.

If you want to validly critique the Dem party and "liberal" policies, it's fair to suggest that no matter how well-intentioned an intervention may be, it often has unforeseen, unintended consequences.

A true 'conservative', (as distinguished from a right-wing racist hater), wants to go slow in intervening in social constructs so as to avoid such unintended consequences. They put more, though not total, weight in the 'wisdom' of historical norms and values. (Interestingly, from an historical perspective, this also meant a confidence in governmental institutions, federal power etc, contrasted with the 'liberal' emphasis on individual rights and the prevention of the government abridging such rights, a preference for distributed power)

There is a very valid tension between the 'liberal' or 'progressive', (as distinguished from the radical anarchist), who put more weight on action now to address the evident ills of society, and the 'conservative' who simply wishes to take care in the process not to disrupt positive aspects of society.

We want this tension. Both emphases are important.

But let's be clear, the Trumpist is not in the slightest 'conservative'. Trumpism has co-opted the GOP, leaving no room for actual 'conservative' views and people.

Trump spoke to some themes initially appealing to conservatives, ala MAGA, but it was quickly revealed to be based in the most bigoted aspects of America's past and played to the most immediate fears of poor, uneducated white America. Mexicans as rapists. Muslims as terrorists. Democrats as enemies, not partners in democracy. The free press as Enemies of the State.

Trumpism is far more akin to Fascism than any other ideology. It is focused on immediate 'disruption' of the status quo, it is authoritarian in nature with power concentrated only in the hands of loyalists, it attacks democratic norms, rules, and constitutional organization and protections, it baldfacedly utilizes 'propaganda' (outright lies), it demonizes the "Other"... etc, etc.

That's not traditional conservatism. It's fascist. It's corrupt.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

The topic of this thread within the thread was identifying and name calling those that support Trump as "deplorables" (deserving strong condemnation and shockingly bad in quality)The point of his story and my post is not pre-1950 segregation, it is the ongoing and current state of affair for cities run by D's for umpteen years. Who can also be labeled, by definition as deplorable,

Not every supporter of Trump is deplorable. If you make an excuse for Trump’s deplorable behavior, then you are deplorable.

[youthathletics]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

The topic of this thread within the thread was identifying and name calling those that support Trump as "deplorables" (deserving strong condemnation and shockingly bad in quality)The point of his story and my post is not pre-1950 segregation, it is the ongoing and current state of affair for cities run by D's for umpteen years. Who can also be labeled, by definition as deplorable,

Hmmm, I didn't understand that you were just posting about another "deplorable" knucklehead saying dumb, right-wing things.

He's the one attacking the current Democratic Party for the segregationist past. It's a dumb argument. One of several misguided arguments he makes. The segregationists and their children switched to the GOP during the late 60's, 70's, and 80's.

I do think there are "deplorable" people within cities who are out for their own power and wealth rather than the benefit of the people they serve. Many of these are Democrats. Some are African Americans. One party domination breeds corruption. I also think that racist redlining (and even worse) are the progenitors of persistent poverty in cities. But not the only factors.

If you want to validly critique the Dem party and "liberal" policies, it's fair to suggest that no matter how well-intentioned an intervention may be, it often has unforeseen, unintended consequences.

A true 'conservative', (as distinguished from a right-wing racist hater), wants to go slow in intervening in social constructs so as to avoid such unintended consequences. They put more, though not total, weight in the 'wisdom' of historical norms and values. (Interestingly, from an historical perspective, this also meant a confidence in governmental institutions, federal power etc, contrasted with the 'liberal' emphasis on individual rights and the prevention of the government abridging such rights, a preference for distributed power)

There is a very valid tension between the 'liberal' or 'progressive', (as distinguished from the radical anarchist), who put more weight on action now to address the evident ills of society, and the 'conservative' who simply wishes to take care in the process not to disrupt positive aspects of society.

We want this tension. Both emphases are important.

But let's be clear, the Trumpist is not in the slightest 'conservative'. Trumpism has co-opted the GOP, leaving no room for actual 'conservative' views and people.

Trump spoke to some themes initially appealing to conservatives, ala MAGA, but it was quickly revealed to be based in the most bigoted aspects of America's past and played to the most immediate fears of poor, uneducated white America. Mexicans as rapists. Muslims as terrorists. Democrats as enemies, not partners in democracy. The free press as Enemies of the State.

Trumpism is far more akin to Fascism than any other ideology. It is focused on immediate 'disruption' of the status quo, it is authoritarian in nature with power concentrated only in the hands of loyalists, it attacks democratic norms, rules, and constitutional organization and protections, it baldfacedly utilizes 'propaganda' (outright lies), it demonizes the "Other"... etc, etc.

