Thomas Sewell, A self made Man

[rigney]

I would really like to retain the reasoning for my presenting this post and bring it back from the Sadaams and other crazies who would soon dilute it. Jebas stated my reason perfectly for the post by bringing up Mr. Douglass. Yet questioning why such a post should be dedicated to a pale and bygone era. Now you can decide.

Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:08 PM

There are plenty of successful African Americans on the right. Frederick Douglas is my favourite. The fact that the Republican party was responsible for the abolition of slavery might also have something to do with it. I'm not sure how you would discuss about such persons though, it just seems weird to devote a thread on it.

A statement made some few short weeks ago became a fire storm that will not be put out until after the November elections and perhaps not even then. Quote: If you have a business, you didn't make that, you had help. Someone helped you to build it. Does that sound familiar? I wonder how many of these now famous black men would agree with such a statement? Mr. Douglass's words and thoughts on this same issue were posted a hundred and fifty years ago. Like him, Mr. Sewell is an ongoing study of self-made black men living today by their own enginuity, not government intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Men

 

Here is the recent statement.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/

I find it strange how I, I, I, can quickly become we, we, we, when his need arises.

Edited August 12, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

I never said they supported Saddam. I said they were demanding he stay in power. If you are going to protest against the removal of a dictator, that pretty well implies that he should stay in power, since no other force is going to remove him from power. Well they didn't mention any credible ideas anyway...

 

A lot of the protests were organized by socialist (left wing) organizations. Some on the right were protesting against as well but it definitely was not their slogan. It was Obamas though - to remove troops from Iraq.

 

George Galloway however actually saluted Saddam Hussein.

 

"I said they were demanding he stay in power. "

No they did not.

They just wanted a better way of kicking him out.

Specifically, one backed by the UN. That would have needed to wait for the UN's nuclear inspectors to finish.

The effect would have been to show that the whole world was against Saddam- rather than just the US and it's followers.

That would have made the action legitimate and legal.

You are complaining that the Leftists actually wanted this done legally.

 

The video is a fine example of propaganda.

 

"At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech in English with the statement "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability".[62] In a January 2007 edition of the BBC's Hardtalk he stated that he was saluting the "Iraqi people".[9] Galloway's speech was translated for Hussein. Anasal-Tikriti, a friend of Galloway's and a Respect candidate, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain said: "I understand Arabic and it [Galloway's salutation] was taken completely out of context. When he said "you" he meant the Iraqi people, he was saluting their indefatigability, their resolve against sanctions. Even the interpreter got it right and, in Arabic, says salutes the stand of the Iraqi people'.""

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Controversy

 

Anyway, enough of that. Perhaps we should get back to the topic.

Edited August 12, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Essay]

How well do you know your topic? Is it Sewell or Sowell?

===

 

But I could offer an answer here:

And will we ever leave the Bush bashing behind?

 

Sure! In about a hundred years, if we may use your lofty standard,

After the charismatic -- and disastrous -- Woodrow Wilson presidency....

...we'll "leave the Bush bashing behind."

 

~

[rigney]

How well do you know your topic? Is it Sewell or Sowell?

===

 

But I could offer an answer here:

 

Sure! In about a hundred years, if we may use your lofty standard,...we'll "leave the Bush bashing behind."

 

~

Never professed to being a spelling champion and Bush's name entered into the post only as a reply to Captain Panic. And those lofty standards you attribute to me were set down many years before you or I were even thought of, and definitly a philosophy that modern day liars, hate mongers and political cheats should consider going back to. Edited August 12, 2012 by rigney

[Jebus]

"I said they were demanding he stay in power. "

No they did not.

They just wanted a better way of kicking him out.

Specifically, one backed by the UN. That would have needed to wait for the UN's nuclear inspectors to finish.

The effect would have been to show that the whole world was against Saddam- rather than just the US and it's followers.

That would have made the action legitimate and legal.

You are complaining that the Leftists actually wanted this done legally.

 

The video is a fine example of propaganda.

 

"At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech in English with the statement "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability".[62] In a January 2007 edition of the BBC's Hardtalk he stated that he was saluting the "Iraqi people".[9] Galloway's speech was translated for Hussein. Anasal-Tikriti, a friend of Galloway's and a Respect candidate, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain said: "I understand Arabic and it [Galloway's salutation] was taken completely out of context. When he said "you" he meant the Iraqi people, he was saluting their indefatigability, their resolve against sanctions. Even the interpreter got it right and, in Arabic, says salutes the stand of the Iraqi people'.""

from

http://en.wikipedia....way#Controversy

 

Anyway, enough of that. Perhaps we should get back to the topic.

