The Tea Party is Not Racist

[BeAChooser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM&feature=player_embedded#! "Tea Party Racism??"

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

From each according to his abilities in my pajamas?
Maybe we'll never know.

 

[Juniversal]

I said less than 1%. And we don't know how much less. It could be 0.5% or 0.1%.

Alright. Less then 1% it is.

Well that's a random sample of the crowd. If it's 2 faces in 200 people, that 1%. The examples, from the photos you supplied, suggest a percentage higher than that. And even 1% of the total population would represent a large fraction of the total black population. More than voted for Obama. If you can't handle statistics 101, I guess I can't do anything about that except .

Your logic doesn't follow. 1% of the entire black population is 400,000 (according to you, more black people than voted for Obama). So you attempt to correlate that 1% with the 1% that belongs to the tea party demographic? 1% of tea partiers might be black. But 1% of blacks aren't tea partiers. Your logic fails.

Who else should we blame when it's liberals who've been in control of the education system for the past 4 or so decades as it's gone downhill?

You have no conception of social dynamics. If over several generations, immigrants to this country performed poorly relative to the broader population would that be a testament to the "liberal failure" or would the failure be atrributal to the immigrant culture or social standing (poverty and the like)?

Far poorer people than the majority of those in the black community in this country are full of ambition, have stable homes and clear goals in life. My grandparents came to this country with NOTHING but the shirt on their backs. Not even speaking any English. Into a country that wasn't always friendly to immigrants. But still managed to become quite successful. Again, you are just pointing to problems that are, in large part, self-made, or fostered by the leadership that the black community has freely chosen for itself the last 4 to 5 decades.

"Came to this country". Willingly. Yes. There seems to be a certain ambition that comes with being a willing immigrant to a foreign country. Unfortunately it seems the ambition in the black community has been limited to the entertainment industries where blacks historically have had some success.

It seems there's certain "roles"/niches people gravitate towards as immigrants. Stereotypically Asians and nail salons, Arabs/East Indians commonly own convienence stores and I often see Africans selling clothing or other good to make there way. Oddly enough the niche black americans seem to have found is either related the black market or the entertainment industry (Rapper, singer, athlete, actor ect.)... Sadly it seems many of our youths ambitions don't rise above those simple niches.

Who do you think created the current 72% (!) out of wedlock birth rate for blacks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754561 )? Whites didn't do that, but democrat-pushed welfare and social agendas did. And unfortunately, those same agendas are now starting to affect the white community as well, leading to almost 30 percent out of wedlock birth rates there. Rates which were unheard of before liberal social agendas and welfare entitlement *changed* America. Hate to tell you and Obama, but *change* isn't always the wonderful thing it's cracked up to be.

The #1 predictor for success in life is marriage. This is an uncontestable fact. Yet marriage is the very institution that liberals have been openly attacking for decades. In 1970, near the start of the democrat instigated War On Poverty, only 13% of families in the US were headed by single parents. By 1996, over a quarter of all children in the US lived in single parent homes. Now 40% of all babies are born to unwed mothers. Democrat agendas have bread dependancy, bad decision making, and because of the feelings of entitlement they've fostered, victimhood.

I'd also attribute the high rate of illegitamcy simply to poor unstable homes. Financial instability doesn't lend itself to stability in relationships or otherwise.

You sure? Look at literacy rates: http://www.arthurhu.com/index/literacy.htm . In 1947, 11% of blacks age 14 and over were illiterate (compared with 1.8% of whites). Amongst blacks in the 14-24 age group it was 4.4%. By 1959, illiteracy of blacks had dropped to 7.5% (the rate dropped 0.2% amongst whites). It was down to just 1.2% in the critical 14-24 age group. Blacks had made huge gains in education, long before modern day liberals/socialists entered the picture in 1964. You know the current literacy rate for blacks is? Well this Washington Post article from 2005 might give you a clue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701.html

The fact is that literacy rates in public school and college age children began dropping after the advent of modern, mostly liberal controlled, public education. Think there might be a connection?

What exactly is your objection to the Civil Rights Act? Did 1964 (the year legal segregation was ended) signify the "liberal takeover"? If that's the case then conservatives clearly weren't doing us ANY good prior to 1964. And an arbitrary statistic such as inceasing literacy rates alone is not enough to deem black education "successfull".

I guess you never listen to the speeches of democrat leaders and the leaders in the black community. They are full of statements telling blacks how they've been victimized. Or look at the speeches of the folks who have been running the NAACP. Or Acorn. Or the curriculum in public schools (which more and more promotes the concept of "social justice", especially in schools that are predominantly black).