That's not traditional conservatism. It's fascist. It's corrupt.

I agree with most of your post. What I do not agree with is your comment in red. There is no need to go slow or worry about unintended consequences if the change is in favor of making lives better, helping to pull them up and NOT enabling continued unfavorable behaviors. Quite often the best policy is to simply make the change and then deal with the changes that take place....IF the goal is making lives better. Will there be collateral damage? heck yea. People need pivot points in their lives in order to make significant change...be it rock bottom in addition, infidelity, spending habits, etc,etc.

We can go back and forth on ideas all day long. Pain and despair are often the root of change that cause those pivot points. And from my viewpoint, those in the urban cities chose a path to sulk and work the system because those social policies allowed a status quo of low income mediocrity that got them hooked. Mayor Berry in DC was the master at this, he did do his best to find work by creating jobs, but he did have the luxury of being in Washington DC where work was often plentiful and every member in the gov't was privy to their surroundings.

I believe Mr. Owens speaks the truth about the above mentioned topic at hand, and frankly the truth hurts but is needed in order heal and move on.

[seacoaster]

"Hannity: “Brought up u case with Rudy.”

Manafort: “Rudy seems to get it.”

Unbelievable:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... 7b1874c4b6

The day news broke that Paul Manafort’s condo in Alexandria had been raided by federal agents, an influential friend reached out.

“Please know you are in my prayers,” Fox News host Sean Hannity wrote Manafort in August 2017, one of hundreds of text messages unsealed Friday by D.C. federal court Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

From the inception of the fraud and conspiracy case against Manafort to the eve of his trial in Alexandria federal court last year, the former Trump campaign chairman regularly traded opinions and information with the conservative television personality regarding special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. Manafort put Hannity in touch with his defense attorney Kevin Downing, and Hannity relayed information from President Trump’s orbit.

“I won’t sell out,” Manafort promised. “I cannot allow them to win . . . it would empower them to go after [Trump] and lots of others.”

He added: “Plus i plan on helping on the re elect!”

The conversations first came to the judge’s attention when prosecutors included them as part of their sentencing papers earlier this year, arguing Manafort was unrepentant and should be dealt with harshly.

The newly unsealed filings show that Jackson asked why Downing and his client should not be found in contempt of a gag order she imposed in the case. The transcript of a sealed hearing at which Downing addressed Jackson’s concerns is not yet publicly available.

The text messages illustrate how enmeshed Hannity was in Manafort’s defense, regularly checking in on developments big and small. The longtime lobbyist asked Hannity for help promoting his legal defense fund and keeping his case in the news. Hannity, in turn, encouraged Manafort to “stay strong.”

The messages also provide another example of the extraordinarily close relationship between Hannity, Fox News’s biggest star, and the president and those in his circle.

Hannity has offered unwavering support of Trump and his allies, both on his prime-time TV program and his widely syndicated radio program. Trump, in turn, has helped boost Hannity’s TV ratings by granting him numerous interviews, including one on Wednesday after Trump announced his reelection campaign.

Although Manafort had promised Hannity he would be “first and regular as we go public,” the gag order kept him or his attorneys from appearing on television despite Hannity’s persistent requests.

“Building a plan B,” he told the host after the gag order was imposed. He pointed Hannity toward material he felt would be favorable to his case if publicized on television. He also told Hannity he was using material uncovered by the Fox News host in his legal arguments. At one point he said he needed to put his lawyer in touch with Gregg Jarrett, another Fox News host.

But he did connect Downing with Hannity for a phone call in January 2018. Hannity responded enthusiastically, “I asked him to feed me every day.”

In a tweet, Hannity said his “view of the Special Counsel investigation and the treatment of Paul Manafort were made clear every day to anyone who listens to my radio show or watches my TV show.” Fox declined to comment directly; a spokeswoman, Carly Shanahan, responded to an inquiry by referring to Hannity’s tweet.

Hannity also seemed to act as a conduit of sorts between Manafort and Trump. In February 2018, Hannity told Manafort, “I can tell you Potus is disgusted too.” Manafort, whose trial was then fast approaching, responded: “I live in a nightmare every day. But I won’t give in.”

In May, after Trump had hired Rudolph W. Giuliani to represent him, Hannity told Manafort he had “Brought up u case with Rudy.”

“Rudy seems to get it,” Manafort responded.

The texts also offer a window into Manafort’s thinking as he faced a potential life sentence, including why he refused to let prosecutors consolidate his two cases in D.C. federal court.

“I chose the two fronts” to put pressure on Jackson and the special counsel, Manafort explained, saying that “it was key to my strategy.”

Throughout, Manafort expressed optimism that the case against him was weak and that he would prevail. When the media reported that his former deputy Rick Gates, who had been indicted alongside Manafort in October 2017, had changed lawyers and was considering cooperating against him, Manafort assured Hannity that the reports were false.

