Poverty gets the blame, not racism

[damskippy]

Recordo wrote:

It's the nation's mid-section that decides elections, the midwest: The farmers, the small businessmen, the church-going citizens who belive they have a stake in America and want to pass that on to their children.
And the weirdest thing--they are turning to Obama. They could care less about Jim Crow and they aren't threatened by "colored" neighborhoods. Their schools are run to benefit the children, not to satisfy civil rights mandates. They don't watch Oprah and they aren't bedazzled by Hip Hop. The biggest thing in most of their towns is WalMart.
Yet they like Obama, for a change. Probably because he isn't Jewish...

Yeah,as Barry refered to them,"those states in the middle".

[damskippy]

Grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>
And he endorsed Obama.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

[taxpayer1]

Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
I always love it when someone uses statistics to support their racist arguments. First of all there are more Whites on public assistance than any other group. Secondly there are more Whites incarcerated then any other group. State and Federal figures bear that out.
I will not even bother addressing the rest of your post, because you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishoest.

My stats are correct according to the FBI uniform crime reporting act. Also as I pointed out blacks only represent 12% of the population yet according to the FBI are 7 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a white male. And check out the census figures to verify the illegit. rate as well as any recent news reports.

[SoOverThis]

American wrote:

<quoted text>
....We all want honest politicians. We all are tired of being ignored by a person once in office. We all deal with high costs and high taxes and all the problems associated with trying to survive in this country.
Maybe someday we will all simply be American....

That sums it up pretty well. But, once a politician is sworn in, all promises go out the window. I don't care what color or gender they are. Once a politician, always a politician. Everyone is making a big stink about nothing. No matter who wins the presidency, it will be business as usual.

btw, "honest politicians" is an oxymoron.

[Citizen]

taxpayer1 wrote:

<quoted text>
My stats are correct according to the FBI uniform crime reporting act. Also as I pointed out blacks only represent 12% of the population yet according to the FBI are 7 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a white male. And check out the census figures to verify the illegit. rate as well as any recent news reports.

First of ALL MEN are more likely to commit violent acts then WOMEN; so by using the prejorative term BLACK, you are comparing all BLACKS (including BLACK WOMEN) to a single sample group of WHITE MEN. That is an intentional misrepsentation of facts and use of statistics; because BLACK WOMEN do not commit more violent crimes than WHITE MEN; it is not even close. So by purposely lumping in a low violent crime group (Black Women) with a higher violent crime group (Black Men), you have tried to provide a misleading impression about the violent acts committed within an entire group, which is a lie motivated by your own racial feelings.

The sample group for your comparison should have been Black men to White men; and another group that you left out of your racially biased facts is Hispanic men. The aforementioned sample groups commit crimes at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, which is supported by statistics of kept by Munipal, County, State and Federal agencies. Criminologist point to gangs and their dealings in illegal narcotics, as being the main reason for the violence. Moreover, it is well known the members of the aforementioned groups are also more likely to be the victims of violence, then any other group.

Like I said before you are intellectually dishonest. Good day.

[A Sister]

Lola wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right. There are bad apples in any group. I do that that the black community suffers because such a high percentage of their men end up in prison. Why they turn to crime is for another day. I think the courts are quicker to punish black people. However, there are a lot of criminals that need to be punished. I would rather see only violent criminals in jail and the rest on some sort of monitored unpleasant work release. But, that would make too much sense and probably save taxpayer money and spare families grief.

I agree with you 100%.

[Recordo]

Remember the chicken-without-a-head story? It's true that if you chop off the chicken's head it will continue to run around, flap its wings, etc. until there's no more blood.

Well, if you chop off a society's head, remove the seniors and fathers from the household and leave it to the mothers and the children to make it on their own, they will continue to live, run around, flap their wings, etc. But forget about "reasoning" with the resultant wildness.

