Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[JDzBrain]

.......So FDR..as a matter of keeping the country from going full bore commie or some other nasty populist movement..went with giving out some candy for the masses.

And it was wildly successful.

... People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs........

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

LMAOff!!!

Dude, you have GOT to be kidding!? Do you know that there are people BORN in this country and work their WHOLE LIFE in this country and DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!?

Your lack of historical perspective is just staggering. FDR had been dead nearly 20 years before the notion of Social Security became accepted enough that over half the population as a percentage would even go sign up for Social Security!

And MUCH of that had to do with the fact that you were ISSUED a SS card with your uniform if you enlisted or with your time card if you took a job producing war goods. Hell, I know personally of 5 people that died of old age and NEVER drew a SS check or had a SS card. 2 were in my extended family!

And NO...we ain't Amish!

Fox is DEAD RIGHT! It is our staunchly independent natures that has made this country great and kept it WORKING for the most of it's history. It is progressive nannyisms that will DESTROY this country.

EVERY ONE of the incidences you linked to AND a dozen or so MORE that I could cite were NOT aimed at getting government handouts. They WERE aimed at ending some sort of oppressive practices like company stores and paying in company tokens that could only be spent in company stores. That INCLUDES the Bonus Army march which was meant to end the SAME KIND OF PRACTICE by our own government in the form of Service Certificates. They are PERFECT examples of the fiercely independent nature Americans have ALWAYS possessed and their willingness to PERSONALLY confront injustice where ever it occurs!

By posting them...you make Fox's point!

As to the ASININE claim that FDR inflicted all that HISTORICALLY socialist CRAP on Americans to "save" the Union...WHAT?

Just exactly WHERE do you think the nickname "Uncle Joe" that is used as short hand for Joe Stalin came from? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT modern conservatives that came up with it. And it was DAMN sure not what he was called in Russia or Europe!

It came from a remark FDR made in a press conference after meeting Stalin. Besides liking the man personally, Roosevelt IDOLIZED Joe Stalin for his ability to centralize ALL banking and governmental policy in a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Which...as we ALL know....is antithetical to our founding principles AND the Constitution.

THAT is a matter of historical FACT...NOT revisionist conjecture!

 

[Foxfyre]

In this week's e-mail I received a transcript of part of a sermon attributed to a black pastor in a black church. As these internet things go, however, who knows where it originated? But the message was spot on.

It related to part of the story of Joseph in the Old Testament - Genesis 47:13-27 to be exact.

Excerpted:

So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had uilt. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, ike a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.

So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock - their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year.

But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters? That turning to the government instead of to our own labor and resources to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes.. That's the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master?

Had the people formed their own coops to store their grain to get them through hard times, they would have managed nicely and not lost their crops, their flocks, and their land. For awhile, it was great getting government help. But little by little they gave away all that made them free and self sufficient and they became slaves of the government to be controlled as Pharoah chose. And once a benevolent Pharoah was gone, they found government to be a cruel task master.

We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth" once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. And once government has the control, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind.

And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Israel did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government with no apparent way out. . . .

 

[JDzBrain]

THAT...is the reason that the founders used historical and biblical reference when constructing our Constitution. You do NOT have to be a Christian to recognize the COMMON SENSE represented within the text of the bible.

And you do NOT have to be religious AT ALL to recognize the IMPERATIVE of the divinity represented in the phrase, Endowed by their Creator to protect our Rights.

Just common sense!

 

[Big Fitz]

THAT...is the reason that the founders used historical and biblical reference when constructing our Constitution. You do NOT have to be a Christian to recognize the COMMON SENSE represented within the text of the bible.

And you do NOT have to be religious AT ALL to recognize the IMPERATIVE of the divinity represented in the phrase, Endowed by their Creator to protect our Rights.

Just common sense!

Common sense is neither to the left

 

[Foxfyre]

THAT...is the reason that the founders used historical and biblical reference when constructing our Constitution. You do NOT have to be a Christian to recognize the COMMON SENSE represented within the text of the bible.

And you do NOT have to be religious AT ALL to recognize the IMPERATIVE of the divinity represented in the phrase, Endowed by their Creator to protect our Rights.

Just common sense!

It seems, however, that common sense is not a strong suit of some of our fellow Americans, however. The 'free stuff' group long ago abandoned common sense or any acknowledgment of realities lest they risk having the flow of 'free stuff' stopped. They rely on emotional appeal and anecdotal references to justify their point of view and almost stand on their heads to divert any attention away from negative consequences of that 'free stuff'.

