Originally Posted by Cole94

Thanks, I will be 18 in May. I try not to generalize people based off the experience that I've been generalized as well. It sucks being lumped in with a negative stereotype, so judging people as individuals is a much better practice.

Cole, I totally respect what you said and I know it is all true. But I would like to suggest once again that politically, if we just emphasize that there are millions of people of all races, creeds and colors who need jobs and help, we will get further quicker. We need fairness for all.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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

Yes, the Southern Strategy may finally start backfiring.

P.S. See latest edit.

Best...

Originally Posted by Cole94

reply to summerinthefall: And that. I wasn't sure which party started Affirmative Action. (had a pretty good idea though)

How did I miss this? Yes, AA is generally supported by Democrats. Although Colin Powell has been on record as saying he supports it because he benefited.

Best...

Originally Posted by Cole94

I'd say that we vote Democratic by such large margins because, putting it simply, the Democrats (since 1964) have taken more action to help the Black community than Republicans. We don't vote Democrat because we think Republicans are racists, Republicans just tend to be less interested in helping out minorities.

However, if you talk to someone my grandmother's age, the first thing they think of is that the Democrats ended segregation. Their thoughts are that if the party who didn't pass Civil Rights (Republican) had the say, the South would have been segregated longer. From personal experience, in 2008 during the Obama/McCain election, I heard some flat-out racist comments from people in school. And most of these comments derived from their Republican parents. I mean at 14 years old, that was the first time I've ever encountered that type of constant, direct racism. However, I judge on an individual basis, so I don't believe the whole Republican party is racist. I could tell that some of them just didn't agree with Democratic principles, which is fine. If you think that people should become successful off of their own merit, that is fine also.

But I have plenty of relatives who genuinely need extra help. My great aunts only have a middle school education because back in the 50's and 60's they lived on a farm (were given away by their parents) and needed to make money for the family they lived with. Who's going to hire them with a middle school education? They're in their late 60's now, little education, low-paying jobs all their lives as janitors and house cleaners. It's people like them who need medicaid/healthcare/food stamps, etc.

That's my problem with Newt Gingrich. They had paychecks (from 2-3 jobs) and still needed food stamps. The only reason I'm middle class is b/c my grandmother finished high school, unlike her older sisters, and worked 16-20 hour days. Plus she learned how to speak like "educated" people. My mom told me that my grandmother would watch how white people dressed and spoke and mimiced them in order to get jobs. lol Turns out the movies are pretty accurate about that one. People can work, but a low-paying job won't take a person out of poverty.

That is where the disconnect between Republicans and Blacks are. We're recieving a message where it seems that Republicans believe an education and a job is all there is to it. Well the problem with higher education is that it costs money. Good grades would help with that, but what's the situation at home? They don't go deep enough with the issues in the Black community, it's not just about jobs and paychecks.

Good post!

Though I'm sure JPT will claim that your eyes and ears are lying to you regarding the bolded part.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

(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....

Gingrich's entire statement is: "Obama has been the greatest food stamp president in history, I want to be the greatest paycheck president in history."

He's always formulated it that way. Obama gives you food stamps, because he can't create jobs. If I'm elected, I will create jobs.

Instead, the left and the media twist it into: "he's insulting people on food stamps". Or, "he wants to get rid of food stamps". Neither of which is the case.

Looks like the Serial Adulterer is in the lead, now. LOL!

Party of "Family Values" my rear end.

Let's hope Obama takes advice from Soros. This is his opportunity to address taxing the rich. Gingrich and Romney have handed him a gift. Let's hope he opens it.

Soros Predicts Growth of Occupy Movement, Applauds it for Changing the Political Debate

By Kevin Zeese - Posted on 24 January 2012

George Soros on the Coming U.S. Class War



As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. "Yes, yes, yes," he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. "It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States."


In spite of his warnings of political turmoil in the U.S., he has no plans to engage in politics directly. "I would prefer not to be involved in party politics. It's only because I felt that the Bush administration was misleading the country that I became involved. I was very hopeful of a new beginning with Obama, and I've been somewhat disappointed. I remain a supporter of the Democratic Party, but I'm fully aware of their shortcomings." Soros believes Obama still has a chance of winning this year's election. "Obama might surprise the public. The main issue facing the electorate is whether the rich should be taxed more. It shouldn't be a difficult argument for Obama to make."


