The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[BlackAsCoal]

The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.

No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.

The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.

But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.

With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.

With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.

My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.

Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.

Can you name what the Republican party has done to hurt the poor? Especially the black poor? Then name for me what the democrat party has done to help the poor, especially the black poor? I again say I am not a Republican. But I think it is not logical to blame a party which is too scared to harm the poor, especially the black poor for what they didn't do. As not logical for giving the Democrats credit for something they clearly have not done. Unless lip service is an aid to the poor, especially the black poor.

think about this. The educational system that is failing the poor is run largely by democrats. What is needed by the poor? Handouts? NO! They need jobs that will provide a living for them. What party is all for bring in ILLEGALLY people to do work that American's could be doing? A policy that not only gives jobs to illegals instead of Americans it dilutes the labor force which causes wages to be suppressed. So I am just not seeing how democrat policy has helped the poor.

I appreciate the conversation brother.

Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction .. while republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support. None whatsoever .. but I'll be happy to discuss whatever you think may be an argument.

Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor? Those on the Right are quick to talk about the real and perceived failures of democratic policy when it comes to the poor but can't demonstrate why republican policy helps the poor or anybody else. Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.

Start from there ..

How does expecting a black to provide verification of who they are suppress their vote?

Blacks vote Democrat, overwhelmingly. Currently, the black bastard birth rate is over 70% and rising. The black dropout rate is higher than all other groups. Black unemployment is 2x that of whites. 26% of blacks in the U.S. live in poverty. 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks receives food stamps. What have Democrats done to help a group that votes for them at a 95% rate?

As for affirmative action, when you use "white" related to women benefiting from it, you grossly misrepresent the situation. While white women may be the large beneficiary of it, the white part has nothing to do with it. The female part is the ONLY factor used.

Your language makes my point and demonstrate exactly why Black people hate republicans like you.

If what you think about Affirmative Action were true .. wouldn't it stand to reason that black women would have benefited at least as much as white women from the program? I'm not arguing that white women shouldn't benefit from the program as their opportunities are also oppressed .. nor am I arguing against the program, but either way, republicans don't like it, don't support it.

With regards to your other questions clocked in racist language .. pass your questions to adult who speaks in a respectful manner and I'll be happy to answer that person.

Let me repeat .. if you don't like black people .. who gives fuck? :0)

 

[BlackAsCoal]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.

If you can't figure out that "social issues" violate the U.S. Constitution by now (after we've explained it to you dozens of times), then clearly it is just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern. But don't worry - we've got this. Like all liberals, you just sit back and let the adults run the country. Ok?

If you're too dumb to recognize that the Constitution is not written in stone, nor meant to define society for all time .. then you're just too dumb to understand who and what the Founders were.

I repeat, Jefferson thought the Constitution should be re-written every 19 years.

I repeat, republicans have lost on just about every social issue they care about.

Whine about it all you like.

 

[P@triot]

If you're too dumb to recognize that the Constitution is not written in stone, nor meant to define society for all time .. then you're just too dumb to understand who and what the Founders were. I repeat, Jefferson thought the Constitution should be re-written every 19 years. I repeat, republicans have lost on just about every social issue they care about. Whine about it all you like.

Thank you for illustrating that you are too stupid to understand the U.S. Constitution. It is the law. So yes, it is absolutely written in stone until it is legally amended. The law does not randomly change based on the feelings of ignorant and uneducated liberals. You don't get to drive 45mph in a 25mph zone simply because you are an ignorant and uneducated liberal. Law enforcement will hold you accountable to that 25mph zone. That's how the law works junior.

As far as Thomas Jefferson's opinions - they don't really matter as they are not the part of the U.S. Constitution and thus not the law. Our founders gave you the ability to alter the U.S. Constitution as you see fit through the amendment process. You're inability to get the votes you need for your radical and ignorant ideology isn't our problem. Watching you whine like a little bitch that you have the right to break the law because the American people do not support you views and you can't get the Constitution amended is somewhat comical and very tragic.

