Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Dumbest thing I ever readYou tell meIf Europe fell where do you think the axis powers would have attacked nextI never said we should have stayed out of WWII. I just said claiming our very existence was threatened was overly dramatic and just plain stupidGermany was incapable of invading England a few miles across the English Channel. How would they have invaded the US three thousand miles away?
Saying we should have stayed out of WW-II is a stupid statement.
How many ships were sunk along our East Coast by Nazi submarines?
How far is Hawaii from Japan?
Submarines can’t invade
Hawaii wasn’t invaded
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
We still had the largest Navy on earth plus massive air power to attack any invading naval force. Germany lacked the naval power to invade England. They were in no position to invade the US.....no naval force in 1945 or today has that capability
Apparently, you're ignorant, RW.
Germany and Japan had solid tactical plans to conquer America.
How Hitler And The Axis Could Have Invaded America At The Height Of World War II
England didn’t make them and their children slavesI already ask Tammy why the Indians fought for England. I mean the English were far worse at their treatment of Indians then the Americans were for black people. The British routinely shot hundreds of Indians for protesting their treatment in their own Country.
Isnt that what I posted?You are partially correct but you misplace cause and effectThe breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs
As you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."
The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.
Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.
Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.
I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.
Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html
Welfare did not cause the breakdown of families, it picked up the pieces.
When manufacturing jobs disappeared, low skill assembly jobs disappeared. Males without jobs were unable to form families
You are correct in saying welfare contributed to the breakdown of families when it refused benefits to households with an unemployed male. It was easier for single mothers to claim benefits
Wrong, welfare, as it was put forth by the War on Poverty, punished good behavior and rewarded bad behavior. Just because someone has a low income does not mean they are stupid. It quickly became recognized that if you were married, with children, you were entitled to far less economic help from the government. However, if you were SINGLE with children, you were entitled to much more in the way of benefits.
Suddenly it was a great benefit to NOT be married. That rendered the husband not only useless but a detriment to the family unit. Without a family to be responsible for and proud of, that drove the men into other pursuits. How has that worked out?
They had less rights then some slaves moron. In their own Country. The British subjugated them and made them 3rd class citizens. Killed them freely when ever they felt like it stole their Countries wealth, made them work at slave wages to aid England. But to the point. We abolished Slavery in 1865. The British were still killing Indians until what 1947?England didn’t make them and their children slavesI already ask Tammy why the Indians fought for England. I mean the English were far worse at their treatment of Indians then the Americans were for black people. The British routinely shot hundreds of Indians for protesting their treatment in their own Country.
We lose
You have an infantile grasp on history. I am uncomfortable defending the empire which I see as an evil institution.But the Indians were never slaves and the atrocities were not routine. The Brits ruled India for over 200 years. During that time a few thousand brits ruled half a billion Indians. It was done on a system of divide and rule and not oppression. It simply would not have been possible to do so.They had less rights then some slaves moron. In their own Country. The British subjugated them and made them 3rd class citizens. Killed them freely when ever they felt like it stole their Countries wealth, made them work at slave wages to aid England. But to the point. We abolished Slavery in 1865. The British were still killing Indians until what 1947?England didn’t make them and their children slavesI already ask Tammy why the Indians fought for England. I mean the English were far worse at their treatment of Indians then the Americans were for black people. The British routinely shot hundreds of Indians for protesting their treatment in their own Country.
We lose
No question Colonial Powers stole the wealth of their occupied territoryThey had less rights then some slaves moron. In their own Country. The British subjugated them and made them 3rd class citizens. Killed them freely when ever they felt like it stole their Countries wealth, made them work at slave wages to aid England. But to the point. We abolished Slavery in 1865. The British were still killing Indians until what 1947?England didn’t make them and their children slavesI already ask Tammy why the Indians fought for England. I mean the English were far worse at their treatment of Indians then the Americans were for black people. The British routinely shot hundreds of Indians for protesting their treatment in their own Country.
We lose
Isnt that what I posted?You are partially correct but you misplace cause and effectThe breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs
As you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."
The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.
Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.
Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.
I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.
Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html
Welfare did not cause the breakdown of families, it picked up the pieces.