If there is a glimmer of hope for the world in 2012, Soros believes it lies in emerging markets. The democratic-reform movement that has spread across the Middle East, the rise of democracy and economic growth in Africa, even reform in Russia may yet drag the world out of the mire. "While the developed world is in a deep crisis, the future for the developing world is very positive. The aspiration of people for an open society is very inspiring. You have people in Africa lining up for many hours when they are given an opportunity to vote. Dictators have been overthrown. It is very encouraging for freedom and growth."


http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/soros-predicts-growth-occupy-movement-applauds-it-changing-political-debate

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Gingrich's entire statement is: "Obama has been the greatest food stamp president in history, I want to be the greatest paycheck president in history."

He's always formulated it that way. Obama gives you food stamps, because he can't create jobs. If I'm elected, I will create jobs.

Instead, the left and the media twist it into: "he's insulting people on food stamps". Or, "he wants to get rid of food stamps". Neither of which is the case.

If he had left it at that, it would have been ok. But then he added the stuff about the NAACP.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Because, like many on this thread, he associates black people with poverty.
I think that Kaiser got it right. If you really want to leave race out of it, then leave race out of it.

But Gingrich didn't leave race out of it in that speech, did he? Otherwise, why didn't he talk about meeting with the Future Farmers of America?

I just want to say that for the first time in years, MOST of my Millennial and late Xer friends (from various backgrounds) are watching the State of the Union and leaving comments on Facebook. I have never seen so much civic energy. IMO, this is support of S & H theory.

Originally Posted by annla899

If he had left it at that, it would have been ok. But then he added the stuff about the NAACP.

Unemployment and poverty are worse among the black population than the rest of the country. Unemployment is much worse. The exact quote was:

"And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps"

He's talking about offering a better alternative than what Obama and the Democrats offer. Only racial demagogues would spin it any other way.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And I didn't even know that there was one of those going on tonight.
What would S&H say about THAT?

well???? LOL

I abandoned the speech after 40 minutes or so--I'll read the rest--but it is quite interesting. Any doubt that Obama wants us in the High now should have vanished. It's a mix of Truman (challenging the do-nothing Congress to do something) and Ike (build, build, build, and cut the defense budget.) He wants more jobs at home, more economic nationalism, more infrastructure, more energy drilling at home (that's right), fewer regulations (will James be impressed?), a refinancing program (but Congress will have to pass it), lower student loan rates, and lower tuition. He actually compared the end of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars to the end of the Second World War. He also said (and I agree) that he wished society could follow the example of the military in being able to accomplish something. (That is not to say that I regard Iraq or Afghanistan as great accomplishments, I don't, but the military is indeed one of the fairer and better-functioning institutions in our society.)

Of course, it will be dismissed by every single Republican, but it could be the start of a successful campaign. He talked, of course, as if a fairly robust recovery was underway. He had two human props, a Reagan tradition, to illustrate this. . .He's very proud of the US auto industry, as well.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't see anyone on this thread talking about why farmers as a block vote Democratic.

Ok, then, Occupy Wall Street.

BTW, there hasn't been a whole lot about farming subsidies from either parties.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I abandoned the speech after 40 minutes or so--I'll read the rest--but it is quite interesting. Any doubt that Obama wants us in the High now should have vanished. It's a mix of Truman (challenging the do-nothing Congress to do something) and Ike (build, build, build, and cut the defense budget.) He wants more jobs at home, more economic nationalism, more infrastructure, more energy drilling at home (that's right), fewer regulations (will James be impressed?), a refinancing program (but Congress will have to pass it), lower student loan rates, and lower tuition. He actually compared the end of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars to the end of the Second World War. He also said (and I agree) that he wished society could follow the example of the military in being able to accomplish something. (That is not to say that I regard Iraq or Afghanistan as great accomplishments, I don't, but the military is indeed one of the fairer and better-functioning institutions in our society.)

Of course, it will be dismissed by every single Republican, but it could be the start of a successful campaign. He talked, of course, as if a fairly robust recovery was underway. He had two human props, a Reagan tradition, to illustrate this. . .He's very proud of the US auto industry, as well.

