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.
musicman said:Ah - at last - someone with the courage to come right out and say it! Conservative blacks can't possibly be thinking for themselves! I admire your forthrightness, Chad. But, forget about a career in politics; you have to be able to hide your hatred, intolerance, and contempt better than that. In other words, you have to lie. Don't change, man - I like you better this way.
No doubt its true that not all democrats feel that way. But we certainly don't hear the more moderate ones standing up and saying that its wrong for the far lefties to be calling black conservatives racial slurs.jillian said:My point was that Gunny lumps people into these generalized pools. He confuses ALL democrats with the furthest reaches of the left. He thinks every opinion which doesn't jive with his is "trolling". I've learned that from my observations during my relatively short time chatting on this board and his comments to me directly.
How is the right making these things a racial issue when its people on the left calling blacks "Uncle Tom", or throwing Oreo cookies at them?But to get to your point. I think that people have to be judged on their merits. And the moment someone is judged lacking who happens to be a person of color on the conservative end of the spectrum, the RIGHT, not the left, tries to make it a racial issue. I figure I have the right to disagree with someone regardless of their color. That's what equality is.
We do, its called a free K-12 education. If someone cannot take advantage of that then I don't think ALL of us should pay for further "encouragement" to be a productive member of society. Maybe some people feel more programs should be there for people, thats great, but there is no reason it can't be funded via charity and not taxpayer money.As for dependence, I don't think anyone should be dependent and I hate systems that makes assumptions that some can't ever do as well as others. I do, however, also believe that we need to encourage and foster those programs which give people a leg up rather than a hand out.
OCA said:Democrats have enslaved the majority of Blacks to welfare giving them just enough to exist on........all for votes. In reality Democrats don't think Blacks are smart enough to make it on their own so they continue the welfare program assembly line which keeps the Black Democratic vote coming generation after generation because the Demos have convinced inner city(mostly) Blacks that they will perish without the Demos help.
Its probably the most shameful thing that either party has ever done.
CharlestonChad said:Obviously I was making a remark about how the fact that gunner included "thinking for themselves" and "conservative" in the same post.
CharlestonChad said:The neocons like yourself won't let the welfare recipients recieve more than they do now.
Let's imagine that the neocons aren't balanced out by the lefties. What happens to the inner city poor citizens? You put them in sweatshops making Chinese wages. Then you don't give them medical care, you don't educate them, and you don't feed them. All of this b/c they are forced to take jobs under the table to survive (similiar to the immigrants).
Since you're against unions, forget them being fully for their survices.
theHawk said:No doubt its true that not all democrats feel that way. But we certainly don't hear the more moderate ones standing up and saying that its wrong for the far lefties to be calling black conservatives racial slurs.
How is the right making these things a racial issue when its people on the left calling blacks "Uncle Tom", or throwing Oreo cookies at them?
We do, its called a free K-12 education. If someone cannot take advantage of that then I don't think ALL of us should pay for further "encouragement" to be a productive member of society. Maybe some people feel more programs should be there for people, thats great, but there is no reason it can't be funded via charity and not taxpayer money.
jillian said:I think of things like that as more internal community struggle than I do a democrat/republican issue. Personally, I don't use ethnic slurs or approve of them. But it isn't racism when it's intra-racial.
Again, there isn't such a thing as racism by a group against itself. That disagreement in the black community has been going on since the light-skinned black, dark-skinned black thing back in the days of slavery. Again, it's intra-racial and not racism under any definition I've seen.
I don't think the problems you're talking about are racial. I think they're socio-economic. Middle class and upper class blacks have no problem availling themselves of education. Poor people of all types get under-served which only exacerbates the problems further. Unfortunately, the same people who don't want to pay for more programs also don't believe in paying for Head Start, Student Loans and daycare so single mothers can get trained and break the cycle of government dependence.
