O/T Political Rants & Raves - Page 47

MickyD -- I don't know what balderdash means in this context.  I was not suggesting that you believe this.  But the Williams quote describes a social apocalypse which clearly blames the black community, and not the history of slavery and racism, for its state in the 1960s.  We are asked to defend the falling marriage rate of black women without recourse to the legacies of slavery and racism.

And so I did.  It is explained by the rising incarceration rates of black males.  Rates that rose during a time of decreased crime, suggesting strongly public policy -- law and order policy, not social welfare policy -- to blame.

That's a strong rebuttal in my view.

.

 "It is explained by the rising incarceration rates of black males."

Well, you have a generation of young men whose fathers are barred by welfare rules from living with them (or their families lose benefits).  These young people grow up without a male role model, so is it any wonder they turn to crime?  Is it surprising they join gangs, where there is a male hierarchy, no matter how flawed?

And what of the fathers?  Is it not the height of emasculation, to be marginalized in such a manner by the government?  Are you surprised they might feel drawn toward violence by such treatment?

It's too bad the centrist media did little with the Van Jones controversy.

But the Fox reporting was irresponsible.

The guy was a leader in his field, and wrote parts of legislation signed by Bush.

So whatever his so-called socialist sympathies (which some of you seem to think is criminal), he is certainly prepared to work within the system.

Did Fox give you an accurate biography? 

Did it include any of this?

http://www.vanjones.net/

It is not hard to see what Obama might have chosen the guy for that job.

But Fox is the new Senator McCarthy (not that the far left media is doing a much better job).  In the 1930s and the 1940s the vast majority of the members of the American Communist Party quit -- what they saw in WW II convinced them that even the poor would be better off in a capitalist democracy.  When McCarthy came after them 5-15 years, they must have reconsidered the idea that free speech was really protected under the 1st Amendment.  Van Jones has every right as a brilliant black man in America to look for every legal means available to advance his agenda for the poor, and if he cleverly uses green politics to help with black jobs, that's fine with me.  If he's a socialist that's also fine with me as long as he doesn't break the law and advocate the overthrow of the government (a very bad thing).

 

Maybe women shouldn't have 6 kids by 5 different baby daddies and expect the taxpayers to support them
their whole lives?   And maybe men shouldn't have 6 different kids with 5 different momma's.    What generation are we on that knows no other lifestyle?  And this not just blacks.

And I'm not racist, I hate everybody.  I could list on one hand the number of people I like.

MVF,

It shouldn't take a PhD to figure out carrots and sticks.  AFDC could have addressed children's basic needs (nothing for the parents) and child care, as the name suggests,  to encourage parents to work.  When I taught workfare classes for those receiving food stamps, I saw firsthand the failures of the system.  One woman came to my group pregnant with her 11th child and no father to be found.  How could we expect a person in her position with no marketable job skills to earn enough to become independent?  I had young people come to my class that never knew a different way of life.  When you turn 18 you go get your stamps.  I met for the first time in my life, high school graduates who read at a level of a first or second grader.  Yet the left continues to assault any attempt to offer alternatives to the failing inner city schools.  It's really not nearly as complicated as you are making it.

RFS

Gee thanks for proving my point maggs.  Considering Senator Byrd  has been elected to public office continually since 1947, even though it was known to those who elected him that in fact he was a member of  of the heinous and evil  KKK organization,  who,  though he ostensibly denounced his membership in 1952,   continued to fight against civil rights and is famous for filibustering the Voting Rights Act of 1964, (which he now regrets doing), and ended up endorsing Obama for president.

Yep it has definitely been a long and winding road for Senator Byrd and those who elected him.  It is nothing short of hypocrisy to try and turn Obama's relationship with Wright into something evil or threatening to whites or anyone, when you consider the long and winding road Senator Byrd has traveled.

Hey guys.............the president can only sign or veto law.............

What was the congress and senate made up of during these times

The president can be passionate, and want to do nice things for the downtraden, and end up accepting the best he feels he can get from the senate and congress.........feeling that something is better then nothing


BTW - MLK was a republican,

* "I don't believe that Liberals and Conservatives will ever see eye-to-eye." *

-- I agree. That tiz why America fought and won Independence. Better read up !!   LMAO

IMO, anyone using the erms "right" and "left" is missing too much of the issue. 

Someone defined "Libertarian" so far fromt he principles of John Stuart Mill that he'd be turing in his grave. 

I am the token red neck on the not-for-profit boards that I sit on, and the token leftie on the political boards, LOL.  

Philosophically speaking, I believe in an anarchist libertarian rule of law.  That is - let me do what I want so long as it doesn't affect you.  Fewer laws, less government in terms of rules against my actions.  On the other hand, until everyone has had the opportunitys of growth that I have, I can't expect them to rise to the level of understanding I have - ergo, I support government  support of children, daycare, health care, etc, and I also support - government intervention when your activites are so destructive that it affects my pocketbook unnecessarily.  I have nothing against forced sterilization of women or men if they abuse their rights to procreate by abusing their offspring, or by abusing the guarantee of income.  I do not believe all life is sanctified and have no fundamental problem withthe notion of abortion, or with the death penalty, or with assisted suicide.  On the other hand, I understand that the power imbalance between the individual and the state can never make the death penalty 100% accurate, so prefer insead a method of "payback", the notion of restoring the victim of their familes in the case of crimes again others. 

I a a fiscal conservative and a socia  libertarian liberal.  I don't want my insurance rates to go up because some moron drives drunk but I don't want the government to take more taxes from me when it exempts churches for no ther reason than superstitious belief. 

I don't mind paying for roads and schools and hot lunches for kids and basic medical care and post secondary education for all - because we all need it - but I don't want to pay for people to get artificually inseminated, just because they can't have children, I don't want to pay police for busting pot growers but I do want to pay them for stopping an assault.  I would rather have drug addicts pay taxes on their drugs and get it from a drug store, than rob people and get it from dealers.  I would rather let johns and prostitutes do their businesses in a safe, clean legal building, than see drug addicted wretches onthe street giving and getting diseases that are then costing e money on my health care..... 

Sometimes, I think I'm so left that I'm right, and sometimes I'm so right that I'm left....  the reality is - the concept of right and left is a ridiculous and falsely provides people with notions that are both polarizing and inaccurate.

Issues should be discussed - but the  labels take away from the issues....