I noticed that, too. Why can't the man just friggin read 4T theory and know what he has to do and tone he has to set! LOL

Originally Posted by The Rani

That would be like a Democratic candidate announcing that he's going to a Tea Party Convention to announce his plans for reform.

Exactly.

So why the NAACP, which has represented a traditionally Dem voting block in the past 50-odd years?

Originally Posted by annla899

But Gingrich didn't leave race out of it in that speech, did he? Otherwise, why didn't he talk about meeting with the Future Farmers of America?

I was the first one to point that out, I believe.

By the way, the S. O. B. now leads Romney 38-25% nationally among Republicans! And he's well ahead in Florida! Barack Obama may be the luckiest man in America. . .

I happen to think Nancy Pelosi is right up there with Ted Kennedy as one of the finest Silent politicians and that she is a very serious person. Thus I am struck by the following dialogue she had with a CNN correspondent about old Newt.

John King, CNN: "You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?"

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Let me just say this. That will never happen."

King: "Why?"

Pelosi: "He's not going to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen."

King: "Why are you so sure?"

Pelosi: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

Hmmmm.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Gingrich's entire statement is: "Obama has been the greatest food stamp president in history, I want to be the greatest paycheck president in history."

President Obama didn't run on making more Food Stamps or welfare more readily available. Food Stamps have kept people from doing desperate and destructive things just to survive the most dangerous, severe, and protracted economic meltdown since 1929-1933. They came into play as an automatic solution to extreme need. As for paychecks -- they are coming back without a corrupt and ultimately ruinous boom of the sort that happened under the "Financial Fraud" President. No, Dubya didn't have to derive personal gain from the corruption -- he was simply negligent.

You tell me -- which President allowed a ruinous bubble?

He's always formulated it that way. Obama gives you food stamps, because he can't create jobs. If I'm elected, I will create jobs.

The President cannot create private-sector jobs. He can create an environment in which America can recover from a speculative boom that failed catastrophically. He chose to rescue entities that did nothing to create their own plight. The progress is slow and steady -- the sort that sustains itself.

Instead, the left and the media twist it into: "he's insulting people on food stamps". Or, "he wants to get rid of food stamps". Neither of which is the case.

Newt Gingrich as usual uttered some awkward rhetoric. Foot-in-the-mouth disease strikes again... and it is commonplace among liars, fools, and fanatics.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You are comparing a racial group to a political group.
As Herman Cain would say ... apples and oranges.

No, Gingrich was talking about a racial group. Why didn't he mention a political group?

Originally Posted by annla899

But Gingrich didn't leave race out of it in that speech, did he? Otherwise, why didn't he talk about meeting with the Future Farmers of America?

Nailed it here.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I noticed that, too. Why can't the man just friggin read 4T theory and know what he has to do and tone he has to set! LOL

We're no longer building up to a Crisis, we're in a Crisis. Now we're building up to a High. A Turning is half spent inhabiting the present, with the other eye to looking to establish the future.

In my mind, after a micro-Crisis is over, the rest of the time is spent looking towards the next micro-Crisis & what will be established in that time to come. The next micro-Crisis will establish the High, and so rhetoric asking us to get our rear in gear in order to meet that time is appropriate IMO.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which political group specifically representing poor people do you think he should have mentioned?
Poor people on food stamps, that is?

It's reaching "whose on first" proportions here. Do you consider the NAACP a racial group or a political group?

Originally Posted by annla899

It's reaching "whose on first" proportions here. Do you consider the NAACP a racial group or a political group?

Ann, what's the point here? This is the original quote:

"And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps"

Gingrich is obviously making a racialized statement. The conversation may have been confused with the introduction of the organization he should have mentioned. But that is just a distraction. None of it takes away from the fact that he is saying that black people are satisfied with food stamps.

Best...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Ann, what's the point here? This is the original quote:

"And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps"

Gingrich is obviously making a racialized statement. The conversation may have been confused with the introduction of the organization he should have mentioned. But that is just a distraction. None of it takes away from the fact that he is saying that black people are satisfied with food stamps.

Best...

Interesting. African American community as in majority? He didn't say majority but I think he's still making a generalized statement according to your quote.