As we have seen, the advocates of big government 'free stuff' can't seem to grasp the concept of this thread. They cannot or will not even consider whether it is bad for people to not expect to earn what they get.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's look at just one sad legacy of 'free stuff' and intervention, courtesy of the Federal government. Walter Williams wrote the essay excerpted below more than 10 years ago. The statistics since then are even more appalling:

. . . .Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.

In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.

In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.

According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"), "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."

That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.

I doubt whether the reparations gang could develop a coherent theory of the generation-skipping effects of slavery. Vestiges and legacy of slavery arguments are simply covers for another hustle similar to the $6 trillion dollar War on Poverty hustle. . . .

Dispute his facts if you can. (I'll tell you now that I tried and couldn't do it.)

It is THIS kind of dynamic that I think makes it imperative for the liberal/leftist 'do gooders' to rethink what they are actually doing to people with the whole concept of 'free stuff."

 

[Sallow]

... People did NOT expect help from the government prior to FDR's "New Deal" programs........

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

LMAOff!!!

Dude, you have GOT to be kidding!? Do you know that there are people BORN in this country and work their WHOLE LIFE in this country and DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!?

Your lack of historical perspective is just staggering. FDR had been dead nearly 20 years before the notion of Social Security became accepted enough that over half the population as a percentage would even go sign up for Social Security!

And MUCH of that had to do with the fact that you were ISSUED a SS card with your uniform if you enlisted or with your time card if you took a job producing war goods. Hell, I know personally of 5 people that died of old age and NEVER drew a SS check or had a SS card. 2 were in my extended family!

And NO...we ain't Amish!

Fox is DEAD RIGHT! It is our staunchly independent natures that has made this country great and kept it WORKING for the most of it's history. It is progressive nannyisms that will DESTROY this country.

EVERY ONE of the incidences you linked to AND a dozen or so MORE that I could cite were NOT aimed at getting government handouts. They WERE aimed at ending some sort of oppressive practices like company stores and paying in company tokens that could only be spent in company stores. That INCLUDES the Bonus Army march which was meant to end the SAME KIND OF PRACTICE by our own government in the form of Service Certificates. They are PERFECT examples of the fiercely independent nature Americans have ALWAYS possessed and their willingness to PERSONALLY confront injustice where ever it occurs!

By posting them...you make Fox's point!

As to the ASININE claim that FDR inflicted all that HISTORICALLY socialist CRAP on Americans to "save" the Union...WHAT?

Just exactly WHERE do you think the nickname "Uncle Joe" that is used as short hand for Joe Stalin came from? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT modern conservatives that came up with it. And it was DAMN sure not what he was called in Russia or Europe!

It came from a remark FDR made in a press conference after meeting Stalin. Besides liking the man personally, Roosevelt IDOLIZED Joe Stalin for his ability to centralize ALL banking and governmental policy in a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Which...as we ALL know....is antithetical to our founding principles AND the Constitution.

THAT is a matter of historical FACT...NOT revisionist conjecture!

How much spit did you lose on the keyboard and monitor during that post?

Man..thinking some meds would help.

 

[Sallow]

Well my education in history may be lacking despite considerable university studies in that subject and a lot of independent study since. So you'll just have to live with my inadequacies.

Now what can we do to help you relate to the topic of this thread which none of the links that you furnished do?

The links buttress the point I made.

You, on the other hand, engage in this nonsense about "People getting free stuff".

It's hyperbole..at best.

Then don't post on the thread if you think it is hyperbole at best. There are numerous other threads in which you can discuss the role of the unions and government internvention into various things.

This thread is about people who expect free stuff vs those who believe people should work for or pay for what they get.

Is that a concept too difficult for you? If so, hope to see you around on other threads.

Basically this is an open forum. As such..I can post where and when I please.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

LMAOff!!!

Dude, you have GOT to be kidding!? Do you know that there are people BORN in this country and work their WHOLE LIFE in this country and DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!?

Your lack of historical perspective is just staggering. FDR had been dead nearly 20 years before the notion of Social Security became accepted enough that over half the population as a percentage would even go sign up for Social Security!