Black leaders don't need to "tell" anyone how they feel. Generally speaking they are a reflection of how a portion of the community feels.

Rather than just dismiss, folks like you really should listen to what Larry Elder has to say. For example, he points out (http://townhall.com/columnists/Larr...embraces_harmful_left-wing_policies/page/full ) that despite progress towards Reverend Martin Luther King's vision of a color blind society, Julian Bond, who has been Chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2010, said "we want [the NAACP] to be a social justice organization … snip … Our mission is to fight racial discrimination and provide social justice … snip … It is popular to say that we are in a post civil rights period, but we don't believe that." As Edler said, by "beast", he "wasn't referring to issues that today threaten the prosperity, safety and integrity of the 'black community' like high urban dropout rates; the opposition to vouchers, which allows the continued near monopoly of underperforming inner-city government schools; the inability of workers to deposit their Social Security contributions into personal savings and investment accounts; teen pregnancy; never-wed fathers and never-wed mothers dependent upon government, the misguided endorsement of race-based college admissions, which lead to a dispropotionately high dropout rate; and crime". By "beast", Bond meant "anti-black racism".

As I said, I can't stand Larry Elder. Nuff said. And Julian Bond is an intelligent man. He certainly has oppinions beyond those of racism. He considers racism to be a beast and he no doubt greatly abhors those issues you mentioned that plague the black community. Here's a great interview with him and Geoffery Canada who created the Harlem Childrens zone which has created great strides in educational attainment for the students involved in the program.

You really need to get over it and "move on" if you hope to achieve anything. Wasn't that a phrase democrats chanted not too long ago? "Move on"? :

You're directing that at me as if i'm the one that's "ultra sensitive discrimination or racism". I'm not. I agree with you. Some folks indeed need to stop seeing racism in anything.

As Elder notes in his book "Showdown: confronting bias, lies, and the special interests that divide America",


Got an answer to that question, Juniversal?

I assume the question you're refering to is the final sentence? I'd say both are significant problems that can create a dominoe effect.

But calling them the "N-word" just before you attack them does. In fact, courts of law in the US have ruled that voicing a racial term before an attack is evidence of a racist hate crime. And implying that a black man shouldn't be selling anything that doesn't support Obama is also evidence. Especially, when afterwords, the attackers accuse the person they attacked of being an Uncle Tom. That's most certainly a racist sentiment.

Regardless if he asked "what kind of negro are you?" or "what kind of are you, it's not really the same as calling somebody a "n-bomb". McCowen Racist against black conservatives? I think not. Intolerant of black conservatives? Quite possible.

But yet you seem to think that his selling Tea Party buttons is proof of just the opposite? Why is one proof and the other not?

Until proven otherwise i'll take the label of "black conservative" that's been given to him by the Conservative blogs as greater evidence.

Have you never hurt yourself … especially a back injury … and not realized it at the time of the injury? Have you never experienced what a dose of adrenaline will do? Why you're a lucky person.

In this Fox News interview Gladney said he was "bruised". Never have I known a bruise to warrant heavy sedation and a wheel chair.

But we already know McCowan is a serial liar. His first claim was that he was walking to his car and Gladney out of the blue assaulted him. Which clearly doesn't fit the facts or statements of eyewitnesses. So why do you believe McCowan just because he now claims he *just* called Gladney a "negro"? And besides, do you think "negro" would be any less racist a term when the video from the NAACP event has the speaker saying


with McCowan standing next to him laughing the whole time?

Regardless of which word he used, In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot. Also Uncle tom is no more a racist term then red neck. Do you claim when someone white calls another white person a red neck that they're racist?

 

[Juniversal]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

If I recall correctly there was a plan to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year. How much debt this will pay, I don't know. But that's one of the short term methods.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Socialist economics 101.

Is that how Bush dealt with deficit spending during his administration?

 

[Lurker]

Tea Party concerns should be marginalized. Those concerns being that Obama is really a secret Muslim, Kenyan, Jew, Socialist that wants to destroy the USA economy and put grandmothers in death panels. Oh, and that he wants to enslave all the white people, first ensuring that all the guns are taken away.

It does not appear that the items you delineated above are endemic in tea party talks. By characterizing them as such, you are making them the victim and probably making the populace more sympathetic to their cause. If those issues come up in debate with them then go ahead and debate them, but don't assume that those are the core causes of the party. You only help them by doing so.

 

[Lurker]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

But according to Republican philosophy, tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing revenue. Are you saying you don't believe that canard principle anymore?

 

[bynmdsue]

Never said I believed it in the first place,only trying to understand the positions.

I'm not trying to run a game down on anyone,or try to trip up someone in their rhetoric.