The more or less educated among us can blame it on socio-economic this or that, and anyone leading a congregation knows that it's Whitey who done this awful thing, er... pass the plate my brothers and sisters.

But the fact, not fantasy, is that in any population where the juveniles and male adolescents run wild because their fathers aren't there, the anarchy is built in and the population turns into a hog farm with political power distributed among the loudest and most violent of the juvenile males.

And no amount of speeches and federal and state programs is going to cure this. You either bring the two generations back together or take whatever the fallout is for the day.

[taxpayer1]

Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
First of ALL MEN are more likely to commit violent acts then WOMEN; so by using the prejorative term BLACK, you are comparing all BLACKS (including BLACK WOMEN) to a single sample group of WHITE MEN. That is an intentional misrepsentation of facts and use of statistics; because BLACK WOMEN do not commit more violent crimes than WHITE MEN; it is not even close. So by purposely lumping in a low violent crime group (Black Women) with a higher violent crime group (Black Men), you have tried to provide a misleading impression about the violent acts committed within an entire group, which is a lie motivated by your own racial feelings.
The sample group for your comparison should have been Black men to White men; and another group that you left out of your racially biased facts is Hispanic men. The aforementioned sample groups commit crimes at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, which is supported by statistics of kept by Munipal, County, State and Federal agencies. Criminologist point to gangs and their dealings in illegal narcotics, as being the main reason for the violence. Moreover, it is well known the members of the aforementioned groups are also more likely to be the victims of violence, then any other group.
Like I said before you are intellectually dishonest. Good day.

I did compare white males to black males go look at the stats for yourself. In fact I was slightly taken back by the fact that such a small percentage of society could be responsible for so much violent crime that I contacted some old friends in law enforcement and they confirmed my findings. This is hardly dis-honest and if you can point me to a credible source that disputes the FBI's I would be happy to look.

[Blame The Republicans]

REPUBLICANS ARE NERVOUS and SWEATING PERFUSELY!!!

The END to right wing political corruption as usual from the Republican White House.

McCain supports the views of reverends HAGEE and PARSLEY!

Read former BUSH Press Secretary's Scott McClellan's book.

A vote for McCain is a vote to continue BUSH politics.

CHANGE IS COMING!

Out with the "OLD", In with NEW LEADERSHIP!

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, "THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES"~~~~~ BARACK OBAMA. It's just a matter of time.

Restore HONESTY and INTEGRITY to the White House!

Vote Democrat! OBAMA / CLINTON 08

[taxpayer1]

Recordo wrote:

Remember the chicken-without-a-head story? It's true that if you chop off the chicken's head it will continue to run around, flap its wings, etc. until there's no more blood.
Well, if you chop off a society's head, remove the seniors and fathers from the household and leave it to the mothers and the children to make it on their own, they will continue to live, run around, flap their wings, etc. But forget about "reasoning" with the resultant wildness.
The more or less educated among us can blame it on socio-economic this or that, and anyone leading a congregation knows that it's Whitey who done this awful thing, er... pass the plate my brothers and sisters.
But the fact, not fantasy, is that in any population where the juveniles and male adolescents run wild because their fathers aren't there, the anarchy is built in and the population turns into a hog farm with political power distributed among the loudest and most violent of the juvenile males.
And no amount of speeches and federal and state programs is going to cure this. You either bring the two generations back together or take whatever the fallout is for the day.

And who's responsible for bringing the generations together? I agree with your point but is society responsible for raising these kids? The male role model is critical in the up-bringing of a child but it would seem the black male does not wish to take responsibility for his offspring. What I find most ironic in the 75% illegitimacy rate we see in the black race today appears much higher than any other time period and handouts and token programs are much higher today than they ever were.

[Recordo]

taxpayer1 wrote:

<quoted text>
And who's responsible for bringing the generations together? I agree with your point but is society responsible for raising these kids? The male role model is critical in the up-bringing of a child but it would seem the black male does not wish to take responsibility for his offspring. What I find most ironic in the 75% illegitimacy rate we see in the black race today appears much higher than any other time period and handouts and token programs are much higher today than they ever were.