And MUCH of that had to do with the fact that you were ISSUED a SS card with your uniform if you enlisted or with your time card if you took a job producing war goods. Hell, I know personally of 5 people that died of old age and NEVER drew a SS check or had a SS card. 2 were in my extended family!

And NO...we ain't Amish!

Fox is DEAD RIGHT! It is our staunchly independent natures that has made this country great and kept it WORKING for the most of it's history. It is progressive nannyisms that will DESTROY this country.

EVERY ONE of the incidences you linked to AND a dozen or so MORE that I could cite were NOT aimed at getting government handouts. They WERE aimed at ending some sort of oppressive practices like company stores and paying in company tokens that could only be spent in company stores. That INCLUDES the Bonus Army march which was meant to end the SAME KIND OF PRACTICE by our own government in the form of Service Certificates. They are PERFECT examples of the fiercely independent nature Americans have ALWAYS possessed and their willingness to PERSONALLY confront injustice where ever it occurs!

By posting them...you make Fox's point!

As to the ASININE claim that FDR inflicted all that HISTORICALLY socialist CRAP on Americans to "save" the Union...WHAT?

Just exactly WHERE do you think the nickname "Uncle Joe" that is used as short hand for Joe Stalin came from? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT modern conservatives that came up with it. And it was DAMN sure not what he was called in Russia or Europe!

It came from a remark FDR made in a press conference after meeting Stalin. Besides liking the man personally, Roosevelt IDOLIZED Joe Stalin for his ability to centralize ALL banking and governmental policy in a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Which...as we ALL know....is antithetical to our founding principles AND the Constitution.

THAT is a matter of historical FACT...NOT revisionist conjecture!

How much spit did you lose on the keyboard and monitor during that post?

Man..thinking some meds would help.

Still deflecting Sallow? Would you care to give an opinion related to the topic?

 

[Foxfyre]

The links buttress the point I made.

You, on the other hand, engage in this nonsense about "People getting free stuff".

It's hyperbole..at best.

Then don't post on the thread if you think it is hyperbole at best. There are numerous other threads in which you can discuss the role of the unions and government internvention into various things.

This thread is about people who expect free stuff vs those who believe people should work for or pay for what they get.

Is that a concept too difficult for you? If so, hope to see you around on other threads.

Basically this is an open forum. As such..I can post where and when I please.

Yes, and you can whine about the topic when and where you please as well. And I suppose it is okay to be discourteous and intentionally disrupt a thread. I'll leave it to the moderators to allow or disallow that as I have no powers there.

But I would very much appreciate your rationale for why it is good for the government to take your money to give me free stuff.

 

[GuyPinestra]

But I would very much appreciate your rationale for why it is good for the government to take your money to give me free stuff.

Because the DNC says so....

 

[Foxfyre]

But I would very much appreciate your rationale for why it is good for the government to take your money to give me free stuff.

Because the DNC says so....

But even Democrats and/or their predecessors once held to and promoted traditional values in a uniquely American culture. It was unthinkable to applaud or celebrate intentionally getting pregnant out of wedlock, to see single parenthood as a choice as a good thing, to see decent people not accepting responsibility for and working to feed, clothe, house, and educate their families. To expect somebody else to feed your kids because you were too drunk or stoned or lazy to do so was a major sin.

Democrats were once strong constitutional originalists, strong advocates for States Rights, and were extremely conservative as we now define conservatism.

The trend began slowly shifting under Teddy Roosevelt who promoted more federal government intervention and involvement than any of his predecessors and the seeds were planted, the snowball of 'free stuff' was formed under FDR and greatly escalated in the LBJ administration. It is now at the point there is no stopping it unless there are enough Americans left with the insight to see and understand the dangers and the backbone to do something about it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

But I would very much appreciate your rationale for why it is good for the government to take your money to give me free stuff.

Because the DNC says so....

But even Democrats and/or their predecessors once held to and promoted traditional values in a uniquely American culture. It was unthinkable to applaud or celebrate intentionally getting pregnant out of wedlock, to see single parenthood as a choice as a good thing, to see decent people not accepting responsibility for and working to feed, clothe, house, and educate their families. To expect somebody else to feed your kids because you were too drunk or stoned or lazy to do so was a major sin.

Democrats were once strong constitutional originalists, strong advocates for States Rights, and were extremely conservative as we now define conservatism.