“Gates is in for [long] haul,” Manafort wrote, adding that Gates was totally “united with Trump.”

The next day, Hannity texted Manafort to alert him that The Washington Post was reporting that Gates had made a deal with the government and was preparing to plead guilty. “He gave u no heads up at all?” Hannity asked. Manafort did not respond.

But a couple weeks later, Manafort said that, unlike Gates, he would never cooperate, because the special counsel would “want me to give up [Trump] or family,” especially the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

When Hannity asked what Kushner had done, Manafort clarified that it was “nothing.”

At various points, Hannity implied to Manafort that he was in contact with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had by then pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was cooperating with the special counsel’s office. In March 2018, Hannity wrote to Manafort that Flynn intended to withdraw his guilty plea. He did not.

Despite his confidence, Manafort repeatedly expressed frustration with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not intervening in the special counsel investigation.

“Sessions is totally worthless,” he wrote Hannity a few months before his trial.

The last message was dated June 5, 2018, days before Manafort was charged with witness tampering and jailed pending trial."

[Typical Lax Dad]

Much like all those cities run by deploarables in SanFran, Chicago, DC. NYC, etc, etc. Burgess Owens can explain it for us all.

The ol' Rush/Hannity game of hoping people are so dumb that they conflate the Dem party of pre-1950 with liberals.

Show of hands: who thinks that liberals were the group behind things like segregation? And who thinks that conservatives were the group behind things like segregation?

Either Burgess Owens is too stupid to understand this....or he gets it, and hopes the viewers are too stupid to understand this. Pick one.



More to the point: what, exactly, are conservatives trying to conserve? Take your time and think about it.

The topic of this thread within the thread was identifying and name calling those that support Trump as "deplorables" (deserving strong condemnation and shockingly bad in quality)The point of his story and my post is not pre-1950 segregation, it is the ongoing and current state of affair for cities run by D's for umpteen years. Who can also be labeled, by definition as deplorable,

Hmmm, I didn't understand that you were just posting about another "deplorable" knucklehead saying dumb, right-wing things.

He's the one attacking the current Democratic Party for the segregationist past. It's a dumb argument. One of several misguided arguments he makes. The segregationists and their children switched to the GOP during the late 60's, 70's, and 80's.

I do think there are "deplorable" people within cities who are out for their own power and wealth rather than the benefit of the people they serve. Many of these are Democrats. Some are African Americans. One party domination breeds corruption. I also think that racist redlining (and even worse) are the progenitors of persistent poverty in cities. But not the only factors.

If you want to validly critique the Dem party and "liberal" policies, it's fair to suggest that no matter how well-intentioned an intervention may be, it often has unforeseen, unintended consequences.

A true 'conservative', (as distinguished from a right-wing racist hater), wants to go slow in intervening in social constructs so as to avoid such unintended consequences. They put more, though not total, weight in the 'wisdom' of historical norms and values. (Interestingly, from an historical perspective, this also meant a confidence in governmental institutions, federal power etc, contrasted with the 'liberal' emphasis on individual rights and the prevention of the government abridging such rights, a preference for distributed power)

There is a very valid tension between the 'liberal' or 'progressive', (as distinguished from the radical anarchist), who put more weight on action now to address the evident ills of society, and the 'conservative' who simply wishes to take care in the process not to disrupt positive aspects of society.

We want this tension. Both emphases are important.

But let's be clear, the Trumpist is not in the slightest 'conservative'. Trumpism has co-opted the GOP, leaving no room for actual 'conservative' views and people.

Trump spoke to some themes initially appealing to conservatives, ala MAGA, but it was quickly revealed to be based in the most bigoted aspects of America's past and played to the most immediate fears of poor, uneducated white America. Mexicans as rapists. Muslims as terrorists. Democrats as enemies, not partners in democracy. The free press as Enemies of the State.

Trumpism is far more akin to Fascism than any other ideology. It is focused on immediate 'disruption' of the status quo, it is authoritarian in nature with power concentrated only in the hands of loyalists, it attacks democratic norms, rules, and constitutional organization and protections, it baldfacedly utilizes 'propaganda' (outright lies), it demonizes the "Other"... etc, etc.

That's not traditional conservatism. It's fascist. It's corrupt.

I agree with most of your post. What I do not agree with is your comment in red. There is no need to go slow or worry about unintended consequences if the change is in favor of making lives better, helping to pull them up and NOT enabling continued unfavorable behaviors. Quite often the best policy is to simply make the change and then deal with the changes that take place....IF the goal is making lives better. Will there be collateral damage? heck yea. People need pivot points in their lives in order to make significant change...be it rock bottom in addition, infidelity, spending habits, etc,etc.