Problem is that we have embraced the result to the point where we believe it is morally and financially better to simply subsidize the matriarchal family, forget the missing father and limp along until another identical generation pops out of a collection of wombs.

As long as there is no real downside to illegitimacy, as long as it is a not a social or economic liability, it will be part of the fabric of the country.

If the only missionaries going into a 3rd world country are Catholics, birth control as a cure for hunger is not an option. As long as a two-parent household isn't necessary for food, clothing and shelter, it won't have any importance.

I don't know the answer, although the Chinese seem to think they have it figured out.(What am I doing on TOPIX where everybody has the answers?) But in a no-fault society where right and wrong come in a distant third to kindness and being fair, decline and failure are guaranteed.

You fail to get an education, you flop. Your mother has six children she can't afford to raise, they're either taken into foster homes or she faces the fact that unprotected sex is not a cosmetic she can afford to wear.

But when the society decides that in the interest of "fairness" we should all shoulder the responsibility for raising her children, we are telling her and her children that it's okay, go ahead and keep that sense of responsibility dormant, we'll take care of you.

[taxpayer1]

Recordo wrote:

<quoted text>Problem is that we have embraced the result to the point where we believe it is morally and financially better to simply subsidize the matriarchal family, forget the missing father and limp along until another identical generation pops out of a collection of wombs.
As long as there is no real downside to illegitimacy, as long as it is a not a social or economic liability, it will be part of the fabric of the country.
If the only missionaries going into a 3rd world country are Catholics, birth control as a cure for hunger is not an option. As long as a two-parent household isn't necessary for food, clothing and shelter, it won't have any importance.
I don't know the answer, although the Chinese seem to think they have it figured out.(What am I doing on TOPIX where everybody has the answers?) But in a no-fault society where right and wrong come in a distant third to kindness and being fair, decline and failure are guaranteed.
You fail to get an education, you flop. Your mother has six children she can't afford to raise, they're either taken into foster homes or she faces the fact that unprotected sex is not a cosmetic she can afford to wear.
But when the society decides that in the interest of "fairness" we should all shoulder the responsibility for raising her children, we are telling her and her children that it's okay, go ahead and keep that sense of responsibility dormant, we'll take care of you.

To put it simply the far left rewards bad behavior to purchase votes and a continued dependence on the government will insure party growth in that segment of society. Kind of reminds me of the medeval system of serfs and nobles.

[ranting loons]

Lauren wrote:

Greg, you said "If this were really the reason, more Blacks would have started voting Republican a long time ago."
This I don't understand at all. Have you not heard the saying "A Black Republican is like a Black KKK member."
I do fear you might be right about social policies being "unworkable" though...at least in their execution thus far...

The lock-step following of the Democrat party is the reason that blacks are not approached. If the sheep will never leave the flock. The Dems know that they will ALWAYS get 90%+ of the black vote, so they don't have to campaign too hard or do much for them. Kind of like businesses giving their best deals to new customers, not the ones that have stayed with them through the years.

[ranting loons]

Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
The Democrats passed the Civil Right's Act so it is pretty clear why Blacks, Hispanics and Women might have some loyalty towards that party.
Social policies created by both parties have harmed the Country. The Repulbicans have a silly war on drugs that have done just as much damage as any act created by the Democrats. The lax gun laws and increased emphasis on prisons has also impacted our societies, because we now have higher murder and incarceration rates then at anytime in the Country's history.

The act was only passed because of the GREAT support of the Republicans in Congress. They supported the act in much greater numbers than the Dems and without them, the Southern DEMOCRATS would have stalled/killed it. They already had it bottled up in committee and it would never have gone to the floor without the great support of the Republican party. Know a bit about the history before you blather on so....