 

[Lurker]

Never said I believed it in the first place,only trying to understand the positions.

I'm not trying to run a game down on anyone,or try to trip up someone in their rhetoric.

Fair enough. I think Obama sees a lot of the spending he is doing now as a one time spend due to the difficult economic situation we are in. So he is willing to have deficit spending here. I am hoping that as the economy improves, he will start to cut spending and/or raise taxes.

Obama did allude to possible spending cuts next year. He may not be able to keep those plans if the economy does not improve. We'll see.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your logic doesn't follow. 1% of the entire black population is 400,000 (according to you, more black people than voted for Obama).

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to write more than *did not vote for Obama*, as I initially suggested in post #354 to you when you first yawned. And I'm talking in terms of percentages. Blacks comprise about 13% of the US population, of which about 30% are under 18 (voting age). So if just 1% percent of the Tea Party attendees are black (and mind, CNN and Gallup indicated the percentage is between 2% and 6%), then that is equivalent to about 10% of voting age blacks. And that is a higher percentage by far than the percent who did not vote for Obama in the last election (5%). This means that the Tea Party is drawing about as many blacks as one could possibly expect it to draw, given the black communities blind allegiance to Obama and the democratic party. As I said earlier, you can't squeeze water out of a dry sponge.

Quote:
Who else should we blame when it's liberals who've been in control of the education system for the past 4 or so decades as it's gone downhill?

You have no conception of social dynamics. If over several generations, immigrants to this country performed poorly relative to the broader population would that be a testament to the "liberal failure" or would the failure be atrributal to the immigrant culture or social standing (poverty and the like)?

LOL! New immigrants aren't the problem here. Not when 50% of high school students in the largest 50 public school districts in the country aren't graduating high school on time (if at all). And the percentage of non-graduates amongst the non-immigrant black population is much, much higher than that. The democrat controlled public education system has failed your race, Juniversal. And you are apparently too blind to see it.

Also arguing against your spin is the fact that private education is able to do a much better job with the same raw student material. Here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm

In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

- The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more [than] 50 percent of their senior class;

- Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

- 85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

- The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

- 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

And I can go on all day citing sources like that.

"Came to this country". Willingly.

It's well past time you got over that. Don't you see that this victicrat attitude is what's holding the black community back? It's made blacks latch on to more than half a century of empty promises from the socialist, democratic party. It's made you succeptible to the racebaiters and racemongers who disguise themselves as ministers and the like. You've been had, friend. Not just by slave owners over a hundred and fifty years ago (which means, by the way, that none of you here now were brought into this country unwillingly) but by a new class of slave owners, who call themselves liberals and have kept you relatively poor and uneducated just to insure your vote.

Besides, had your great great grandparents not been brought to this country, many of your descendants would now still be living in squalor and slavery at the hands of your own race. And I think the more than ten trillion dollars spent on the WOP over the last 50 years is more than enough of a helping hand. It's time to stand on your own two feet and stop being whining victigrats and government dependents. Your kids have just as much chance to achieve as mine … IF you use the opportunities the freedoms and economic system of this country offer you and stop making bad decisions. As Larry Elder advises … stop attributing every bad thing that happens to you to racism or poverty and start focusing on the real problems black people face.

I'd also attribute the high rate of illegitamcy simply to poor unstable homes. Financial instability doesn't lend itself to stability in relationships or otherwise.

Which came first? Unstable homes or illegitimacy? I think you have it completely backwards. In 1970, there was a memo sent to President Johnson by not yet democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan titled "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." In it, he made the argument (that liberals considered racist) that the rising number of black children born outside of wedlock threatened the stability of the black community. That implies there was stability at some point and that something happened to threaten it. Indeed, the percentage of black children born out of wedlock prior to the War On Poverty in 1960 was about 22%. By 1970 it was at 25%. It climbed more in 10 years than it had in the previous 20 years. And as the WOP programs expanded, it exploded. By mid 1970, nearly half of black kids were illegitimate. By 1990, 64% were born out of wedlock. And now that statistic is over 70%. Also, in the late 60's about 26% of black pregnant teenagers got married before birth. By the late 1970's only 8% did. What led to this dramatic change at a time when effective birth control methods became available? Liberal inspired government welfare, the liberal inspired attack on the institution of marriage and the culture the black community adopted.

Being poor does not make you have a child out of wedlock. Being poor doesn't by itself make a home unstable. Neither does being uneducated, for that matter. My grandparents were both poor and relatively uneducated, yet their kids had a stable married home to grow up in. Jesse Jackson, with all his money and education (and self righteousness), still had a child out of wedlock in an affair (in fact, in an unbelievable display of hypocrisy, he visited the Whitehouse to counsel Clinton over his affair with Monica … and brought along his mistress).

My own parents took three things from their parent's house. And none of them was a stack of money (that was still in short supply after only a generation in the country and there was NO government assistance).

One was an education. And my grandparents felt so strongly about education that they worked at backbreaking labor from sunrise to sunset so their kids could get that education. They made them study. They made them read. They felt so strongly about it that they sacrificed part of their own culture for it … insisting that their kids only speak English … even at home. No ebonics (or the equivalent) allowed in their home.

The second thing my parents took away from their parents was a good moral code. Knowing right and wrong. Knowing that you don't have babies you can't afford. Knowing that you don't expect others to pay for your own mistakes (you are NOT entitled to anything but what specifically is identified in the Constitution). The rest depends on hard work.

And with that in mind, they taught them a good work ethic. And self-sufficiency. That if you can't afford something now, don't buy it. Don't expect someone else to buy it for you. You do without and save until you can afford it. You NEVER get in debt over your head. You never use a credit card for anything other than just the convenience of paying a bill.

These are lessons that democrats have in large part forgotten.

And a growing number of republicans (although hopefully that is changing).

What exactly is your objection to the Civil Rights Act?

You aren't listening. I have no objection to the Civil Rights Act. It was a very good thing. It was about ending segregation. About, as JFK who introduced it, said "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote." There was/is nothing wrong with that.

What the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention is WELFARE. That's the legislation I'm saying started America and the black community down the road to where we now find ourselves. Johnson's War on Poverty. I object to the misguided Economic Opportunity Act that he pushed into law and the 10 trillion dollar (PLUS) boondoggle it started (and that's doesn't include the trillions that Obama has now added to it).

Black leaders don't need to "tell" anyone how they feel. Generally speaking they are a reflection of how a portion of the community feels.

Again, you confuse the chicken and the egg. You really believe that black leaders are only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything? Is gullible your middle name?

As I said, I can't stand Larry Elder. Nuff said.

I can see it's a waste of time trying to talk sense (and common sense) to you. Oh well.

And Julian Bond is an intelligent man.

Intelligence doesn't keep him from being a racebaiter and a racemonger … or from using the black community in the way Booker T Washington warned.

Harlem Childrens zone which has created great strides in educational attainment for the students involved in the program.

LOL! Funny that you should mention a private/charter school, when the democratic party has fought tooth and nail against private/charter schools for years (and even now is only supporting charter schools because they think they can sneak unions into them). But maybe you mention HCZ because it's not only trying to educate but provide all manner of other social and community services that don't directly relate to education. And in that, it may be judged a failure (http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/07/broader-bolder-but-not-better/ ). Even so, that hasn't stopped Obama from seeking hundreds of millions (billions?) in public money to create these schools in 20 cities. Perhaps because the model includes those social and community services, and he thinks that might be used to indoctrinate students in the "social justice" mime he and his socialist associates promote. Afterall, in seeking interns for their TRUCE program, I notice that HCZ specifically stated that they were looking for people with a "strong committment to social justice."

Maybe what we need to do instead is figure out why the HCZ schools work compared to public schools and fix the public schools? Is it the fact that HCZ schools maintain student discipline whereas public schools don't? Is it the fact that HCZ students spend 50% more time in school than regular public school kids? Is it the fact that HCZ schools seem to teach middle class values rather than tear them down like so many public schools do? Is it the fact that it only enrolls 1% "limited English proficient" students? But can we really afford schools where the staff to child ratio is 8 to 1?

I'd say both are significant problems that can create a dominoe effect.

So you are claiming they are equally important problems … because that was the question? And if that's true, you are wrong. They aren't equal.

Regardless if he asked "what kind of negro are you?" or "what kind of are you, it's not really the same as calling somebody a "n-bomb".

So subtle racism is ok with you?

Until proven otherwise i'll take the label of "black conservative" that's been given to him by the Conservative blogs as greater evidence.

So will you take the labels they assign as evidence of other things too?

In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot.

When has context ever mattered to liberals accusing others of being racists?

Also Uncle tom is no more a racist term then red neck. Do you claim when someone white calls another white person a red neck that they're racist?

The term red neck has nothing to do with race. Its origin stems from people getting a red neck from laboring outside in the sun … due to being poor. Whereas the N-word specifically concerns race. And when McCowan said "what kind of a …" are you, he was demeaning the man's racial characteristics (saying he wasn't black enough), not his economic status.

 

[bynmdsue]

I gotta go with "Uncle Tom" as being very racist as it implies being a race-traitor as opposed to red-neck which is more just poor and stupid.