As far as "social issues" - I have no idea what you're talking about. Even radical left-wing California overwhelmingly gay marriage when they voted down Proposition 8 in (2010?). It was an epic ass-kicking. Wasn't even close. So what did you ignorant liberals have to resort to? Unconstitutionally asking the Supreme Court to invoke a power they simply do not have. So you guys got your ass kicked big time on that social issue. And then there is abortion. Planned Parenthood clinics are being shut down through the nation at an alarming rate. Some states are down to as little as ONE single little Planned Parenthood clinic in the entire state. So you're getting your ass kicked on that social issue as well. You pretty much get your ass kicked on every social issue and then resort to illegal measures to get what you want. All of which can and will be over turned as American's get more and more tired of your asinine agenda. Like insisting that grown men have a right to shower with little girls. Fucking sick idiots.

 

[bripat9643]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.

If you can't figure out that "social issues" violate the U.S. Constitution by now (after we've explained it to you dozens of times), then clearly it is just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern. But don't worry - we've got this. Like all liberals, you just sit back and let the adults run the country. Ok?

If you're too dumb to recognize that the Constitution is not written in stone, nor meant to define society for all time .. then you're just too dumb to understand who and what the Founders were.

I repeat, Jefferson thought the Constitution should be re-written every 19 years.

I repeat, republicans have lost on just about every social issue they care about.

Whine about it all you like.

You just proved you aren't fit to live in a civilized society. Those tribal Kingdoms in Africa where the kind decides what the law means are more your style. Of course, there's a reason those places are hell holes: they are populated with people like you.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem with your theory is that the empirical evidence shows that none of those things require the national government to get involved.

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.

Which oppressive totalitarian states do you think I admire?

All of em.

 

[JoeNormal]

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.

Which oppressive totalitarian states do you think I admire?

All of em.

Somehow, I think if I ever met you, I would feel like I was looking into the eye of a chicken.

 

[bripat9643]

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.

Which oppressive totalitarian states do you think I admire?

All of em.

Somehow, I think if I ever met you, I would feel like I was looking into the eye of a chicken.

Somehow I think it's a waste of time debating you.

 

[Ame®icano]

No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.

The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.

But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.

With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.

With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.

My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.

Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.

Can you name what the Republican party has done to hurt the poor? Especially the black poor? Then name for me what the democrat party has done to help the poor, especially the black poor? I again say I am not a Republican. But I think it is not logical to blame a party which is too scared to harm the poor, especially the black poor for what they didn't do. As not logical for giving the Democrats credit for something they clearly have not done. Unless lip service is an aid to the poor, especially the black poor.

think about this. The educational system that is failing the poor is run largely by democrats. What is needed by the poor? Handouts? NO! They need jobs that will provide a living for them. What party is all for bring in ILLEGALLY people to do work that American's could be doing? A policy that not only gives jobs to illegals instead of Americans it dilutes the labor force which causes wages to be suppressed. So I am just not seeing how democrat policy has helped the poor.

I appreciate the conversation brother.

Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction .. while republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support. None whatsoever .. but I'll be happy to discuss whatever you think may be an argument.

Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor? Those on the Right are quick to talk about the real and perceived failures of democratic policy when it comes to the poor but can't demonstrate why republican policy helps the poor or anybody else. Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.

Start from there ..

How does expecting a black to provide verification of who they are suppress their vote?

Blacks vote Democrat, overwhelmingly. Currently, the black bastard birth rate is over 70% and rising. The black dropout rate is higher than all other groups. Black unemployment is 2x that of whites. 26% of blacks in the U.S. live in poverty. 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks receives food stamps. What have Democrats done to help a group that votes for them at a 95% rate?

As for affirmative action, when you use "white" related to women benefiting from it, you grossly misrepresent the situation. While white women may be the large beneficiary of it, the white part has nothing to do with it. The female part is the ONLY factor used.

Your language makes my point and demonstrate exactly why Black people hate republicans like you.

