HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 1StrongBlackMan » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jul 5, 2011, 10:42 PM
Number of posts: 31,306

Journal Archives

Hell ... I proudly "outted" myself more than a year ago ...

If being (DU) "progressive" means ... advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing the poor and working classes (i.e., "Let's go over the fiscal cliff!"); and/or, advocating income equality AND championing sacrificing PoC, women, and the LGBT community (i.e., "Income Equality IS the most important issue of our time"); and/or, advocating a set of policy goals that begins with "IF" (and that "IF" involves a series of unlikely occurrences) AND criticize Democratic policies (established in the current political environment), as inadequate; but, in their imperfection, do benefit the majority of the poor and working classes (i.e., the ACA, Executive Orders, etc.); and/or, spending the vast majority of your posts (especially during election season), criticizing Democrats, Democratic candidates, and "other" Democrats for supporting Democrats and/or Democratic candidates, as has been presented by DU "progressives"; then, ...

you are quite correct ... I am in no way a DU "progressive"!

Thank the universe!


Notice how closely my grievance(s) matches that/those of the OP. I said it before him, and agree with him now.
Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:55 PM (2 replies)

I'm SOOOO stealing that!

Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Sun Mar 27, 2016, 04:03 PM (1 replies)

Done ...

Social Justice
Solid safety net


Arizona (by way of Ohio, but will never return to live)
Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:18 PM (0 replies)

Please self-reflect ...

By doing so, you might understand that my post was not goading.
Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Sun Aug 23, 2015, 08:26 PM (0 replies)

Yes. I agree that the thought was to ...

Get white people to not see color in their interactions with Black people, and, as we see ... it was a flawed strategy because it allowed (s) white Americans to not face their bigotry; but more, the effects of their bigotry.
Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Thu Aug 13, 2015, 08:05 AM (0 replies)

Some work so hard at being the victim ...

"I really don't like chicken."

"Why don't you like me."

"I was talking about chicken."

"But I'very eaten chicken, so you're implying ..."

Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Tue Aug 11, 2015, 10:13 PM (2 replies)


"The Veer Offense ... it's just like NovoNovocaine. Just give it a little time and it'll work, just fine."

- Coach Boone: Remember the Titans

Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Thu Jul 23, 2015, 06:09 PM (1 replies)

What on Earth do I find about the Senator's current positions that run counter to

, or display evolution in, his earlier positions?

His focus on economic justice ... granted, he has made (mostly) the correct and supportive votes over the years; but, then again, so have just about all Democrats, certainly all of the Democratic candidates.

But I DO know that Dr. King recognized that the policies that held the black man down for so long had essentially the same effect on poor white folk, too. I know that the sanitation union that he was in Memphis to march with when he was murdered had both black and white membership (although, only white guys were allowed in the CAB of the garbage truck).

Would you please stop re-writing history ... Please. I know the myth being told ... but it does not comport with history. Here is a link to the speech he gave in Memphis in support of the Union.


Please point to a single line that would suggest that he was there for the white garbage truck drivers or the white haulers; rather than, the 1,300 Black trash haulers ... striking after the deaths of two Black haulers killed because the city rules forbade black employees to seek shelter from rain anywhere but in the back of their compressor trucks, with the garbage.

Hell, point to a single line that even mentions poor white folks!

Can you give me an example of a policy that would decrease income inequality for poor whites ONLY, and would not simultaneously improve the black man's lot in life?

Sure ... Raising the Minimum wage would decrease income inequality (we are told) for poor whites as a class; but, would still leave poor Black people in the same relative position.

Bernie's "current economic focus" is to create the rising tide that lifts all boats. But his OVERALL focus is to create a real, grassroots Progressive movement like this country has never seen before.

Agreed; but, the problem is ... Black folks have been saying, "That's fine and al good; but, it would be helpful if we had a boat."

Because he's not going to be able to do what he wants to get done with a Congress like the one we've got now. If ANY Democrat is going to have a successful Presidency from 2016 - 2024, we're going to have to give him (or her) a Senate and a House that he (or she) can work with. Not like this ship of fools Obama has suffered with.

I completely, and absolutely, agree.
Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Wed Jul 22, 2015, 08:01 PM (0 replies)

Yeah. Okay. n/t

Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Wed Apr 22, 2015, 11:27 PM (0 replies)

Racism: The Impossible Discussion ...

As many know/have witnessed, I am frequently engaged in running "battles" on the topic of Racism. While I have, yet, to call anyone, here on DU, a Racist; many, have understood me as having done so. I have repeatedly asked/challenged those making that claim to cite to a single instance of me having done so; but, each request has gone unfulfilled ... and rightfully so ... because I haven't.

In fact, I have (mostly) limited my participation in "race" threads to merely correcting the improper usage of antiquated/non-academically accepted definitions of the term ... And that seems to be a full-time job. This seems to be the accepted practice on DU ... for every topic, other than race. ETA: Imagine the DU response to someone opining that climate change is a hoax, or that vaccines cause autism, or that "trickle down" valid because "it is (they are) widely believed" or because a journalist said so, or because someone wrote it a decade ago?

Many here want to argue/believe that "racism goes both ways" and cite to "the common usage" of the term, or Webster's and/or pre-2000 writings on the topic. That would be fine, if the definition had/has remained unstudied and stagnant. It has not; rather, as with most phenomena, academic study results in refinement of our understanding of the observed ... It happened with the Earth's shape, with gravity, and Earth's position in the universe; and it's happening in such fields as climate study, economics and human behavior ... most of which, people (liberals) readily accept.

My "problem" with the current state of discussion, and the reason I entitled this OP as I have, is because without an accurate/common definition of the term racism, no discussion of racism can be had.

But I'm tired ... I'm tired of reading "Racism goes both ways" and when I post a correction, getting "well, that's not what the dictionary says" responses. Then, I post the 21st century definition, from peer-reviewed academic journals, with citations leading to the work describing the evolution of the definition, and I get ... "Well. I don't accept the definition! We will just have to agree to disagree." Then, in the very next thread on Racism, I get to repeat the process, as the very same people, repeat the same "racism goes both ways" arguments.

Tell me ... How is this any different having a climate change discussion with a fox-watching conservative?
Posted by 1StrongBlackMan | Mon Nov 24, 2014, 03:33 PM (25 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »