Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Of course, when one looks at today versus 50 years ago, virtually all the Dixiecrats who supported Jim Crow were DINOs, "Democrats in Name Only," due to their resentment of the Republican Party over the Civil War even though their politics more closely resembled Republicans. And almost all of them would be Republicans today. How many virulent white racists in the South haven't switched parties? I doubt many of them are Democrats any more, even the ones old enough to have been a Dixiecrat in the Jim Crow days.

Prior to Nixon, there was still some residual link to the Democrats. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were the fuel, then Nixon lit the match. When leaders like Strom Thurmond switched parties, the stampede was deafening.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd say that Gingrich is hardly the only one making the "black equals poor" assumption.

It's the "black equals poor because they settle for getting food stamps instead of paychecks" assumption.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What is the "drugs and sex culture?"

An attitude among many poor young male blacks that the way to get out of poverty is to deal drugs, and that it's a sign of manhood to have sex with lots of women and not study in school. These are common attitudes among young poor blacks, and it's reinforced by the "music" they listen to. I've seen honest and factual reports about these things. I think it's already declining though these days; maybe young millennial blacks have different views. Out-of-wedlock births among blacks are declining fast too. They were certainly very high for a while according to the World Almanac; JPT is correct about that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Prior to Nixon, there was still some residual link to the Democrats. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were the fuel, then Nixon lit the match. When leaders like Strom Thurmond switched parties, the stampede was deafening.

Quite so, indeed.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

And I say don't use expressions unless you are prepared to clarify what they mean?

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why do you expect an answer to yours?

This is just another evasion. You're the one introducing expressions.

Best...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This is just another aversion.

Pot, meet kettle.

I answered one of your questions and then you had to latch onto it like a pit bull to ask another question, all the while refusing to answer mine. And *I* am the one evading questions?

Beautiful. Not to mention that the answer to the original question you had was very obvious in context.

Are we now forbidden from using "expressions" without your prior consent? And what is an "expression" for these purposes? Who decides? You?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's the "black equals poor because they settle for getting food stamps instead of paychecks" assumption.

Thought that was transparent.

Cheers

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As usual, you've illustrated the lunacy of the left adequately.

Government spending will solve our problems, despite the fact that we can only continue to spend by borrowing money from China and devaluing our currency. Because no country ever got into trouble doing that before. And the government spending money it doesn't have is a surefire way to create economic growth in the private sector.

Makes total sense. It's worked every time it's been tried.

It has, as a matter of fact. When aggregate demand is low, you either have low growth, no growth or contraction. If you raise aggregate demand by providing paychecks (and geting essential work done, I might add), then the growth curve rises. The rest is the power of compounding. if you have 5 years of 5% growth, you grow the economy by 28%. By contrast, 5 years of 2% contraction shrinks the economy by 10%. Taking the first example, a $15T economy becomes a $19T economy in 5 years. That's a gain of $4T. Spending to make that happen has to be enormous to offset the improvement. And remember, that gain continues year ater year. In 10 years, 5% annual growth yields 63% growth, or $24.5T. That's how it works, everytime.

Basic math. I recommend it.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This is just another evasion. You're the one introducing expressions.

Best...

... and you are the one playing cute and evasive.

Pot ... kettle ... black.

Originally Posted by The Rani

At the risk of ending a popcorn-worthy discussion, you do realize that innumerable others have had this same issue?
If not, I'll be glad to fill you in.

For those who honestly want clarification, they should be in the discussion. Interrogation is not discussion.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This is just another evasion.

Pot, meet kettle.

I repeat:

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You're the one introducing expressions.

Recap...

"White America" = the collective experience of those both white and American
white Americans' "collective experience" = ?

Best...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That isn't true, though. Eisenhower (R) is the one who sent the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. The segregationists were all in the Democratic Party. What happened is that enough Democrats (including obviously Lyndon Johnson who was president at the time) finally broke with their own party and voted for it. The Republicans had always been for it.

But Northern liberal Democrats concurred with Dwight Eisenhower on that. But remember well that Dwight Eisenhower recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over local sentiment and political advantage. He may have taken the liberal position for the least admirable of reasons, but he got that one right.

...the actions of stupid teenagers are not the best way to judge an issue.

Maybe Cole94 comes from a very racist bailiwick. Make no mistake, though; President Obama may be disarming much of the myth of African-American incompetence in government.

The problem with the approach of the Democrats is that it improves nothing. A small handout here and there is not going to change anyone's circumstances.

It can prevent things from going worse -- malnutrition or starvation... or desperate actions that make things far worse. Crime? Peonage? Vice?

The problems facing the black community at this point are no different than the problems facing society at large, they're just worse. And they're not things that can be easily fixed by government action. The biggest one of all is probably the out-of-wedlock birth rate and the disintegration of the family. There is no government program, and no amount of spending, that can fix that problem. Regardless of skin color, being born out of wedlock and raised in a single parent home is a guarantee of severe disadvantage. Black children born and raised in an intact two parent home are no worse off economically and educationally than the national average. White children born out of wedlock are as disadvantaged as black children born into the same situation. Almost the entire disparity between blacks and other groups can be explained statistically by a high out-of-wedlock birth rate.

The high rate of non-intact families is likely as much a result of economic distress as a cause. Poverty stresses families.

Knowing that fact, what is the government or any politician supposed to do about it? You can't go around prosecuting people who have children without being married first.

How about a full employment economy with a living wage?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Thought that was transparent.

Cheers

Which is the assumption Gingrich is explicitly and clearly making. But yes, of course, probably other Republicans like Romney too, less explicitly.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Maybe Cole94 comes from a very racist bailiwick. Make no mistake, though; President Obama may be disarming much of the myth of African-American incompetence in government.

It's a very conservative part of the county that I live in. Plus the area is 92% white, so there's less interaction with minorities. In school I'd talk to some people and out of nowhere they'd say,"you know, you're pretty smart." Then we'd have a very enlightening conversation about race. The kids weren't so much racist as they were unfamiliar with other races in general.

Yup, led to some interesting discussions. lol

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I wasn't really interested in Herman Cain's answer. I wanted yours. But I'll assume that you're in agreement with him. In which case, you seem to be claiming that the majority of Blacks don't think about the issues; they just march blindly behind certain enforcers who'll keep them in line.

However, the voting booth is a private place. Jesse Jackson isn't peeking in at every Black voter to see who they choose. So how is he supposed to determine who are the "race traitors?"

When I first moved to Chicago, I was informed very explicitly that in the AA community here, Jackson was called "The Mouth," that wherever the camera is, there Jackson will be.

(Edited

As you point out, it is unwise to think that black voters follow in lock-step behind anyone, anymore than voters in any community. And that includes Southern white voters.

Originally Posted by Cole94

It's a very conservative part of the county that I live in. Plus the area is 92% white, so there's less interaction with minorities. In school I'd talk to some people and out of nowhere they'd say,"you know, you're pretty smart." Then we'd have a very enlightening conversation about race. The kids weren't so much racist as they were unfamiliar with other races in general.

Yup, led to some interesting discussions. lol

This actually demonstrates a good life lesson, I think -- don't automatically attribute to bigotry what might actually be attributable to "curable" ignorance. Treat them as a bigot and you probably lose, well, a "teachable moment" (for lack of a better term).

You are wise beyond your years.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

This actually demonstrates a good life lesson, I think -- don't automatically attribute to bigotry what might actually be attributable to "curable" ignorance. Treat them as a bigot and you probably lose, well, a "teachable moment" (for lack of a better term).

You are wise beyond your years.

That is what usually happens face-to-face. On the internet, not so much

Originally Posted by annla899

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

This actually demonstrates a good life lesson, I think -- don't automatically attribute to bigotry what might actually be attributable to "curable" ignorance. Treat them as a bigot and you probably lose, well, a "teachable moment" (for lack of a better term).

You are wise beyond your years.

That is what usually happens face-to-face. On the internet, not so much

Particularly when confronted with questions one is not accustomed to thinking about. Those uncomfortable with the question, blame the questioner.

Best...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What is the "drugs and sex culture?"

An attitude among many poor young male blacks that the way to get out of poverty is to deal drugs, and that it's a sign of manhood to have sex with lots of women and not study in school. These are common attitudes among young poor blacks, and it's reinforced by the "music" they listen to. I've seen honest and factual reports about these things. I think it's already declining though these days; maybe young millennial blacks have different views. Out-of-wedlock births among blacks are declining fast too. They were certainly very high for a while according to the World Almanac; JPT is correct about that.

Thanks for the clarification. More to come in response in future edits.

EDIT:

This "drugs and sex culture" carries with it a number of variables:

1. "many poor young male blacks that the way to get out of poverty is to deal drugs"

Acouple of statistics (you can question their accuracy)...

Black Unemployment Jumps To Depression Levels

CBS News reports that the unemployment rate among African-Americans in the United States is now at 16.2 percent, according to the most recent data compiled by the US Department of Labor. The unemployment rate for black males is 17.5 percent; for black teenagers, it's an astonishing 41 percent.

Things are worse in New York City. "For young men of color," the CBS reports continues, "especially black males in New York City, things are especially bad. According to....the Community Service Society, 34 percent of New York's young black men age 19 to 24 are not working."

In Milwaukee, a report was done in 2007 that indicated that in four counties surrounding Milwaukee the Black Male unemployment rate was 51.1%.

...

Lately in New York City, the experts have acknowledged that there is a 50% unemployment rate for Black Males in 2009. That means 1 out of every 2 Black Men in the city are unemployed. Based on this information, we can estimate in every major inner city across the country the Black Male unemployment rate is around 40%.

Which would suggest that dealing drugs to get out of poverty is not an "unreasonable" belief.

2. "it's a sign of manhood to have sex with lots of women"

Again for those with no real economic prospects, it is not "unreasonable" to find refuge in this definition of masculinity. Although, there are plenty of economically successful men who do also. Among those in politics: Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Alan Cain, etc...

3. "not study in school"

You might want to do some research on the long-terms affects of "tracking" in school. The "discouragement" factor in school is too often downplayed. From Teh Wiki:

Low-track classes tend to be primarily composed of low-income students, usually minorities, while upper-track classes are usually dominated by students from socioeconomically successful groups.^[19] Jeannie Oakes theorizes that the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students into low tracks does not reflect their actual learning abilities.

4. "reinforced by the "music" they listen to"

Writer: Blame White Consumers for Hip-Hop's Bad 'Rap'

MARTIN: Here's how you started your piece. You said that when it comes to sexism and racism in hip-hop, I'm part of the problem. How so?
Mr. ROSS: Absolutely, I'm part of the problem. I think that white America purchases a great deal - perhaps up to 70 percent of rap music in this country. So when you have…

MARTIN: And you're white.
Mr. ROSS: And I am white. You know, so when you have a discussion about the state of hip-hop and the fact that it perpetuates, you know, misogyny and it pushes these racist stereotypes, I mean, I think it has to be part of the discussion - not to the exclusion of any other, discussion that was - has been had or will be had, but certainly a part of it.

...Which would suggest that young black males, largely unemployed, undereducated have found a monopoly on an industry that perpetuates the stereotypes and degrading images that largely non-black audiences are willing to consume.

These variables suggest that what is blamed on cultural pathology could easily be attributable to economics and racism.

Best...

Originally Posted by Cole94

It's a very conservative part of the county that I live in. Plus the area is 92% white, so there's less interaction with minorities. In school I'd talk to some people and out of nowhere they'd say,"you know, you're pretty smart." Then we'd have a very enlightening conversation about race. The kids weren't so much racist as they were unfamiliar with other races in general.

Yup, led to some interesting discussions. lol

^ My life story.

Originally Posted by millennialX

^ My life story.

lol I didn't know that gotham city was so conservative.

Originally Posted by annla899

That is what usually happens face-to-face. On the internet, not so much

Yeah, I always noticed people seem meaner/scarier over the internet than they are in person. But hey, I always live with the philosophy that if I treat everyone objectively and they decide to act like a-holes afterwards, then they're a-holes. Plus it makes me look good.

lol Kind of an odd thing for me to say since I've been spewing "wiseness beyond my years" (I've heard that a few times in the past 2 days) all over the forum. After having to deal with immaturity/ignorance at school, objectiveness and thick skin is a must. People will say anything just to see what my response is. *sigh* One more semester to go, although senior year has been pretty great. Weird how this environment might've shaped me.

Some Republicans are talking about Mitch Daniels, if the current crop of candidates implodes.

For the record, his rating on my scale is 10-8. The rating shows the number of aspects (planetary angles) in a chart that are favorable to a presidential candidate (first number) vs. the number of aspects that are unfavorable (second number), based on thorough historical research. Daniels' strongest aspect is one with Jupiter, which generally strengthens optimism and moderate policies. As an Aries, he could be an aggressive campaigner. The rating isn't the only thing to look at, astrologically or otherwise, but it's a good start.

The best-rated potential Republican candidates on my scale so far, besides Romney (11-5), Paul (12-5) and Gingrich (11-5), are Jeb Bush (16-6) and Gary Johnson (18-4), neither of whom have any chance this year, but maybe in 2016. I don't know about Democrats for 2016 yet.

Obama's rating is 8-2.

Others' ratings:
Bachmann 14-13
Huntsman 9-6
Perry 9-5
Santorum 7-7
Cain 6-6
Roemer 10-13

Hillary Clinton 9-8
John McCain 9-10
Mike Huckabee 6-6

(using older system):
GW Bush 18-7
John Kerry 18-8
Howard Dean 10-10

others available by request.

PS. You want ME to run? My rating is 8-12.

Originally Posted by Cole94

lol I didn't know that gotham city was so conservative.

Brillant!

..........................

(Reuters) - It is one of the code phrases of the 2012 presidential campaign: "the food stamp president."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80N0BZ20120124



That's what Republican Newt Gingrich calls Democrat Barack Obama in casting the president's economic record as a failure, and bemoaning what Gingrich sees as a poor work ethic among those dependent on government help.

Some see hints of racism in Gingrich's words, which the former U.S. House of Representatives speaker disputes. But such tough talk did help him tap into the anti-government anger of conservative whites in South Carolina and win the presidential primary there on Saturday.

As the campaign moves forward, however, Gingrich's food-stamp imagery might not play as well, political analysts and voters say.

In a nation where millions of families are struggling to get by, most people who depend on food stamps are white, and the vast majority are working or have just lost their jobs, according to government data and program administrators.

One in seven Americans now rely on food stamps, which give low-income people - a family of four with an annual gross income of less than $29,064, for example - help to buy groceries....

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Particularly when confronted with questions one is not accustomed to thinking about. Those uncomfortable with the question, blame the questioner.

Best...

That's been my experience on most of the internets. I learn things here and on one or two other sites. And sure do have my assumptions upended.