If what you think about Affirmative Action were true .. wouldn't it stand to reason that black women would have benefited at least as much as white women from the program? I'm not arguing that white women shouldn't benefit from the program as their opportunities are also oppressed .. nor am I arguing against the program, but either way, republicans don't like it, don't support it.

With regards to your other questions clocked in racist language .. pass your questions to adult who speaks in a respectful manner and I'll be happy to answer that person.

Let me repeat .. if you don't like black people .. who gives fuck? :0)

Question: Do you think AA is fair, to whom, and why?

 

[JoeNormal]

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.

Which oppressive totalitarian states do you think I admire?

All of em.

Somehow, I think if I ever met you, I would feel like I was looking into the eye of a chicken.

Somehow I think it's a waste of time debating you.

It is if your best response is "All of them".

 

[P@triot]

Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor?

Please tell me where exactly government is empowered to even help the poor? Oh that's right - you've never even read the U.S. Constitution. You don't even know why government exists. What a shame.

 

[P@triot]

Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.

At least with Republican's, there is a ladder. With left-wing socialism, a hole is dug, the ladder is placed in it and set on fire, and then the people are kicked into the pit with the ladder.

An indisputable truth that you don't want to acknowledge.

 

[kaz]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Well stated, foxfyre.

The left think the social contract is the right to someone else's stuff, and the right to take it by force if they don't give it to you voluntarily

 

[Conservative65]

No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.

The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.

But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.

With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.

With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.

My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.

Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.

Can you name what the Republican party has done to hurt the poor? Especially the black poor? Then name for me what the democrat party has done to help the poor, especially the black poor? I again say I am not a Republican. But I think it is not logical to blame a party which is too scared to harm the poor, especially the black poor for what they didn't do. As not logical for giving the Democrats credit for something they clearly have not done. Unless lip service is an aid to the poor, especially the black poor.

think about this. The educational system that is failing the poor is run largely by democrats. What is needed by the poor? Handouts? NO! They need jobs that will provide a living for them. What party is all for bring in ILLEGALLY people to do work that American's could be doing? A policy that not only gives jobs to illegals instead of Americans it dilutes the labor force which causes wages to be suppressed. So I am just not seeing how democrat policy has helped the poor.

I appreciate the conversation brother.

Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction .. while republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support. None whatsoever .. but I'll be happy to discuss whatever you think may be an argument.

Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor? Those on the Right are quick to talk about the real and perceived failures of democratic policy when it comes to the poor but can't demonstrate why republican policy helps the poor or anybody else. Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.

Start from there ..

How does expecting a black to provide verification of who they are suppress their vote?

Blacks vote Democrat, overwhelmingly. Currently, the black bastard birth rate is over 70% and rising. The black dropout rate is higher than all other groups. Black unemployment is 2x that of whites. 26% of blacks in the U.S. live in poverty. 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks receives food stamps. What have Democrats done to help a group that votes for them at a 95% rate?

As for affirmative action, when you use "white" related to women benefiting from it, you grossly misrepresent the situation. While white women may be the large beneficiary of it, the white part has nothing to do with it. The female part is the ONLY factor used.

Your language makes my point and demonstrate exactly why Black people hate republicans like you.

If what you think about Affirmative Action were true .. wouldn't it stand to reason that black women would have benefited at least as much as white women from the program? I'm not arguing that white women shouldn't benefit from the program as their opportunities are also oppressed .. nor am I arguing against the program, but either way, republicans don't like it, don't support it.

With regards to your other questions clocked in racist language .. pass your questions to adult who speaks in a respectful manner and I'll be happy to answer that person.

Let me repeat .. if you don't like black people .. who gives fuck? :0)

If you hate me for telling the truth, who gives a fuck.

When a black female benefits from AA, and they do, both black AND female have the potential of playing a role in that benefit. When a white female benefits from AA, ONLY the female part played a role. The white part doesn't so to use it as a descriptive is invalid.