Is there a way to use "Uncle Tom" without it being"This fella is trying to appease The Man by not being true to his Black self"?

 

[Lurker]

LOL! New immigrants aren't the problem here. Not when 50% of high school students in the largest 50 public school districts in the country aren't graduating high school on time (if at all). And the percentage of non-graduates amongst the non-immigrant black population is much, much higher than that. The democrat controlled public education system has failed your race, Juniversal. And you are apparently too blind to see it.

do you have any evidence of this? I would think that we should see higher rates of high school graduation for blacks in states that have higher Republican control over local school boards and state politicians. So, do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota? I think that might demonstrate your point, BAC.

Oh, here we go. Here is some data:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Lowest grad rate for African-Americans: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Highest grad rate for African-American: West Virginia, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and New Jersey.

Hmm, I am not seeing any red state/blue state trend there. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, eh?

 

[BeAChooser]

do you have any evidence of this? I would think that we should see higher rates of high school graduation for blacks in states that have higher Republican control over local school boards and state politicians.

First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. I'm not convinced because of the way federal government funding works. The feds have all sorts of rules (guidelines) that states and localities have to abide by to receive that funding. Plus, major elements of the curriculum are set at the national level by national organizations of one form or another. For example, the NEA which is democrat controlled has considerable influence. So does the AERA which is highly liberal. Also, you need to consider the effect of universities on public schools because universities train the teachers and teachers have a significant impact on the message that gets relayed to students. Teachers are predominantly liberal in part because the colleges are predominantly liberal.

Second, you make the mistake of thinking the red/blue labels at the state level mean much at the local level. Perhaps they don't. For example, Mississippi, is red, but the mayor of Jackson appoints the school board and he is a democrat. You need to ask yourself what fraction of public school boards are conservative. You might be surprised. democrats dominate school boards in general, in part because republicans foolishly let them control school boards for so long thinking they weren't that important.

So, do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota?

Actually, Texas does pretty good compared to other states when it comes to graduation rates:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/NGA_compact_rate_policy_brief.pdf

The National Governors Association (NGA) "Compact Rate" is a four-year, adjusted cohort graduation rate used to determine the percentage of on-time high school graduates (those receiving diplomas) from a given four-year student cohort. It is widely considered a high-quality, practical graduation rate capable of improving consistency and accuracy among statewide reporting systems. The NGA has been the principal player supporting the ongoing development and implementation of the Compact Rate, and has produced two reports detailing its efforts (2009, 2005).

… snip …

Four-year graduation rates for 2007-08 were found for 15 of the 20 states reported by NGA as using the Compact Rate. Additionally, although reported to begin using the Compact Rate in 2008-09, Iowa used it a year earlier than expected and is therefore included in the table. In 2007-08, the overall graduation rate for Texas public school students was 79.1 percent. This was the fourth highest rate among the 16 states reported above. Across these states, Texas had the second highest graduation rate for White students (88.8%) and the fourth highest rates for African American (71.8%) and Hispanic students (70.8%).

The states they compared were Iowa, Vermont, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Michigan, Florida, Rhode Island, South Carolina, North Dakota, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Arkansas, New York and New Mexico. If you look at ranking of black graduation rates in that list, you see that Texas beat all but 2 of the 6 states identified as blue states in the last election.

By the way, you've also shot yourself in the foot with the study you linked because it says that only 56% of black students graduate nation-wide on average. Clearly, at 71.8%, Texas is doing quite well in comparison. Also, 56% is nothing to boast about when private/charter schools have been taking blacks from the same populations and graduating 80-90%.

By the way, take a look at the 25 worst performing public schools in the country: http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/worst-performing-public-schools/ . Here are the cities/states they are in along with the party that appears to have controlled that city for last 30 years or so:

D - Milwaukee, Wis.
D - Chicago Ill.
D - Philadelphia, Pa
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Chicago, Ill.
R (slight edge) Columbus, Oh
R? - Highland Park, Mich
D - Chicago, Ill
R - Greenville, SC
Indian reservation - Sacaton Ariz
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Florence, SC
D - Charleston, SC
D - Poughkeepsie, NY
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
Indian reservation - St Francis, SD
D - Chicago, Ill
D - North Charleston, SC
D - Milwaukee, Wis
D - Milwaukee, Wis
Aiken, SC
D - East St Louis, Ill.

Looks to me like democrats are in control of most of those.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Socialist economics 101.

Really? Because cutting taxes while either increasing spending or simply not cutting spending seems to be a pretty conservative move as far as history is concerned. Either that or every Republican president since Reagan is a god damn commie. Then again, as Lurker pointed out, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing revenue is a central belief of supply-side economics.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did noone in the Obama administration and Obama DOJ bother to ask this question?