When manufacturing jobs disappeared, low skill assembly jobs disappeared. Males without jobs were unable to form families
You are correct in saying welfare contributed to the breakdown of families when it refused benefits to households with an unemployed male. It was easier for single mothers to claim benefits
Wrong, welfare, as it was put forth by the War on Poverty, punished good behavior and rewarded bad behavior. Just because someone has a low income does not mean they are stupid. It quickly became recognized that if you were married, with children, you were entitled to far less economic help from the government. However, if you were SINGLE with children, you were entitled to much more in the way of benefits.
Suddenly it was a great benefit to NOT be married. That rendered the husband not only useless but a detriment to the family unit. Without a family to be responsible for and proud of, that drove the men into other pursuits. How has that worked out?
However, the insistence that receipients be punished if there was a male in the household came from conservatives
Prove what I said was wrongIsnt that what I posted?You are partially correct but you misplace cause and effectThe breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs
As you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."
The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.
Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.
Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.
I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.
Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html
Welfare did not cause the breakdown of families, it picked up the pieces.
When manufacturing jobs disappeared, low skill assembly jobs disappeared. Males without jobs were unable to form families
You are correct in saying welfare contributed to the breakdown of families when it refused benefits to households with an unemployed male. It was easier for single mothers to claim benefits
Wrong, welfare, as it was put forth by the War on Poverty, punished good behavior and rewarded bad behavior. Just because someone has a low income does not mean they are stupid. It quickly became recognized that if you were married, with children, you were entitled to far less economic help from the government. However, if you were SINGLE with children, you were entitled to much more in the way of benefits.
Suddenly it was a great benefit to NOT be married. That rendered the husband not only useless but a detriment to the family unit. Without a family to be responsible for and proud of, that drove the men into other pursuits. How has that worked out?
However, the insistence that receipients be punished if there was a male in the household came from conservatives
Why would Welsh, Northern Irish, or Scotch men and women fight for "Britain" in any of its wars?It seems like an act of faith in something that didn't exist.
At home, the inherent racism of the US denied them the very "freedoms" they were dying for.
They fought in the First War and nothing really changed, they should have learned from that.
Having said that, being bombed in Europe was probably preferable to life in the slave states.
Did black people see their daily lives improve as a result of their sacrifice ?
Why would Welsh, Northern Irish, or Scotch men and women fight for "Britain" in any of its wars?It seems like an act of faith in something that didn't exist.
At home, the inherent racism of the US denied them the very "freedoms" they were dying for.
They fought in the First War and nothing really changed, they should have learned from that.
Having said that, being bombed in Europe was probably preferable to life in the slave states.
Did black people see their daily lives improve as a result of their sacrifice ?
Or why would those descended from the "Saxons", fight for those descended from William the Conqueror and his "Norman" brethren?
Why would aborigines fight for "Australia", assuming they did so in WWII?
Because they were the most patriotic Americans ever.....willing to die for this country to liberate people across the globe while being treated as second class in their own country...It seems like an act of faith in something that didn't exist.
At home, the inherent racism of the US denied them the very "freedoms" they were dying for.
They fought in the First War and nothing really changed, they should have learned from that.
Having said that, being bombed in Europe was probably preferable to life in the slave states.
Did black people see their daily lives improve as a result of their sacrifice ?
A lot.....How many blacks volunteered, as opposed to being drafted?
Why?You would figure the Tuskegee airmen would have flew back to Africa
How many blacks volunteered, as opposed to being drafted?
Prove what I said was wrongIsnt that what I posted?You are partially correct but you misplace cause and effectAs you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."
The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.
Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.
Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.
I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.
Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html
Welfare did not cause the breakdown of families, it picked up the pieces.
When manufacturing jobs disappeared, low skill assembly jobs disappeared. Males without jobs were unable to form families
You are correct in saying welfare contributed to the breakdown of families when it refused benefits to households with an unemployed male. It was easier for single mothers to claim benefits
Wrong, welfare, as it was put forth by the War on Poverty, punished good behavior and rewarded bad behavior. Just because someone has a low income does not mean they are stupid. It quickly became recognized that if you were married, with children, you were entitled to far less economic help from the government. However, if you were SINGLE with children, you were entitled to much more in the way of benefits.
Suddenly it was a great benefit to NOT be married. That rendered the husband not only useless but a detriment to the family unit. Without a family to be responsible for and proud of, that drove the men into other pursuits. How has that worked out?
However, the insistence that receipients be punished if there was a male in the household came from conservatives
Many needed a job as well.A lot.....How many blacks volunteered, as opposed to being drafted?