Why should anyone support a program where if the same characteristics were used to deny a person something it would be considered wrong? If using race is wrong to deny, using race as a factor to benefit through a government created program is also wrong. Don't tell me you want to be judged by the content of your character then show support for a program that judges you by the color of your skin. Hypocrite.

I speak in a respectful manner to people that deserve it. When you earn that respect, you will be spoken to with respect. Don't like it, tough shit.

 

[P@triot]

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Um....not it's not. At all. The legally binding U.S. Constitution dictates that. Not some make believe "social contract". You're literally just making shit up as you go.

 

[Freewill]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.

No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.

The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.

But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.

With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.

With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.

My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.

Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.

Can you name what the Republican party has done to hurt the poor? Especially the black poor? Then name for me what the democrat party has done to help the poor, especially the black poor? I again say I am not a Republican. But I think it is not logical to blame a party which is too scared to harm the poor, especially the black poor for what they didn't do. As not logical for giving the Democrats credit for something they clearly have not done. Unless lip service is an aid to the poor, especially the black poor.

think about this. The educational system that is failing the poor is run largely by democrats. What is needed by the poor? Handouts? NO! They need jobs that will provide a living for them. What party is all for bring in ILLEGALLY people to do work that American's could be doing? A policy that not only gives jobs to illegals instead of Americans it dilutes the labor force which causes wages to be suppressed. So I am just not seeing how democrat policy has helped the poor.

I appreciate the conversation brother.

Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction. While republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote, democrats have supported our right to vote and choose our own representation. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support. None whatsoever .. but I'll be happy to discuss whatever you think may be an argument.

Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor? Those on the Right are quick to talk about the real and perceived failures of democratic policy when it comes to the poor but can't demonstrate why republican policy helps the poor or anybody else. Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.

Start from there ..

OK, let's look at demographics, using the state of Pennslyvania. The demographics say that PA is comprised of 10.5 percent African Americans.Which way has the last two presidential elections gone in PA? You and know it went to Obama. So by example we can see that race doesnot necessarily play a part in whom is elected. Now let's look at the demographicfor Philadelphia. The black population is 43 percent. Now one has to consider, where will blacks win the most representatives? Where they are the largest population, which as we know is the inner city which has been controlled by the democrats. So naturally blacks are going to identify with democrats. It isn't that the democrats have to go and recruit blacks, matter of fact they take the black vote for granted. Last black man who ran for governor of PA? Lynn Swan a republican. Of course he lost because the black vote went to the white man. I guess being a democrat is enough.

First we must determine if ANYTHING has been done to help the poor our of poverty let alone black poor. How about the working poor? Does the Earned Income Tax credit help or hurt the poor? Good idea or bad? I am thinking that keeping people working instead of going on welfare entirely is a good thing that helps the poor. Not only to work but to have self esteem. Who gets the credit, a Republican, Ronald Reagan to be exact.

You say Republicans hate affirmative action, yet it was democrats that fought desegregation and fought affirmative action. It wasn't a Republican who stood in the school house door and it wasn't a democrat that sent troops in to stop the segregation. You say that Republicans hate AA. EVERYONE should hate AA on its face value. Let me, a pasty white old man, play you, a young black man, I am guessing go out and play some B-ball. What I will do is spot you 5 points because you are black and need MY help. That is in effect what the democrats are doing to the poor especially the black poor. Even thought Kennedy started AA with an executive order, Nixon made it policy and he had the Philadelphia plan, not bad for a Republican. MLK's birthday, again a Republican.

Now as for good done, here is a very good short opinion piece on RR. If the southern racist democrats became republican because of RR's perceived racism, or that of Nixon, they sure got ripped.