We can go back and forth on ideas all day long. Pain and despair are often the root of change that cause those pivot points. And from my viewpoint, those in the urban cities chose a path to sulk and work the system because those social policies allowed a status quo of low income mediocrity that got them hooked. Mayor Berry in DC was the master at this, he did do his best to find work by creating jobs, but he did have the luxury of being in Washington DC where work was often plentiful and every member in the gov't was privy to their surroundings.

I believe Mr. Owens speaks the truth about the above mentioned topic at hand, and frankly the truth hurts but is needed in order heal and move on.

You believe since the 1960’s there has been no upward mobility for low income inner city people and the policies championed by “Dems” have not benefited folks in low / moderate income areas of major MSAs? There are always going to be poor people..... what is the excuse for all those poor *ss people in WV, Alabama, Mississippi, East Tennesee, Kentucky, Missouri etc. generation after generation. You never see them in the media but they are there..... most people want the government to protect their rights so that they can make their way like everyone else.

[a fan]

We can go back and forth on ideas all day long. Pain and despair are often the root of change that cause those pivot points. And from my viewpoint, those in the urban cities chose a path to sulk and work the system because those social policies allowed a status quo of low income mediocrity that got them hooked. Mayor Berry in DC was the master at this, he did do his best to find work by creating jobs, but he did have the luxury of being in Washington DC where work was often plentiful and every member in the gov't was privy to their surroundings.

I believe Mr. Owens speaks the truth about the above mentioned topic at hand, and frankly the truth hurts but is needed in order heal and move on.

Mr. Owens is wrong, and so are you. Sorry, but you couldn't be more full of bullcookies on this matter.

And from my viewpoint, those in the rural/suburban cities chose a path to sulk and work the system because those social policies allowed a status quo of low income mediocrity that got them hooked.


Fixed it for you. Tell you what. If you REALLY believe this, let's start by cutting the dole to rural America. Those Billions set aside to fight opioid addiction that you spoke of earlier? Well, that's just enabling the addiction, right? So let's start there. Cut all Federal and State funding to that.

Liquidate the Farm Bill. No more internet subsidies. Or hospital subsidies. Or Dept. of Ag. subsidies. No more Fannie and Freddie giving people access to homes. Let rural America figure it out all by themselves. And if you're right, they'll pull themselves out of poverty, right? The free market will "allow" them to rise up to the middle class, right? All the government programs have been holding them back, right?

So let's give your and Mr. Owens idea a try there first. Then when it works as well as you think it will....let's give it a go in urban America.

Sound like a plan?

[youthathletics]

You both keep expanding the conversation to take us away from the topic Mr. Owens "SPECIFICALLY" speaks of...which is Urban cities and black people. A significant difference with both you and TLD's argument is there are much fewer places of employment in WV, Alabama, Mississippi, East Tennesee, Kentucky, Missouri.Getting people of the gov't teet in those states means curtains for them. Which is why we often see those states throw so much pork in bills. Why places like SC fight so hard for gov't contracted industrial/manufacturing plants....an attempt to bring the work to them, as opposed to the work being their back yard for urban locales.

Thanks for the engaging conversation. Gotta go & pick up my MID and spend a few hours with him before he is off again.

[a fan]

You both keep expanding the conversation to take us away from the topic Mr. Owens "SPECIFICALLY" speaks of...which is Urban cities and black people.

Of course I am. He is trying to make an argument that government assistance is why black people in inner cities are not moving forward.

He's wrong. And I told you why. If you believe that government assistance is the problem, focus on that variable.

Hell, if you prefer, pull all government assistance from non-black citizens in inner cities.

What you and Mr. Owens thinks will happen is: those citizens will flourish as a result of having no government help, right? Do I have that straight? I'd love to give that a go, and watch my taxes plummet.

A significant difference with both you and TLD's argument is there are much fewer places of employment in WV, Alabama, Mississippi, East Tennesee, Kentucky, Missouri.Getting people of the gov't teet in those states means curtains for them. Which is why we often see those states throw so much pork in bills. Why places like SC fight so hard for gov't contracted industrial/manufacturing plants....an attempt to bring the work to them, as opposed to the work being their back yard for urban locales.

That's absurd. So your suggestion is: all out government subsidies for those in rural America, and the unfettered F*** you that is the free market for those in cities?

I will admit that this is the unspoken pitch for the Republican party. Socialism for me, and free market for you.

But that's YOUR pitch? Nice cushy subsidized life for whites in rural America, and blacks in Baltimore get to compete with Chinese factory workers for jobs?

Yeah, I'm gonna pass on that.

Thanks for the engaging conversation.

Always enjoy it! Thanks to you, too.