And we don't get to choose where out tax dollars go. I don't want my country bankrupted in Iraq... yet my taxes go there. Nor do I want my tax dollars being used to fund abstinence-only programs. But I have no choice in that either. Sorta the way it goes.
jillian said:My point was that Gunny lumps people into these generalized pools. He confuses ALL democrats with the furthest reaches of the left. He thinks every opinion which doesn't jive with his is "trolling". I've learned that from my observations during my relatively short time chatting on this board and his comments to me directly.
But to get to your point. I think that people have to be judged on their merits. And the moment someone is judged lacking who happens to be a person of color on the conservative end of the spectrum, the RIGHT, not the left, tries to make it a racial issue. I figure I have the right to disagree with someone regardless of their color. That's what equality is.
As for dependence, I don't think anyone should be dependent and I hate systems that makes assumptions that some can't ever do as well as others. I do, however, also believe that we need to encourage and foster those programs which give people a leg up rather than a hand out.
So there ya go. Hope I hit all the bases.
CharlestonChad said:You're a riot. I feel kinda sad for you, b/c you're not intending to be funny.
CharlestonChad said:Obviously I was making a remark about how the fact that gunner included "thinking for themselves" and "conservative" in the same post.
red states rule said:The left never stops telling us how rotten the economy is. They say over and over how terrible things are in America. They live to spread their doom and gloom message and how the "poor" are suffering.
Well, the fact is, the poor have it pretty good in America. Being poor in Amercia is not what it used to be. Here are the facts on poverty in America..............
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.
The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.
Perhaps the best news is that the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work and high numbers of single-parent families. By increasing work and marriage, our nation can virtually eliminate remaining child poverty.
Robert E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Fellow in Statistical Welfare Research in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
jillian said:...the moment someone is judged lacking who happens to be a person of color on the conservative end of the spectrum, the RIGHT, not the left, tries to make it a racial issue.
CharlestonChad said:The neocons like yourself won't let the welfare recipients recieve more than they do now.
jillian said:I think of things like that as more internal community struggle than I do a democrat/republican issue. Personally, I don't use ethnic slurs or approve of them. But it isn't racism when it's intra-racial.
Again, there isn't such a thing as racism by a group against itself. That disagreement in the black community has been going on since the light-skinned black, dark-skinned black thing back in the days of slavery. Again, it's intra-racial and not racism under any definition I've seen.
The quotation also describes the hostility Ford's bid to lead House Democrats provoked from backward-looking members of the older generation of black activists and politicians, including some of his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus. The sheer meanness and downright stupidity of the vituperation is an indication of the intellectual bankruptcy of what currently passes for black leadership. Ford is too shrewd to talk openly about the insults himself, but they obviously stung him. Not content to criticize Ford on the legitimate grounds of his callowness and lack of legislative accomplishments, some dredged up his "high yellow" skin color to discredit him with darker-skinned blacks. Others, like a certain well-known civil rights leader who ought to know better, described Ford as "another Clarence Thomas" the same as swatting him down as an Uncle Tom.
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
jillian said:I don't think the problems you're talking about are racial. I think they're socio-economic. Middle class and upper class blacks have no problem availling themselves of education. Poor people of all types get under-served which only exacerbates the problems further. Unfortunately, the same people who don't want to pay for more programs also don't believe in paying for Head Start, Student Loans and daycare so single mothers can get trained and break the cycle of government dependence.
musicman said:First, please demonstrate how decades of the entitlement mentality have ever actually helped anybody (hint: stay away from the subject of New Orleans). Then, please explain how MORE OF THE SAME is a good thing.
musicman said:Oh yeah - obviously. Too late to backtrack now, Hanging Chad.
CharlestonChad said:I guess you're right, I'm a racist Libertarian who believes in equal rights for every citizen.
you too!
musicman said:You don't sound like any Libertarian I know. "Libertarian" is the new euphemism for "liberal". You sound like a few of those I know, for sure.
Oh - and
insein said:Why i don't consider myself a libertarian even though i hold alot of the "traditional" ideals of one. I consider myself a TRUE conservative. Wanting as little government as possible in the everyday lives of honest citizens.