 

The references on that wiki page lead to nothing....

 

 

People protested the Gulf war, which was, "legal." Since Iraq was violating the resolutions imposed by the UN for over a decade, does that not justify action?

 

As people marched in London, New York and Montreal, Iraqis were praying for someone to come and save them. Their prayers were answered. Not by the UN which had failed them for over a decade but the very people they marched against, Bush and Blair. A friend of mine (Kurdish) told me that Bush was a prophet sent by god to help liberate them and the soldiers, angels.

 

http://www.nationalr...qis/amir-taheri

 

Also Ramsey Clark protested the Intervention in Iraq and openly supported Saddam Hussein. The group ANSWER, protested the Iraq war and is well known for its support of dictators.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Jebus

[iNow]

People standing in opposition to the Iraq war are not the same as people supporting that Saddam stay in power, yet that's how it's being conflated by those who wish to make some ideological point. It's roughly equivalent to saying today that those who oppose military intervention in Syria support and/or approve of the way that Bashar al-Assad is slaughtering so many countless citizens there, and it's stupid to the point of paste eating and gasoline huffing. Perhaps we can move on now, please?

[John Cuthber]

No, it wasn't legal.

The international law according to the UN is clear

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

 

Since the UN (in particular, the security council) didn't call for military intervention there was no UN mandate for military action.

If there was it will be documented somewhere. If you plan to argue about this point then the first thing you will need to do is show me a reference to the agreement by the UN to military action.

If you can't do that then please don't bother to reply.

 

And it's still off topic.

[Jebus]

I never said it was, "Legal," but justified. Obviously not all the protestors supported Saddam, but some did and very openly... Jesus tap dancing christ.

[iNow]

Obviously not all the protestors supported Saddam, but some did and very openly... Jesus tap dancing christ.

What, like one or two out of the countless millions who opposed the war? Maybe less than 10 off-centered nutters? Seriously?

[John Cuthber]

 

People protested the Gulf war, which was, "legal."

 

I never said it was, "Legal," but justified. Obviously not all the protestors supported Saddam, but some did and very openly... Jesus tap dancing christ.

 

I think that may qualify you for the twit of the year award.

 

I tell you what, why don't we look at some of the people who really, knowingly, documentedly supported Saddam and see how left wing they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shakinghands_high.OGG

[Jebus]

I think that may qualify you for the twit of the year award.

 

I tell you what, why don't we look at some of the people who really, knowingly, documentedly supported Saddam and see how left wing they were.

http://en.wikipedia....ghands_high.OGG

 

 

Wait, I may have misunderstood your earlier post; where you referring to the gulf war, which was UN-Authorized as, not legal?

I said the Gulf war was legal according to an organization that is filled with dictators but not the second war in 2003. Decisions are not right or wrong based on who makes them, but on the reasons for them.

 

 

BTW, I'm openly critical of the right as well.

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Shockingly, when referring to the illegal war I meant the illegal one.

 

Now, since the there's just as good a video of Mr Rumsfeld supporting Saddam as there is of Mr Galloway doing so, I think you must concede that it it isn't just the left who pander to dictators.

So why did you make the assertion that ...

forget it.

I doubt anyone cares why you decided to say what you did about the left wing supporting dictators: it was wrong anyway.

The Right installed Saddam in the first place.

[Jebus]

Shockingly, when referring to the illegal war I meant the illegal one.

 

Now, since the there's just as good a video of Mr Rumsfeld supporting Saddam as there is of Mr Galloway doing so, I think you must concede that it it isn't just the left who pander to dictators.

So why did you make the assertion that ...

forget it.

I doubt anyone cares why you decided to say what you did about the left wing supporting dictators: it was wrong anyway.

The Right installed Saddam in the first place.

 

 

Perhaps I made the assertion because of this, http://markhumphrys.com/left.islamic.html. You obviously cared since you cared so much to reply to it. I know the right installed Saddam, you said that already... But they also removed him from power.

[imatfaal]

Perhaps I made the assertion because of this, http://markhumphrys....t.islamic.html. You obviously cared since you cared so much to reply to it. I know the right installed Saddam, you said that already... But they also removed him from power.

 

 

URL Not Found

 

 

 

Mark Humphrys may run one of the old political blogs around but his views are hardly evidence nor are they unbiased