The good that Reagan did for black America

I cast my very first presidential ballot for Ronald Reagan. That set me apart from most of my fellow black Americans, 90 percent of whom gave their votes to Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

Even as the nation mourns Reagan's passing this week, many blacks retain their animus toward the 40th president, as evidenced by the uncharitable remarks by several black leaders.
"Black grandmothers like mine said always speak well of the dead or keep quiet," Rep. Major Owens, the New York Democrat told The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress. "I choose to keep quiet."
"Many in the African-American community strongly disagreed with his domestic policy," said Rep. Al Wynn, a Maryland Democrat.
"In terms of being a president for African-Americans," said Diane Watson, a Los Angeles Democrat, "he was not."
Based on the remarks by Reps. Owens, Wynn and Watson, and similar sentiments expressed by other black leaders, one might conclude that the Reagan era was a period of retrenchment for the black population.
But the reality is, the 1980s, with a conservative, free-market Republican in the White House, were a boom time for black America.
Indeed, Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
The success of the black entrepreneurial class during the Reagan era was rivaled only by the gains of the black middle class.
In fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels.
All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor.
The impressive growth of the black middle class during the 1980s was attributable in no small part to the explosive growth of jobs under Reagan, which benefited blacks disproportionately.
Indeed, between 1982 and 1988, total black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.
Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.
During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
The burgeoning of the black professional, managerial and executive ranks during the 1980s coincided with a steady growth of the black student population at the nation's colleges and universities in the 1980s.
Even though the number of college-aged blacks decreased during much of the decade, black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987, according to the Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, the 1980s saw an improvement in the black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.
On balance, then, the majority of black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.
More of us stayed in high school, graduated and went on to college. More of us were working than ever before, in better jobs and for higher wages.
The black middle class burgeoned to unprecedented size, emerging as the dominant income group in black America. And black business flourished, creating wealth in the black community.
Reps. Owens, Wynn and Watson may think that all of those wondrous developments were simply happenstance.
But the credit goes to Ronald Reagan, who initiated the policies that fostered the economic growth and job creation of the 1980s, which produced the prosperity that most black Americans enjoyed.

You can choose today whom you support. Support the party that has traditionally taken the black vote for granted. That has traditionally passed legislation that allows them to take care of the black vote. Or support another party that allows you to play on the same level playing field. Not because you are black and need taken care of, but because of your character. It is really up to you.

 

[Freewill]

Here is another article about the good Republicans have done for blacks, which in turn helps us all:

Indicrat: Why Africa Loves George W. Bush

 

[Freewill]

The Lie of Richard Nixon’s Racism

 

[Foxfyre]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Well stated, foxfyre.

The left think the social contract is the right to someone else's stuff, and the right to take it by force if they don't give it to you voluntarily

Apparently so. Unless they all are in serious need of remedial reading or comprehension courses, they have made up their own definition or dismiss it as something that doesn't exist. And they are quite unpleasant when they do that which makes any kind of civil discourse or discussion impossible.

I have not been successful in explaining that social contract has nothing to do with legal contracts or laws or government or dictates, though social contract can--it does not have to but it can--result in all those things. Social contract has its own definition that is quite different from the definition of legal contract or binding contract. But they seem not to have the intellect that understands that a word can have more than one meaning.

Oh well. Thanks for the kind word. The world still turns.

 

[P@triot]

Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction. While republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote, democrats have supported our right to vote and choose our own representation. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support.

Here you chief....tell us again which party does sooooooo much for blacks. The party of the KKK that you support, or the Republican Party which ended slavery, lead the Civil Rights movement, and fought the bloodiest war in U.S. history for African-Americans?

 

[P@triot]

I repeat, republicans have lost on just about every social issue they care about.

Oops...looks like making stuff up as you go is a bad strategy. Just another "social issue" that conservatives are starting to dominate the landscape on. Just like they have on shutting down Planned Parenthood facilities and the expansion of Right to Work laws. Incidentally, how sad is it that children show more intellect and self-control than liberals???

“Teenagers have sex. Deal with it.” That was a dismissive statement by a blogger in 2012 who taught at Yale University’s School of Public Health. Fortunately, teens did deal with it—by not having sex. They seemed to have missed this flippant blog and ignored this careless advice from adults who should know better.

Number of Teenagers Having Sex Has Dramatically Declined