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/

If there are only 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire country, then how can over 86,000 of them claim discrimination at the hands of the USDA? Where did the other 46,303 come from?

Or perhaps they just didn't care because this wasn't about discrimination against farmers in the first place ... but reparations.

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you folks see the latest video of Sherrod's husband Charlie? It's dated January 2010 (it mentions the settlement to New Communities so it must be recent).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_tHu4vdS8&feature=player_embedded

Finally we must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black. And we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interests.

He looks like he still harbors some resentment towards whites. And any blacks who don't agree with his view of things. Given the apparent passion of those feelings, are Shirley's defenders sure that she doesn't still share those same feelings even now? Maybe that's why she accused republicans of being racist for not supporting Obama's health care bill? You think?

And who is actually getting the $13 million he spoke of? New Communities has been defunct for more than 20 years. Just curious.

The sad thing is that Charles Sherrod really was an important civil rights figure in the early 60s before becoming disenchanted with the democratic party (apparently because they were unwilling to give blacks more representation in the party leadership) and went off to become a minister and start New Communities. Unfortunately, it looks like he chose a model for that venture based more on communism than capitalism. And that might have as much to do with it's failure as any drought or racism.

 

[Juniversal]

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to write more than *did not vote for Obama*, as I initially suggested in post #354 to you when you first yawned. And I'm talking in terms of percentages. Blacks comprise about 13% of the US population, of which about 30% are under 18 (voting age). So if just 1% percent of the Tea Party attendees are black (and mind, CNN and Gallup indicated the percentage is between 2% and 6%), then that is equivalent to about 10% of voting age blacks. And that is a higher percentage by far than the percent who did not vote for Obama in the last election (5%). This means that the Tea Party is drawing about as many blacks as one could possibly expect it to draw, given the black communities blind allegiance to Obama and the democratic party. As I said earlier, you can't squeeze water out of a dry sponge.

Can't argue with that and thank you for owning up to your mistake.

LOL! New immigrants aren't the problem here. Not when 50% of high school students in the largest 50 public school districts in the country aren't graduating high school on time (if at all). And the percentage of non-graduates amongst the non-immigrant black population is much, much higher than that. The democrat controlled public education system has failed your race, Juniversal. And you are apparently too blind to see it.

Also arguing against your spin is the fact that private education is able to do a much better job with the same raw student material. Here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm



And I can go on all day citing sources like that.

So the issue is public education vs. private education it seems. Not Liberal vs. Conservative. Or do actually believe liberals hate private schools? Are you implying private schools are somehow a conservative institution and public schools a liberal one? Do you believe conservatives bare no blame in the current status of public education?

It's well past time you got over that. Don't you see that this victicrat attitude is what's holding the black community back? It's made blacks latch on to more than half a century of empty promises from the socialist, democratic party. It's made you succeptible to the racebaiters and racemongers who disguise themselves as ministers and the like. You've been had, friend. Not just by slave owners over a hundred and fifty years ago (which means, by the way, that none of you here now were brought into this country unwillingly) but by a new class of slave owners, who call themselves liberals and have kept you relatively poor and uneducated just to insure your vote.

Besides, had your great great grandparents not been brought to this country, many of your descendants would now still be living in squalor and slavery at the hands of your own race. And I think the more than ten trillion dollars spent on the WOP over the last 50 years is more than enough of a helping hand.

Again you seem confused about my stance. I'm not blaming anyone for slavery or using it as an excuse for any plight i've suffered. My point was simply that the niche black people have filled seems to be endemic to our origins in this country. I'm explaining why I believe the disease exist. Not attacking anyone for its existence.

It's time to stand on your own two feet and stop being whining victigrats and government dependents. Your kids have just as much chance to achieve as mine … IF you use the opportunities the freedoms and economic system of this country offer you and stop making bad decisions. As Larry Elder advises … stop attributing every bad thing that happens to you to racism or poverty and start focusing on the real problems black people face.

You're great at making baseless assumptions. Hate to break it to you but my family has never been on welfare (not to say nobody in my extended family hasn't because that's certainly not the case) and we definately struggled. Even if we were on welfare it would be out of neccesity.