[ranting loons]

taxpayer1 wrote:

<quoted text>
5% unemployment is no where near a depression. How is a mortgage or loan a handout?

Don't go putting out statistics that go against what the liberal media has been spoon feeding the sheep. They are suffering, even thought things have gotten WORSE since the DEMs took over congress. I guess it is the Presidents fault since he initiates all spending bills and such...oh wait, he doesn't. The DEMOCRATIC house does. They sure have been busy _helping_ all of us....especially that porked up farm bill. They could not just help the people with food stamps and such, they had to give all the handouts to the rich farmers and farming corps. You know those corn farmers aren't making enough with ethanol driving prices through the roof...Pork brought straight to you by the Democrat party.

[ranting loons]

Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
The Lyndon Johnson Administration and the Kennedy Administrations prior to him were Democrats.

Here are congressional votes by party....

The original House version:[6]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[6]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[6]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[ranting loons]

Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
Well apparently you have not heard about welfare to work. Welfare receipients are required to work a certain number of hours in order to receive their benefits.
The loans to which you refer are backed by the government. So Who do you think is paying in this current mortgage meltdown? Moreover, who is bailing out these large investment banks that dabbled in the subprime market?
The government. And it is welfare.
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree.

While the welfare to work requires some effort to be made to work, not actual work being done. In addition, as previously stated, the money is not repaid. In the case of student loans, those MUST be repaid and cannot even be discharged in bancruptcy. As for the subprime loans, those were initially made to get the regulators off their backs due to "redlining" and not offering enough loans to minorities.

[ranting loons]

Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
I always love it when someone uses statistics to support their racist arguments. First of all there are more Whites on public assistance than any other group. Secondly there are more Whites incarcerated then any other group. State and Federal figures bear that out.
I will not even bother addressing the rest of your post, because you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishoest.

Using raw numbers like you are trying to do is altering reality. While whites may make up a greater number of persons on welfare, as a PERCENTAGE of the white people paying into the system, they are a much smaller group.

[West Virginian]

BlueNC wrote:

Isn't one of the Senators from West Virginia the head of the KKK? And they proudly re-elect him because of this.

Isn’t anyone going to challenge this wildly incorrect statement from North Carolina? West Virginia has two Senators Byrd and Rockefeller. Neither one is the head of the KKK. It’s no secret that Bryd was an active member of the clan back in the forties and it has dogged him ever since. He has extensively apologized and explained his young ignorance again and again. In 2004 he received a 100% approval of his votes from the NAACP. And last month, he formally endorsed Obama. An aside, he has been against the War from the beginning, especially when it was considered unpatriotic thing to do.
So really, don’t use this kind of misinformation to tell us why you think less of the people of West Virginia.

[ranting loons]

West Virginian wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn’t anyone going to challenge this wildly incorrect statement from North Carolina? West Virginia has two Senators Byrd and Rockefeller. Neither one is the head of the KKK. It’s no secret that Bryd was an active member of the clan back in the forties and it has dogged him ever since. He has extensively apologized and explained his young ignorance again and again. In 2004 he received a 100% approval of his votes from the NAACP. And last month, he formally endorsed Obama. An aside, he has been against the War from the beginning, especially when it was considered unpatriotic thing to do.
So really, don’t use this kind of misinformation to tell us why you think less of the people of West Virginia.

I am pretty sure the OP was referring to Byrd and his prior KKK membership. The issue is, no amount of appologies would have been adequate if the person was a Republican. It is a true double standard used of the media and the Democrats in general. What President Bill Clinton did was completely acceptable to NOW and the Democrats, as is what Byrd did in the past as well, whereas Lott makes one comment and Strom Thurman's (sp?) birthday, just to make ST feel good, and the Dems and the media were after his head. He appologized for any misunderstanding, and clarified what he meant, but that did not matter. Republicans do the same thing with pork-barrel spending, blasting the Dem's, but doing the same thing themselves. The only difference is, they don't have the media support behind them.