The trend began slowly shifting under Teddy Roosevelt who promoted more federal government intervention and involvement than any of his predecessors and the seeds were planted, the snowball of 'free stuff' was formed under FDR and greatly escalated in the LBJ administration. It is now at the point there is no stopping it unless there are enough Americans left with the insight to see and understand the dangers and the backbone to do something about it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but unfortunately trying to educate people who have been brainwashed by our education/indoctrination system is really hard work. I just don't see it turning around, and the 'Grand Experiment' will be lost.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because the DNC says so....

But even Democrats and/or their predecessors once held to and promoted traditional values in a uniquely American culture. It was unthinkable to applaud or celebrate intentionally getting pregnant out of wedlock, to see single parenthood as a choice as a good thing, to see decent people not accepting responsibility for and working to feed, clothe, house, and educate their families. To expect somebody else to feed your kids because you were too drunk or stoned or lazy to do so was a major sin.

Democrats were once strong constitutional originalists, strong advocates for States Rights, and were extremely conservative as we now define conservatism.

The trend began slowly shifting under Teddy Roosevelt who promoted more federal government intervention and involvement than any of his predecessors and the seeds were planted, the snowball of 'free stuff' was formed under FDR and greatly escalated in the LBJ administration. It is now at the point there is no stopping it unless there are enough Americans left with the insight to see and understand the dangers and the backbone to do something about it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but unfortunately trying to educate people who have been brainwashed by our education/indoctrination system is really hard work. I just don't see it turning around, and the 'Grand Experiment' will be lost.

I too sometimes drift into a feeling of hopelessness along with a sense of relief that I have already lived most of my life and probably won't live to see the most severe decline of a great nation that I love. But my children and granddaughter, the great nieces and nephews, and the other children that I work with deserve better than the 'free stuff' crowd will allow. Many have not yet been brainwashed and it isn't too late.

I don't think we can give up trying. Nothing much really significant has ever happened because we knew it could be done. It happened because we were willing to risk trying to find out whether it was possible. In fact, this great nation was founded in just that way.

 

[kwc57]

You can "disagree" all you want. Your argument is flawed. And your knowledge of history is remarkably limited.

Coal Strike of 1902 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Matewan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That should steer you in the right direction.

LMAOff!!!

Dude, you have GOT to be kidding!? Do you know that there are people BORN in this country and work their WHOLE LIFE in this country and DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!?

Your lack of historical perspective is just staggering. FDR had been dead nearly 20 years before the notion of Social Security became accepted enough that over half the population as a percentage would even go sign up for Social Security!

And MUCH of that had to do with the fact that you were ISSUED a SS card with your uniform if you enlisted or with your time card if you took a job producing war goods. Hell, I know personally of 5 people that died of old age and NEVER drew a SS check or had a SS card. 2 were in my extended family!

And NO...we ain't Amish!

Fox is DEAD RIGHT! It is our staunchly independent natures that has made this country great and kept it WORKING for the most of it's history. It is progressive nannyisms that will DESTROY this country.

EVERY ONE of the incidences you linked to AND a dozen or so MORE that I could cite were NOT aimed at getting government handouts. They WERE aimed at ending some sort of oppressive practices like company stores and paying in company tokens that could only be spent in company stores. That INCLUDES the Bonus Army march which was meant to end the SAME KIND OF PRACTICE by our own government in the form of Service Certificates. They are PERFECT examples of the fiercely independent nature Americans have ALWAYS possessed and their willingness to PERSONALLY confront injustice where ever it occurs!

By posting them...you make Fox's point!

As to the ASININE claim that FDR inflicted all that HISTORICALLY socialist CRAP on Americans to "save" the Union...WHAT?

Just exactly WHERE do you think the nickname "Uncle Joe" that is used as short hand for Joe Stalin came from? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT modern conservatives that came up with it. And it was DAMN sure not what he was called in Russia or Europe!

It came from a remark FDR made in a press conference after meeting Stalin. Besides liking the man personally, Roosevelt IDOLIZED Joe Stalin for his ability to centralize ALL banking and governmental policy in a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Which...as we ALL know....is antithetical to our founding principles AND the Constitution.

THAT is a matter of historical FACT...NOT revisionist conjecture!

How much spit did you lose on the keyboard and monitor during that post?

Man..thinking some meds would help.

Allow me to interpret your liberal speak for the rest of the folks in the thread.

View attachment 17554

Sallow said, "Shit, I ain't got nuttin'".

 

[Foxfyre]

LMAOff!!!