Which came first? Unstable homes or illegitimacy? I think you have it completely backwards. In 1970, there was a memo sent to President Johnson by not yet democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan titled "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." In it, he made the argument (that liberals considered racist) that the rising number of black children born outside of wedlock threatened the stability of the black community. That implies there was stability at some point and that something happened to threaten it. Indeed, the percentage of black children born out of wedlock prior to the War On Poverty in 1960 was about 22%. By 1970 it was at 25%. It climbed more in 10 years than it had in the previous 20 years. And as the WOP programs expanded, it exploded. By mid 1970, nearly half of black kids were illegitimate. By 1990, 64% were born out of wedlock. And now that statistic is over 70%. Also, in the late 60's about 26% of black pregnant teenagers got married before birth. By the late 1970's only 8% did. What led to this dramatic change at a time when effective birth control methods became available? Liberal inspired government welfare, the liberal inspired attack on the institution of marriage and the culture the black community adopted.

How many blacks were on welfare during the 1970's? Were 92% of blacks accounted for in the Welfare system that would explain the 8% that were married before giving birth during the late 1970's? Were the other 92% that remained unmarried on welfare? Seems you're commiting the causation/correlation fallacy. And what is this liberal attack on marriage you speak of? I don't recall anyone condemning marriage or demonizing liberals encouraging births out of wed lock.

Let me guess. Your logic is as follows....welfare = the poor make reckless decisions thanks to the money welfare provides = sex without regards to financial burden = kids born out of wedlock=attack on marriage. That sound about right?

Being poor does not make you have a child out of wedlock. Being poor doesn't by itself make a home unstable. Neither does being uneducated, for that matter. My grandparents were both poor and relatively uneducated, yet their kids had a stable married home to grow up in. Jesse Jackson, with all his money and education (and self righteousness), still had a child out of wedlock in an affair (in fact, in an unbelievable display of hypocrisy, he visited the Whitehouse to counsel Clinton over his affair with Monica … and brought along his mistress).

I'll totally agree that being poor doesn't make one have a child out of wedlock and that Jesse Jackson is a hypocrite. Nothing controversial there. But I also don't believe marriage is some magic solution. If a immature 16 year old girl has an unplanned pregnancy with an equally immature boy than i'd say marriage is not a reasonable solution. And in many cases these days it is immature 16 year olds having kids with immature 16 year olds.

My own parents took three things from their parent's house. And none of them was a stack of money (that was still in short supply after only a generation in the country and there was NO government assistance).

One was an education. And my grandparents felt so strongly about education that they worked at backbreaking labor from sunrise to sunset so their kids could get that education. They made them study. They made them read. They felt so strongly about it that they sacrificed part of their own culture for it … insisting that their kids only speak English … even at home. No ebonics (or the equivalent) allowed in their home.

The second thing my parents took away from their parents was a good moral code. Knowing right and wrong. Knowing that you don't have babies you can't afford. Knowing that you don't expect others to pay for your own mistakes (you are NOT entitled to anything but what specifically is identified in the Constitution). The rest depends on hard work.

And with that in mind, they taught them a good work ethic. And self-sufficiency. That if you can't afford something now, don't buy it. Don't expect someone else to buy it for you. You do without and save until you can afford it. You NEVER get in debt over your head. You never use a credit card for anything other than just the convenience of paying a bill.

These are lessons that democrats have in large part forgotten.

And a growing number of republicans (although hopefully that is changing).

Do your grandparents want a cookie?

You really believe that black leaders are only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything?

In many cases? Yes.

I can see it's a waste of time trying to talk sense (and common sense) to you. Oh well.

No not at all. I have common sense. I just don't need Larry Elder to preach and condascend to me about things i'm fully aware of.

Intelligence doesn't keep him from being a racebaiter and a racemonger … or from using the black community in the way Booker T Washington warned.

Bond is not a "racemonger" ala Jesse Jackson or Sharpton. Simply a civil rights activist (an activist for gay rights as well which I think is great) who's activism extends beyond the civil rights movement era. If acknowledging race or racism makes one a race monger then your boy Larry Elder is a race monger as well.

LOL! Funny that you should mention a private/charter school, when the democratic party has fought tooth and nail against private/charter schools for years (and even now is only supporting charter schools because they think they can sneak unions into them). But maybe you mention HCZ because it's not only trying to educate but provide all manner of other social and community services that don't directly relate to education. And in that, it may be judged a failure (http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/07/broader-bolder-but-not-better/ ). Even so, that hasn't stopped Obama from seeking hundreds of millions (billions?) in public money to create these schools in 20 cities. Perhaps because the model includes those social and community services, and he thinks that might be used to indoctrinate students in the "social justice" mime he and his socialist associates promote. Afterall, in seeking interns for their TRUCE program, I notice that HCZ specifically stated that they were looking for people with a "strong committment to social justice."

Somebody's been watching Glenn Beck. Social justice...boogity boogity boo!! Never have I seen anyone try to apply a negative connotation to social justice until Beck. Rediculous.

Also I would think you would enthusiastic about Obama attempting to recreate the results of the program since you're so adamant at the qaulity of private school education vs. public school education.

Maybe what we need to do instead is figure out why the HCZ schools work compared to public schools and fix the public schools? Is it the fact that HCZ schools maintain student discipline whereas public schools don't? Is it the fact that HCZ students spend 50% more time in school than regular public school kids? Is it the fact that HCZ schools seem to teach middle class values rather than tear them down like so many public schools do? Is it the fact that it only enrolls 1% "limited English proficient" students? But can we really afford schools where the staff to child ratio is 8 to 1?

I don't know. But whatever it is it seems to be working.

So will you take the labels they assign as evidence of other things too?

In your dreams.

The term red neck has nothing to do with race. Its origin stems from people getting a red neck from laboring outside in the sun … due to being poor. Whereas the N-word specifically concerns race. And when McCowan said "what kind of a …" are you, he was demeaning the man's racial characteristics (saying he wasn't black enough), not his economic status.

I don't care about the origins of the word. I'm talking about the connotation.

 

[Juniversal]

Did you folks see the latest video of Sherrod's husband Charlie? It's dated January 2010 (it mentions the settlement to New Communities so it must be recent).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_tHu4vdS8&feature=player_embedded



He looks like he still harbors some resentment towards whites. And any blacks who don't agree with his view of things. Given the apparent passion of those feelings, are Shirley's defenders sure that she doesn't still share those same feelings even now? Maybe that's why she accused republicans of being racist for not supporting Obama's health care bill? You think?

And who is actually getting the $13 million he spoke of? New Communities has been defunct for more than 20 years. Just curious.

The sad thing is that Charles Sherrod really was an important civil rights figure in the early 60s before becoming disenchanted with the democratic party (apparently because they were unwilling to give blacks more representation in the party leadership) and went off to become a minister and start New Communities. Unfortunately, it looks like he chose a model for that venture based more on communism than capitalism. And that might have as much to do with it's failure as any drought or racism.

Ahh my heart sings when I see conservatives attempting to make the Sherrod non-story into a story. Since the "NAACP racism!!" thing didn't pan out it's transformed into "lets try our best to demonize Sherrod" instead. Grasping..at..straws.

 

[Lurker]

First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. (...)

Adn I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote but I think we can both agree it is very complex, attempting to determine who is in charge and has impact of local schools. that you are able to divine that the blame lies with Democrats and liberals is pretty amazing, although not altogether surprising.

By the way, you've also shot yourself in the foot with the study you linked because it says that only 56% of black students graduate nation-wide on average. Clearly, at 71.8%, Texas is doing quite well in comparison. Also, 56% is nothing to boast about when private/charter schools have been taking blacks from the same populations and graduating 80-90%.

See, there you go cherry picking data again. You can't choose just Texas and ignore the rest. I mentioned TX as an example, not as THE example.

By the way, take a look at the 25 worst performing public schools in the country: http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/worst-performing-public-schools/ . Here are the cities/states they are in along with the party that appears to have controlled that city for last 30 years or so:

D - Milwaukee, Wis.
D - Chicago Ill.
D - Philadelphia, Pa
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Chicago, Ill.
R (slight edge) Columbus, Oh
R? - Highland Park, Mich
D - Chicago, Ill
R - Greenville, SC
Indian reservation - Sacaton Ariz
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Florence, SC
D - Charleston, SC
D - Poughkeepsie, NY
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
Indian reservation - St Francis, SD
D - Chicago, Ill
D - North Charleston, SC
D - Milwaukee, Wis
D - Milwaukee, Wis
Aiken, SC
D - East St Louis, Ill.

Looks to me like democrats are in control of most of those.

Cities, yes. I wonder if economics has anything to do with graduation rate? I suggest you google correlation/causation, BAC. It most certainly applies here. That bad graduation rates are prevalent in urban areas - wow, that's a real shocker! Must be the Democrat's fault.

My point was that poor black grad rates appears to be party-blind. both conservatives and liberals are doing poorly by the black community when it comes to education. Who is at fault? I don't know if fault lies with one party.

 

[Lurker]

Did noone in the Obama administration and Obama DOJ bother to ask this question?

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/

If there are only 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire country, then how can over 86,000 of them claim discrimination at the hands of the USDA? Where did the other 46,303 come from?


Or perhaps they just didn't care because this wasn't about discrimination against farmers in the first place ... but reparations.

I guess you missed the part of your source that said this:

and any black farmer who had filed a complaint between 1983 and 1997 would be given at least $50,000

You are comparing current # of farmers yet the lawsuit goes back to 1983. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out the why there is a discrepancy.