Dude, you have GOT to be kidding!? Do you know that there are people BORN in this country and work their WHOLE LIFE in this country and DON'T HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!?

Your lack of historical perspective is just staggering. FDR had been dead nearly 20 years before the notion of Social Security became accepted enough that over half the population as a percentage would even go sign up for Social Security!

And MUCH of that had to do with the fact that you were ISSUED a SS card with your uniform if you enlisted or with your time card if you took a job producing war goods. Hell, I know personally of 5 people that died of old age and NEVER drew a SS check or had a SS card. 2 were in my extended family!

And NO...we ain't Amish!

Fox is DEAD RIGHT! It is our staunchly independent natures that has made this country great and kept it WORKING for the most of it's history. It is progressive nannyisms that will DESTROY this country.

EVERY ONE of the incidences you linked to AND a dozen or so MORE that I could cite were NOT aimed at getting government handouts. They WERE aimed at ending some sort of oppressive practices like company stores and paying in company tokens that could only be spent in company stores. That INCLUDES the Bonus Army march which was meant to end the SAME KIND OF PRACTICE by our own government in the form of Service Certificates. They are PERFECT examples of the fiercely independent nature Americans have ALWAYS possessed and their willingness to PERSONALLY confront injustice where ever it occurs!

By posting them...you make Fox's point!

As to the ASININE claim that FDR inflicted all that HISTORICALLY socialist CRAP on Americans to "save" the Union...WHAT?

Just exactly WHERE do you think the nickname "Uncle Joe" that is used as short hand for Joe Stalin came from? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT modern conservatives that came up with it. And it was DAMN sure not what he was called in Russia or Europe!

It came from a remark FDR made in a press conference after meeting Stalin. Besides liking the man personally, Roosevelt IDOLIZED Joe Stalin for his ability to centralize ALL banking and governmental policy in a CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Which...as we ALL know....is antithetical to our founding principles AND the Constitution.

THAT is a matter of historical FACT...NOT revisionist conjecture!

How much spit did you lose on the keyboard and monitor during that post?

Man..thinking some meds would help.

Allow me to interpret your liberal speak for the rest of the folks in the thread.

View attachment 17554

Sallow said, "Shit, I ain't got nuttin'".

Well of course I think we already established that once he dismissed the topic altogether. But I keep hoping there are one or two intelligent liberals/leftists out there who can and will address the topic intelligently and without diverting from the basic thesis of two separate cultures in America today.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would it be helpful to show what a 'civil debate' on this topic looks like?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI]Thomas Sowell - Welfare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

And one more example of the doublespeak that divides the two cultures. To me this ad, if legitimate, is absolutely unbelievable. But taking it at face value, do you really think our Fearless Leader has in mind that the folks work for their bread just like everyb ody else?

President Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama - YouTube

 

[Montrovant]

Let's look at just one sad legacy of 'free stuff' and intervention, courtesy of the Federal government. Walter Williams wrote the essay excerpted below more than 10 years ago. The statistics since then are even more appalling:

. . . .Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.

In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.

In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.

According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"), "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."

That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.

I doubt whether the reparations gang could develop a coherent theory of the generation-skipping effects of slavery. Vestiges and legacy of slavery arguments are simply covers for another hustle similar to the $6 trillion dollar War on Poverty hustle. . . .

Dispute his facts if you can. (I'll tell you now that I tried and couldn't do it.)

It is THIS kind of dynamic that I think makes it imperative for the liberal/leftist 'do gooders' to rethink what they are actually doing to people with the whole concept of 'free stuff."

I'm not going to dispute any facts, but I am curious why the stats for marriage would include 15 year olds. In most states, wouldn't a 15 year old need special permission to marry? I would think using stats for 18+ would give a more accurate view, as far as marriage is concerned.

 

[The T]

And one more example of the doublespeak that divides the two cultures. To me this ad, if legitimate, is absolutely unbelievable. But taking it at face value, do you really think our Fearless Leader has in mind that the folks work for their bread just like everyb ody else?

President Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama - YouTube

Yeah...now they'd have a caniption fit had Santorum, or any other Republican started a group like "Gringos for Gingrich..." "Whites for Santorum"...___________________Insert group here...for_______________.

Shows who really doesn't care about race, ethnicity, or whatever. WE are Americans first and foremost.

Divide indeed. This regime is dividing among all lines, and it's just sick as Hell.